You're mistaking me for OneVike. [excerpt]No.
Through long experience, I tend not to find the ruminations of philosophers very reliable when it comes to how science actually works. [excerpt]Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?
Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?
Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself? Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter. Not very honest of them, is it?
Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.
So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in), nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.
So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel. If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic. Read this if you're still unclear on the concept: Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution. "Argument from authority" is still a logical fallacy.
Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.