On 07 Sep 2013, at 06:06, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013  <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:

> Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name.

Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather obvious that had already been in use by scientists for centuries; although way back then they were called Natural Philosophers, a term I wish we still used.

> Kark Popper! That's it!

There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading Karl Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work and described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of wisdom.

In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography" Popper says:

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program".

Those are Popper's own words not mine, and this is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science in general proud. Finally, two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the publication of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific book ever written, Popper belatedly said:

“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”.

Better late than never I guess, he came to the conclusion that this Darwin whippersnapper might be on to something after all in his 1978 (1978!!) lecture "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind".

> On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what you love or hate.

In a previous post I said "a particular set of likes and dislikes that in the English language is called "will". "Will" is not the problem, it's "free will" that's gibberish".

> Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.

Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing; but a little thing like not knowing what the hell "free will" is supposed to be never prevents philosophers passionately arguing if humans have it or not. Apparently the philosophers on this list have decided to first determine if humans have free will or not and only when that question has been entirely settled will they go on and try to figure out what on earth they were talking about.

Incompatibilist notion of free-will are inconsistent, but in theory of responsibility, weaker compatibilist notion of free-will exists and are useful, notably to delineate degrees of responsibility in complex human situations.

You make the same abuse with the notion of God and with the notion of Free-will. You declare that a notion is nonsensical because you stick on an inconsistent interpretation of it. You keep throwing babies with the bath water.

Bruno





  John K Clark




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to