[FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

Mon Dec 13 21:26:42 EST 2021

https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-01.html

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:33 PM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> Nick, the study I have seen did not involve human intervention with moth
> eggs. Because the industrial revolution in England was contaminating the
> moth environment with soot, including the tree bark upon which the moths
> rested, they adapted color to soot-black. Years later, when minimal
> environment concerns cleaned up factory emissions, the moths reverted to
> original coloring.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 3:53 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> > Glen,
> >
> > When I was a lad of 40, there was some evidence kicking around that
> > melanism was a developmental adaptation to forest fire destruction.
> > Somebody treated moth eggs with chemicals from burnt wood and for the
> > next few generations, the resulting moths were black, only to switch
> > back to white if stimulation of the eggs was continued.  How that
> > literature panned out, I don't know.
> >
> > N
> >
> > Nick Thompson
> > ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
> > To: friam at redfish.com
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
> >
> > 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
> >
> > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .-
> > - .
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> > archives:
> >  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> >  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- -
> .
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> > archives:
> >  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> >  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211213/0df99ca5/attachment.html>