RE: Testable Hypotheses

["Stewart, Dwight" <Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com>]

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
course,
contradiction is hardly ever considered a fault among philosophers.  Ahmmm
Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here is a good Karl Popper URL:
 
<http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/science/sbes/resources/kmcg_resources/sid10
1/tsld016.htm>
http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/science/sbes/resources/kmcg_resources/sid101
/tsld016.htm

Cheers;
Dwight

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   mjm@pathcom.com [SMTP:mjm@pathcom.com]
        Sent:   Wednesday, January 20, 1999 8:30 PM
        To:     dinosaur@usc.edu
        Subject:        Re: Testable Hypotheses


        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