Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[uǝlƃ ☤ $]

So, I need some mnemonics. I'll try and perhaps you (or anyone) can criticize 
my attempt.

0. Registration
1. Articulation
2. Dissolution
3. Dissembling
4. Assemblogia (?) Taxonomy of assemblages
5. Amplification (Contrast Inflation, Difference Expansion)
6. Layered Pruning

7. Lexicon for [Ac|De]cumulation (or [dis]assembly)
8. Modeling

9. Collective Context

I don't think I need to do 10 and 11, since they seem more about the particular 
word/semantics. I'm more interested in the 8 mechanistic requirements. The 3 
communication requirements are important, but separate.

On 12/14/21 4:49 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Yeah.
> 
> Apart from questions about what mechanisms exist and how they work, which I 
> understand and are the normal business of science, I have never understood 
> what all the squabbling is about.  The only outlines I can see that make a 
> conversation with any coherence are fairly normal ones.  To wit:
> 
> 
> If your model of the world entails the following premises:
> 
> 0. There is enough regularity to anything that happens that there is a reason 
> to give names to patterns (otherwise don’t talk)
> 
> 1. Some of the patterns you see include “things’ falling apart”
> 
> 2. The outcome-condition of this falling apart, to the extent that its 
> patterns are stable for long enough times to result in any steady states, is 
> what we call “equilibrium”
> 
> 
> And if you observe that:
> 
> 3. There are steady state patterns that differ from the equilibrium that 
> would be produced by the falling-apart that you have recognized
> 
> 4. And assuming we haven’t just mis-identified the pattern of falling apart, 
> which would be a simple error of characterization 
> 
> 
> Then the only class of explanations you have entail a description of dynamics 
> that differs from the part accounting for your equilibrium in the features 
> that 
> 
> 5. There must be processes of (possibly structured) amplification at work in 
> addition to the factors leading to your equilibrium account
> 
> 6. There may be further processes of structured removal somehow linked to the 
> amplification in ways that aren’t just the falling-apart you already 
> identified. Either way, there must be additional structure in some 
> combination between the amplification and the removal attached to it.
> 
> 
> People like Michael Lachmann would argue that the above sequence is 
> tantamount to evolution is as a causal account.  It is “entailed” by the 
> premises, but that to me is not the same as saying it is “tautological”, 
> because what is entailed is that there are features of the dynamics that 
> change states through time that aren’t contained in the descriptions of 
> states at times.  Nothing much different from what we have had in physics and 
> engineering forever.
> 
> 
> If you take the above organization of the argument as being non-problematic, 
> then you have two things to do next, which are distinct from each other:
> 
> 7. You need to get a clear set of characteristics as those by which you will 
> _describe_ the structured amplification and pruning.  This is the program 
> that, within population genetics as Fisher and then Price and Steve Frank set 
> it up, involves defining what fitness is as a summary statistic, and deciding 
> whether what you mean by “selection” is formalized only in terms of fitness 
> or requires more.  You already know my argument that the population genetic 
> program is limited but that it isn’t hard to expand beyond it while retaining 
> the same logic.
> 
> 8. You need a program of inference from the statistics you have taken to 
> _chaaracterize, empirically_ the amplification and pruning, which are aspects 
> of dynamics, to models of the aspects of things or organizations that predict 
> or explain those dynamical regularities.  Or, in standard terms, you need a 
> step of assigning causal models from states to the processes that change 
> states.
> 
> 
> All the chatter about “tautology” has never been comprehensible to me, 
> because it seems to turn on a purposefully confused use of language, in which 
> you conflate the ability to say what you are trying to explain, with the 
> provision of a causal model that you call the explanation.  Then, having 
> chosen to use the same word for two completely different meanings, wring 
> hands and angst out that you have a profound philosophical difficulty.  For a 
> long time I thought that smart people were somehow being subtle or profound 
> in ways that I was just too dull to follow.  But I look at the rest of what 
> they say, and it just looks like inability to think and speak in coherent 
> categories, and I give up on them.
> 
> Nick’s point that industrial melanism might have been chemically induced is a 
> great factoid to have.  My thanks for that; my life is now richer with things 
> knowable about the world.  Doesn’t change any logic of the argument at all, 
> in ways we have had the ability to think clearly about 

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Frank Wimberly]

Excellent, in my opinion.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:49 AM David Eric Smith  wrote:

> Yeah.
>
> Apart from questions about what mechanisms exist and how they work, which
> I understand and are the normal business of science, I have never
> understood what all the squabbling is about.  The only outlines I can see
> that make a conversation with any coherence are fairly normal ones.  To wit:
>
>
> If your model of the world entails the following premises:
>
> 0. There is enough regularity to anything that happens that there is a
> reason to give names to patterns (otherwise don’t talk)
>
> 1. Some of the patterns you see include “things’ falling apart”
>
> 2. The outcome-condition of this falling apart, to the extent that its
> patterns are stable for long enough times to result in any steady states,
> is what we call “equilibrium”
>
>
> And if you observe that:
>
> 3. There are steady state patterns that differ from the equilibrium that
> would be produced by the falling-apart that you have recognized
>
> 4. And assuming we haven’t just mis-identified the pattern of falling
> apart, which would be a simple error of characterization
>
>
> Then the only class of explanations you have entail a description of
> dynamics that differs from the part accounting for your equilibrium in the
> features that
>
> 5. There must be processes of (possibly structured) amplification at work
> in addition to the factors leading to your equilibrium account
>
> 6. There may be further processes of structured removal somehow linked to
> the amplification in ways that aren’t just the falling-apart you already
> identified. Either way, there must be additional structure in some
> combination between the amplification and the removal attached to it.
>
>
> People like Michael Lachmann would argue that the above sequence is
> tantamount to evolution is as a causal account.  It is “entailed” by the
> premises, but that to me is not the same as saying it is “tautological”,
> because what is entailed is that there are features of the dynamics that
> change states through time that aren’t contained in the descriptions of
> states at times.  Nothing much different from what we have had in physics
> and engineering forever.
>
>
> If you take the above organization of the argument as being
> non-problematic, then you have two things to do next, which are distinct
> from each other:
>
> 7. You need to get a clear set of characteristics as those by which you
> will _describe_ the structured amplification and pruning.  This is the
> program that, within population genetics as Fisher and then Price and Steve
> Frank set it up, involves defining what fitness is as a summary statistic,
> and deciding whether what you mean by “selection” is formalized only in
> terms of fitness or requires more.  You already know my argument that the
> population genetic program is limited but that it isn’t hard to expand
> beyond it while retaining the same logic.
>
> 8. You need a program of inference from the statistics you have taken to
> _chaaracterize, empirically_ the amplification and pruning, which are
> aspects of dynamics, to models of the aspects of things or organizations
> that predict or explain those dynamical regularities.  Or, in standard
> terms, you need a step of assigning causal models from states to the
> processes that change states.
>
>
> All the chatter about “tautology” has never been comprehensible to me,
> because it seems to turn on a purposefully confused use of language, in
> which you conflate the ability to say what you are trying to explain, with
> the provision of a causal model that you call the explanation.  Then,
> having chosen to use the same word for two completely different meanings,
> wring hands and angst out that you have a profound philosophical
> difficulty.  For a long time I thought that smart people were somehow being
> subtle or profound in ways that I was just too dull to follow.  But I look
> at the rest of what they say, and it just looks like inability to think and
> speak in coherent categories, and I give up on them.
>
> Nick’s point that industrial melanism might have been chemically induced
> is a great factoid to have.  My thanks for that; my life is now richer with
> things knowable about the world.  Doesn’t change any logic of the argument
> at all, in ways we have had the ability to think clearly about for at least
> a century (surely since D’Arcy Thompson).  It could be that there is no
> implicit model of environmental variability in the developmental
> capabilities of Haldane’s peppered moths, and that selection by
> differential predation on sooty English walls and birch trees prunes the
> population for congenitally dark moths.  Or it could be that sooty and
> white periods have a long history (gonna find who’s sooty and white), and
> that some phenotypic plasticity gets selected for over much longer times,
>

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[thompnickson2]

Yes, Dave.  That is the standard story, first dramatized on the pages of 
Scientific American as DARWINS'S MISSING EVIDENCE.  An alternative story was 
told for a while by Ted Sargent.   The alternative is that moths have a 
facultative adaptation to forest fire burns such that the first few generations 
after a fire will be born melanic.  The mediating factor was supposed to be 
chemicals in the burned environment post fire.  Ted Sargent in 98 wrote an 
article summarizing all of this, and its summary suggested to me that he had 
given up on the idea, but it's behind a firewall even to me.   Fuck Springer, 
anyway.  Any way, you  appear to be right again, even though you may have been 
wrong for a while.  

Nick

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:32 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

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, thompnicks...@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
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
> To: friam@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 

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Gillian Densmore]

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

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

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:35 PM Gillian Densmore 
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 
> wrote:
>
>> https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-01.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:33 PM Prof David West 
>> 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, thompnicks...@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
>>> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>> >
>>> > -Original Message-
>>> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
>>> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
>>> > To: friam@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
>>>

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Gillian Densmore]

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 
wrote:

> https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-01.html
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:33 PM Prof David West 
> 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, thompnicks...@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
>> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
>> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
>> > To: friam@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 testabili

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Gillian Densmore]

https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-01.html



On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:33 PM Prof David West 
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, thompnicks...@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
> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
> > To: friam@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 

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Prof David West]

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, thompnicks...@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
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
> To: friam@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 >> <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
>>>

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[thompnickson2]

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
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM
To: friam@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 > <mailto:profw...@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 prog

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[thompnickson2]

David, 

 

Popper later recanted this opinion.  Darwinian theory is circular only if you 
leave aside the concept of Natural Design, which was second nature to Darwin, 
too obvious to need stating.  George Williams honored it in his Natural 
Selection and Adaptation (1966), called it "teleonomy" and promptly forgot it.  
So, evolution by natural  selection IS circular in the hands of many 
Darwinians, but not this one 
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281295970_Toward_a_Falsifiable_Theory_of_Evolutionhttps:/support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/this-website-works-better-in-microsoft-edge-160fa918-d581-4932-9e4e-1075c4713595?ui=en-us&rs=en-us&ad=us>
 ,  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281295970_Toward_a_Falsifiable_Theory_of_Evolution

 

Nick

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:25 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

 

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 

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[uǝlƃ ☤ $]

Right. Sorry if I painted you with that brush. I thought about adding an 
addendum of my own opinion, but thought it important to clarify Popper without 
muddying it with my own thoughts.

Now, I feel free to stir up the silt. *Some* concept (not nec. Popper's) of a 
metaphysical program should work well for those other efforts. As we've 
discussed, here, much of it dangles off of a scaffold built on the concept of 
consistency (writ large). A great deal of (pure?) mathematics is interesting in 
it's flabergasting feeling of how well it all hangs together. It's that same 
"seeking"/apophenic drive that we find in QAnon "researchers" and quantum woo 
fans. "It just all makes so much sense!" Similarly with people who are 
convicted of their own metaphysics. To my mind, if it makes that much sense, 
then it must be *false*, not true. The world is always and everywhere *messy*. 
But I'm clearly in the minority in that aesthetic.

As I tried to argue before, though, consistency is only half the justification 
for a metaphysical program. The other half is completeness ... which isn't 
given as high a priority amongst our rationality-obsessed brethren. Going back 
to the idea I broached to EricS recently about adjointness (in it's "weakly 
equivalent" sense), we can imagine a world where relations (or operations) are 
lossy, including the consequence/cause relation. And we can imagine an 
inference system (language?, algebra?, etc.) where relations are *not* lossy. 
Then regardless of how well that inference system hangs together (is 
consistent), there will be thing-a-ma-jigs in the world that it doesn't cover 
... those interdigital parts that are ignored/abstracted by the inference 
system.

Natural selection *attempts* to meet both consistency and completeness with 
vast, persnickety, story-telling that comes off a bit like special pleading at 
times. But it does seem like a good program because it treats both. If the 
story-telling in Jung et al tried seriously to address both consistency and 
completeness, then it might work for them, too.

On 12/13/21 10:25 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> 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 
>> prog

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[Prof David West]

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 >> > 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
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -.

Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism

[uǝlƃ ☤ $]

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 > > 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] Popper on Darwinism

[Prof David West]

“*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

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
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/