[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein re Darwin: TLP 4.1122
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:50:08 +0100 (BST)
TLP 4.1122, that work's single reference to Charles Darwin:
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other hypothesis
in natural science."
True or false?
The answer will perhaps involve analysing the way 'Darwin's theory' is
scientific or non-scientific [or, in various aspects, both], as well as
perhaps giving a model for 'Darwin's theory' ie. what it actually claims and
what it does not.
Cards on table:- the gist of the Popperian answer is that this TLP remark
arguably reflects a mistaken understanding of the scientific status of
'Darwin's theory', though it needs to be immediately acknowledged that Popper
in "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" [1977, Ch.19 in 'Popper
Selections'] admitted "I too belong among the culprits" who have offered
comments on Darwin's theory [or, perhaps better, neo-Darwinism - natural
selection plus modern genetics] where something seems amiss eg. the claim
that while virtually tautologous Darwinism is powerfully explanatory [?], or
that while untestable it is of great scientific interest [?].
Donal
In the basement
Thinking about the government
London
___________________________________________________________
WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe
Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein re Darwin: TLP 4.1122
