Re: Testable Hypotheses

[mjm@pathcom.com (M.J. Murphy)]

This is perhaps slightly off-topic.

On the issue of testability, I have read that, early in the history of
Cladistics, the school tended to accentuate the testable = scientific =
non-metaphysical nature of its program.  To this end, Cladists invoked the
philosophy of Karl Popper.  However, Popper responded to their attentions by
declaring Darwinian Theory untestable and therefore Metaphysical.  A sharp
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 extended
treatment (book/monograph/paper) of the "controversy"?


M.J. Murphy
mjm@pathcom.com

The Shapes of Things are Dumb.
- L. Wittgenstein