Iniciado por spamrakuen

Yo? Para que? Si ya lo hace él solo...

Karl Popper and Evolution: Is Evolutionary Theory Based on a Tautology?



Ya ves,... el hombre reconocio que se equivoco; ahi es nada. En tu caso no tengo tantas esperanzas.

Ahora que sabes que hasta el mismisimo Popper defiende su estatus de teoria cientifica, ¿aun vas a insistir en que no es tal?

. . .

Some creationists make similar criticisms today, but they fail to appreciate the fact that Popper retracted his criticism:

“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).

Why the change? Because there are independent means for determining which members of species are “fittest.”
. . .

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and 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.

Quisiera ofrecer ahora algunas razones de por qué considero al darwinismo como metafísico y como un programa de investigación.

Es metafísico porque no es contrastable. Podría pensarse que lo es. El darwinismo parece afirmar que si alguna vez en algún planeta encontramos vida q ..... .....

CR Quote

Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

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 phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection 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, testable; 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 the most offspring leave the 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". 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. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", 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 successful 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 this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and 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.

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and 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.

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

Iniciado por babaluba

Pues claro que puede hacerlo, por algo es todopoderoso.

Mira, una manera de hacerlo para que lo entiendas:

Dios crea la piedra, se transforma en hombre, comprueba que no la puede levantar y se vuelve a transformar en su forma de Dios.

Iniciado por pioneer

Es tan poderoso que es capaz de comprender un supuesto absurdo como el que planteas marbruck.

Vuestro error consiste en creer que sois capaces de comprenderlo todo, cuando el ser humano esta limitado por su carcasa fisica y por un intelecto que no es ilimitado en su entendimiento.

¿O acaso creeis lo contrario? En tal caso vuestra vanidad si que no conoce limites.

Iniciado por pioneer

Precisamente porque eran dioses falsos.

Si asumimos que Dios existe, ha de ser necesariamente todopoderoso y unico,

Iniciado por spamrakuen

A ver si aprendes a leer.



1.- Solo se mete con la seleccion natural; con ese "cacho" (muy importante) de la teoria.
2.- Dice que todavia cree que funciona como un programa de investigacion.
3.- Sigue refiriendose a ella como teoria; y ha cambiado de opinion acerca de su estado logico y su testeabilidad.

Ahora mira lo que dice del resto de la teoria;



¿que opinas de lo subrayado en negrita-rojo?

Creo que esta bastante claro que tan solo se mete (y no mucho) con el concepto de seleccion natural; respecto al resto de la teoria de la evolucion es bien claro lo que opina.

Pero nada, tu sigue como siempre jugando a marear la perdiz como hacias con lo de la termodinamica; como siempre solo prestas atencion a lo que (crees que) encaja en tus esquemas, y el resto lo ignoras

Quisiera ofrecer ahora algunas razones de por qué considero al darwinismo como metafísico y como un programa de investigación.

Es metafísico porque no es contrastable. Podría pensarse que lo es. El darwinismo parece afirmar que si alguna vez en algún planeta encontramos vida que satisfaga las condiciones a) herencia b) variación, entonces entrará en juego c) selección natural y producirá, con el tiempo, una rica variedad de formas distintas. Sin embargo el darwinismo no afirma tanto como eso. Pues supóngase que se encuentra vida en Marte, y que consta exactamente de de tres especies de bacterias con un equipo genético similar al de tres especies terrestres ¿Queda refutado el darwinismo? En modo alguno. Diremos entonces que esas tres especies eran las únicas entre las muchas formas mutantes que estuvieron suficientemente bien ajustadas para sobrevivir. Y diremos lo mismo si solamente hay una especie (o ninguna). Así pues el darwinismo no predice realmente la evolución de la variedad y por tanto no puede explicarla.[...]
Creo que he considerado la teoría darwinista casi en su mejor aspecto -casi en su forma más contrastable. Uno podría decir que ella "casi predice " una gran variedad de formas de vida. En otros terrenos su poder predictivo o explicativo es aún más decepcionante.

Karl Popper. Búsqueda sin término.

1.- Solo se mete con la seleccion natural; con ese "cacho" (muy importante) de la teoria.
2.- Dice que todavia cree que funciona como un programa de investigacion.
3.- Sigue refiriendose a ella como teoria; y ha cambiado de opinion acerca de su estado logico y su testeabilidad.

Ahora mira lo que dice del resto de la teoria;

Cita:

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

¿que opinas de lo subrayado en negrita-rojo?