[FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Prof David West]

Thank you glen. This clarifies a lot and addresses Steve's question as well.

i included creationists with a great deal of trepidation, because i assumed it would prompt immediate rejection of the entire question. 

I do think there is some validity in considering the framework / testable scientific theory question with regard things like Whitehead's process philosophy, Jung's alchemy, some portion of the science-faith reconciliation efforts, and, of course, mysticism and altered states of consciousness.

davew


On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 9:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> 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/