Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: exDemMom; YHAOS; spirited irish; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
I will point out that your link to the Popper bio bit goes to the Stanford philosophy department. That does not support the hypothesis that Popper is influential or well-known among scientists. Out of curiosity, I went back and checked the indices of various textbooks: Molecular Biology of the Cell, Genes IV, Cell, Physics, Genetics, Biochemistry, etc. In none of them did I find mention of Popper. True, not all of them mention names in the indices, but even among those textbooks that index scientists by name, I did not find Popper mentioned. Then I went to PubMed and did a search on popper, karl, which returned 72 items, of which 9 (12.5%) were articles having Popper, HH, as an author and were therefore unrelated to the subject of my search.

So much for the contention that Popper is either well-known or influential among scientists.

Gee, that was fun.

Let's play auto-authenticating Darwinist.

Popper is the missing link: but we wouldn't EXPECT to find any direct evidence of him in the literature, anymore than we would necessarily find the changes in the funding/regulatory environment which drive paradigm shifts in the sciences, within the intellectual "fossil record" which is the peer-review literature.

Or, to take the opposite tack:

How many of the peer-review articles mention Barack Hussein Obaama (whose predilictions and fancies drive the direction and scope of academic funding)?

So much for your theory that Obaama is well-known or influential among scientists.

QED

Cheers!

646 posted on 04/14/2012 10:21:57 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers
Popper is the missing link: but we wouldn't EXPECT to find any direct evidence of him in the literature, anymore than we would necessarily find the changes in the funding/regulatory environment which drive paradigm shifts in the sciences, within the intellectual "fossil record" which is the peer-review literature.

Popper is the missing link of what, exactly?

I strongly suggest that, instead of trying to ascribe characteristics to a field that you do not know at all, you go and take a few introductory science classes. While you keep trying to assign to Popper a significance he does not have, you have yet to mention a single person who actually has impacted the field of life science in the way you imagine Popper has. People who are influential in science are actually discussed within the scientific literature. And that includes Obama and his policies--which you seem to think scientists are ignorant of, only because you know so little about the scientific community.

659 posted on 04/22/2012 6:26:38 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson