Constant Mews

Which perhaps explains why your comments on Popper lack logical coherence.Oh?
Indeed he did.
Yes, and Stamos explained quite clearly why Popper was wrong to do so.
Your speculations on the activity of these mythical Darwinists is of no value for this discussion. You should stop trying to ascribe any situation you dislike to conspiracy theories. It makes you look puerile.
He refers to it in the context of historical sciences in general - a distinction he makes entirely for the purpose of describing sciences which explain historical events. Archaeology, for example. Also forensics, pathology, genealogy, cosmology, most of astronomy, etc. All historical sciences. All subject to the same falsification criteria that any other science is subject to.

Absolutely false. See above.

Absolutely false. It is precisely like any other science. Interestingly enough, you have never shown any actual argument or rationale for your position on this - you merely cite Stamos and Popper - a fallacious practice of argument from authority.



Your ignorance does not constitute an argument.

Faid

Once again, dear friends, we are faced with the extremely tedious task of demolishing daves same old unsupported and absurd assertions... Only to face his complete denial, and have the SAME nonsense served reheated to us again later.

Oh well, somebody's got to do it.

Indeed he did, dave. SCIENCE. and he distinguished SCIENCE from metaphysics and peudoscience. And guess what that "criteria" was for distinguishing SCIENCE, dave? Come on, you have read Popper, say it with me...

...FALSIFABILITY.

btw, what do you mean by "repeatable science"? The term Popper uses is EMPIRICAL, dave. Popper only acknowledges empirical science as having scientific science: the rest is metaphysics (not always a bad thing), and pseudoscience (ALWAYS a bad thing).

Empitical science is falsifiable, and therefore scientific; Metaphysics and prseudoscience are not.

Do you disagree with this? If yes, WHY?

What he excluded, unfortunately for you, was not evolutionary biology, or even evolution of life on earth: He excluded "natural selection" (By which he probably meant the Modern Synthesis at the time) from having scientific character, and later RECANTED, as you admit. SO?


He said something like that, but his objections had little to do with the process of falsifiability. It had to do with an issue of principle: universal statements, and the inferring of causal laws from them. Stamos believed that there is an inconsistency there that Popper does not explain adequately, which might be interpreted as a failure of the "Historical Explanation" and proposed an easy way out as a modification of the Popperian theory: That we should not deny scientific character from non-universal statements.

We can discuss this if you like- but that would mean you actually have a clue about what Stamos (OR Popper) said. Are you prepared to do that, dave?


Then you must know what he is talking about, and what I explained before should be clear to you. Can you EXPLAIN what the opinions of Stamos are, and, more importantly, where he bases them?

Also (and THIS is, perhaps, the MOST IMPORTANT part):

Since you AGREE with Stamos that Popper's theory is fundamentally incoherent,

And you are on the record for saying that Macro-Evo IS Falsifiable, just NOT in the "Popperian sense"...

Can you please explain just WHAT your problem with Macro-Evo as a falsifiable theory IS?


Oh noes! The Great Evil Darwinist Conspiracy has streched its claws towards PHILOSOPHERS as well!

What's the next dicipline to fall under the Darwinist sway, dave? Architects? Plumbers? Cooks? Actors? Stamp collectors? Who shall be next?

Your "arguments" are a joke, dave.

No different language, dave, sorry. IF you had REALLY read Popper, you would know that he has dealt with Historical Sciences from early on in his work.
And the fact that he spoke about "historical sciences" or "retrodictions" (do you know what that is? I highly doubt it), has no bearing to the issue.

He still says they are SCIENTIFIC, BECAUSE they are TESTABLE.

That is all we need to demolish your claims, dave.

YES he DID. He said it has SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER: a VERY specific term throughout Popper's work, which is something you would know, had you ACTUALLY read him.

Absolutely NOT, according to POPPER himself!

In 1980, he points out that, although some *coughcreationistscough* believe he denied scientific character from historical sciences, like evolution, this was NOT true. In Popper's opinion, historical sciences are scientific, because they can be tested with testable predictions or retrodictions- and are therefore falsifiable.

You just can't run away from Popper's OWN WORDS, dave, no matter how much you try.

That's because you learn nothing about it. You are AFRAID to.

Dave, this is the -tenth? -twentieth?- time I've explained all this to you.

When will you ever address them, instead of simply repeating your silly claims?

Dave Hawkins

I would home school for many reasons. I believe it is a superior form of education. Did you know that 'homeschooling' was practiced by many ancient kings? Did you know that the four presidents enshrined at Mt. Rushmore were home schooled? But obviously, only a minority of the population will go to the extra effort for homeschooling, so I'd like a public school to be available in my community.

windsofchange

Was it because their parents *chose* to homeschool them, to keep them from learning something they oughtn't - or was it because public schools were (a) nonexistent at the time and/or (b) inaccessible to them for some reason (finances, distance, etc.?)?

(Oh, and BTW, Jefferson was not home schooled. According to the Wikipedia entry:

Spherical Time

And Teddy Roosevelt was tutored at home, which is different than what the term is used to describe today.