John Edser wrote:
> 
> PR:-
> You've overwhelmed me with your unimpeachable arguments.
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Was that said tongue in cheek, or for real?
> 
> I am not here just to try to win arguments, 
> my intention is to attempt to defend the 
> integrity and the dignity of the sciences; 
> evolutionary theory, in particular.
> 
> I simply cannot understand how "academics"
> allowed the decay of epistemology over the
> last 50 years. Worse, I cannot fathom why
> almost nobody here seems to care. Popper still 
> stands as THE shining light in a growing post 
> modern Darkness. Just look at the utter mess post 
> modern epistemology has made of evolutionary 
> theory....
> 

The folks I have cited (Bhaskar, Kuhn, Toulmin, Feyerabend, Manicas
and Secord, Harre, Brown, Hanson, Polanyi, etc., have absolutely
nothing to do with post modern reconstructivism, a decidedly
philosophical bent.  The fact that the criterion of certainty
has been abandoned in favor of the more realistic criterion
of reasonableness has nothing in common with the thesis that
pretty much anything goes (post modernism, as I understand it).

They have arrived at their conclusions
from simply taking a much closer look at the way various scientists
actually came to their conclusions and discovered that it had little
if anything in common with the views of the positivists, which most take
to include Karl Popper.  Few if any were concerned with testability,
which is more in the domain of technology.  What test did Einstein
propose with the publidation of his 1905 paper (don't confuse with
Eddington's later experiment).  According to his biography, relativity
was
an outgrowth of his disatisfaction with the assymetry in some of
James Clerk Maxiwell's equations (not the null results of Michelson/
Morely, as common thought).  In other words, he was driven
by AESTHETIC concerns (explanatory elegance).  When asked why Pauli's
model of DNA couldn't possibly be correct, Watson's remark was
"Because.  It wasn't beautiful".

The difference between modern
views in philosopy of science and those of folks like Popper is
they actually went out and observed how science was being done.
In other words, they applied the techniques of empirical science
to the study of science itself, something you claim to favor.
The result was the falsification of falsificationism.

Again, don't confuse me as arguing that testability is of no value.  Its
a HIGHLY VALUED epistemic tool, the gold standard, as a matter of fact.
Its just that its not the only one available, and rarely of concern when
first formulating hypothesese.

PR

BTW, John.  On what page of 'Origins' will I find Darwin's "test" proposed?
Are you sure he wasn't at least a bit concerned about the
impracticalities of a test that might take several hundred thousand
years to accomplish?  I know he cited human animal breeding, but that
would be an observation rather than a test and, as such, of no value
to an erudite scientist such as yourself.

The real test of evolutionary theory is whether or not organisms behave
as if reproductive fitness were their primary concern.  For some stragne
reason you can look at the 9/11 terrorists and convince yourself that
these guys look perfectly ok to you.  Given this, I'm curious as to
just what an organism would have to do before it finally got around
to getting your attention, before it finally appeared to have failed
the "test" for what we should expect to find in a naturally selected
world?
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/29/03 2:08:40 PM