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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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/
