[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Theory of Evolutiony
David Brez Carlisle said:
> The thread about the theory of evolution seems to me to show a
> lack of infomation about Carl Popper's theory of science. In his
> early wrtings he defined a "theory" as an idea which is
> "falsifiable", i.e. something that can be tested by some prediction
> that could be true or false. Only falsity has any value - truth
> could be just a coincidence.
> On this basis he claimed that evolution was not even a theory,
> since it could not be tested, unlike relativity which has several
> possible tests, all of which hvae co me up positive.
> He l ater revised his ideas, and decided that "evolution" was a
> valid theory of another kind. It is so long since I read Popper
> that I can't remember the refs, but any of you who are interested
> in theories of evolution should read him. He's well worth-
No, he later came to the conclusion it is testable, after all. I can
supply a longish quote, if anybody wants, h o w e v e r . . .
> Down with those ill-informed creationists. They know n othing
> about science.
True enough, but PLEASE, folks, the usenet group talk.origins is for
this sort of stuff. The dinosaur list shouldn't be polluted with this,
Tero Sand, 2 kyu (4k*) ! "We have become... the stewards of life's
! continuity on Earth. We did not ask for this
EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org ! role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be
email@example.com ! suited for it, but here we are." -S.J. Gould