[FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

Mon Dec 13 22:02:11 EST 2021

another paper on darwinism:
https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2009-12.html

It's a schormisborg of derp    research and case studies. It's got a
shocking number of human experiments.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:35 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> several are available:
> https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2018-03.html
> https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-02.html
> https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1993-10.html
> https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-12.html
>
> how many more do you need?
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/a5b4bcd8/attachment-0001.html>