[FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

The creationists have been peddling this rhetoric for a very long time. It's important to read Popper's recant and clarification. From Popper's 1978 paper "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind":

"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 phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selec- tion 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, test- able; 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 most offspring leave 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". 6 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. Influ- enced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", 7 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 suc- cessful 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 in this way as a research pro- gramme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the 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. What is important is to realize the explanatory task of natural selection; and especially to realize what can be explained without the theory of natural selection."


On 12/13/21 8:32 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Dave, to clarify:
> 
> What does Popper (or what do you) take to be the referent for the tag “Darwinism”.  The term has gone through so many hands with so many purposes, that I am hesitant to engage with only the term, without a fuller sense of what it stands for in the worldview of my interlocutor.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 13, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
>>
>> “/Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories./”  
>>                       Karl Popper.
>>
>> I like this distinction but immediately wonder if it might provide some analytical / research means that could be applied to other "metaphysical research programs" — creationism for example, or the plethora of efforts, by scientists, to reconcile their faith with their science. Or, Newton's [and Jung's] (in)famous commitment to Egyptian Alchemy.
>>
>> Would it be possible to use the Tao de Ching or the Diamond Sutra or Whitehead's Process Philosophy (not a random selection, I group the three intentionally) as a metaphysical research program and derive some interesting and useful science?
>>
>> davew


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ