On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*>> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
>> research program".*
> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason
> whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be
> concerned in the slightest.
Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their
hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a
philosopher; and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name.
> People misunderstand Popper here.
Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he
admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather
eat ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took
this great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The
Origin Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess
philosophers are just slow learners
> Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in
> the footsteps of many Darwinists.
Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should he
tell him he's going in the wrong direction?
> It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the
> fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie.
> 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the
> fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'.
Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more
genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is
less fit. And if philosophers see something circular in that then that is
yet another reason philosophy has a bad name.
> Can't see that ever being falsified.
Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said
he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to
provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane
thundered "RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !".
> Secondly, I admire Popper for not just accepting Darwinism by rote. For
> calling things as he saw them, even if he called it wrong. Good for him
I believe sincerity is a hugely overrated virtue, I have more respect for
somebody insincerely right than sincerely wrong.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.