"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories."
As you know he has recanted this statement saying that evolution can be tested, but fails to provide a suitable test other than predictions. The question is why did he recant? Was it for pure scientific reasons? However he lumps TOE in with historical sciences such as literature. What he does not do is release TOE from providing predictions. As that is the only way to test historical sciences.
So again the ball is in your court. As I have asked before, what predictions has TOE provided? And as far as falsification of TOE goes, please read Henry Gees, 'Deep Time: Cladistics, the Revolution in Evolution'
Warmest Regards,
Boiler Plate
A very good question! It goes very well with the one about helping humanity. It is the ability to make predictions, to determine cause and effect that makes science useful and respected. Aside from such nonsense as 'we will find more fossils' which is not really prediction, evolution instead of predicting scientific advancements has opposed them. The reason for this is quite simple, evolution is an ideology, not a science.
You appear to imply that "predictions" are somewhow inadequate as a basis of testing a theory, though you provide no supporting evidence for this implication. As per Popper, predictions (which includes retrodictions) ARE the basis for ALL falsifications.
The question is why did he recant? Was it for pure scientific reasons?
As opposed to....... ??????? Do you have some sort of evidence his reasons for revising his earlier opinion on the scientificness of the Theory of Evolution were unscientifically motivated?
However he lumps TOE in with historical sciences such as literature. What he does not do is release TOE from providing predictions. As that is the only way to test historical sciences.
Once again: predictions form the basis for falsification of ALL scientific theories, not just historical sciences.
So again the ball is in your court. As I have asked before, what predictions has TOE provided?
I already stated the most well-known example (as best I recall it): the ToE predicts we should find fossils in the geologic column in a sequence that is consistent with the evolutionary sequence. Hence, finding mammalian fossils in Pre-Cambrian strata would pretty much falsify it, just as the observation of the rate of precession of Mercury falsified Newton's Theory of Gravitation. There have been entire threads on FR devoted to the topic of evolutionary predictions (retrodictions typically) and how they could be potential falsifications. If you desire further examples, you should consult someone who is schooled in the biological sciences; it's not my cup of tea.
Returning to Popper's revision of his views on the scientific nature of Evolution; here's a letter he wrote on the topic:
Unended quest, an intellectual autobiography Unended quest: an intellectual autobiography Popper John Little darwinism karl popper New Scientist theory of evolution teoria da evolução teoria da evolucao Karl R. Popper karl r. popper
Letter on Evolution
[A reply to Halstead, 1980]
Karl [R.] Popper
Published:
POPPER, Karl, 1980. Evolution. New Scientist 87(1215):611.
“In the 17 July issue of New Scientist (p. 215) you published an article under the title “Popper: good philosophy, bad science?” by Dr Beverly Halstead. This article, it appears had two purposes:
Reference
1. To defend the scientific character of the theory of evolution, and of palaeontology. I fully support this purpose, and this letter will be almost exclusively devoted to the defence of the theory of evolution.
2. To attack me.
As to (2), I find this uninteresting and I shall not waste your space and my time in defending myself against what are in my opinion hardly excusable misunderstandings. and wild speculations about my motives and their alleged history.
Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson’s book – which I do not know – is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.
It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.
Karl Popper Penn”
HALSTEAD, Beverly, 1980. Popper: good philosophy, bad science? New Scientist 87(1210):215-217.
This page:
POPPER, Karl, 2000. [Letter on] Evolution. [A reply to Halstead, 1980]. Available on the internet: http://www.geocities.com/geocities/9468/popper80.htm. 14 April 2000 (publication). First published: New Scientist 87(1215):611, 21 Aug. 1980.
Science ciencia filosofia da ciencia philosophy of science historia da ciencia Beverly Halstead Karl Popper Popper, Karl Karl R. Popper
Visit:
1. New Scientist Magazine, UK, on net:
http://www.newscientist.com/
2. Karl Popper Web:
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/
Here are some more quotes from Popper on this issue:
Sir Karl R. Popper is the philosopher of science who championed the idea of falsification.
Many Creationist books have printed this quote:
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories."If you read the book, Popper is actually raising the famous "natural selection is a tautology" objection. Popper recanted two years later:Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography 1976, La Salle, IN: Open Court Press
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...and he repeated the recantation three years after that:The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological."
Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.
"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.
Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.
I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection. [emphasis added] -- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", _Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
I trust this addresses your question.