[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Testable Hypotheses
Karl Popper thought Darwin was "metaphysical"? :-) If he did, it sounds as
though he was holding beliefs that violated his own view of science. Of
contradiction is hardly ever considered a fault among philosophers. Ahmmm
Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here is a good Karl Popper URL:
From: email@example.com [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Testable Hypotheses
This is perhaps slightly off-topic.
On the issue of testability, I have read that, early in the history
Cladistics, the school tended to accentuate the testable =
non-metaphysical nature of its program. To this end, Cladists
philosophy of Karl Popper. However, Popper responded to their
declaring Darwinian Theory untestable and therefore Metaphysical. A
argument ensued, after which Popper partially recanted and declared
Cladistics to be Scientific after all.
Does this story sound about right? Also, could anyone recommend an
treatment (book/monograph/paper) of the "controversy"?
The Shapes of Things are Dumb.
- L. Wittgenstein