[FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
thompnickson2 at gmail.com
thompnickson2 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 14:36:18 EST 2021
David,
Popper later recanted this opinion. Darwinian theory is circular only if you leave aside the concept of Natural Design, which was second nature to Darwin, too obvious to need stating. George Williams honored it in his Natural Selection and Adaptation (1966), called it "teleonomy" and promptly forgot it. So, evolution by natural selection IS circular in the hands of many Darwinians, but not this one <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281295970_Toward_a_Falsifiable_Theory_of_Evolutionhttps:/support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/this-website-works-better-in-microsoft-edge-160fa918-d581-4932-9e4e-1075c4713595?ui=en-us&rs=en-us&ad=us> , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281295970_Toward_a_Falsifiable_Theory_of_Evolution
Nick
Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:25 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism
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 < <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm%20%3cmailto:profwest at fastmail.fm> 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> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 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> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211213/5801d94a/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list