In a message dated 1/16/2000 8:33:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jonkc@worldnet.att.net writes:
> If it's inappropriate to use the word "fact" in
> regards to evolution then why do we even bother to have such a word,
> that is to say, can you give me an example when it would be appropriate
> to call something, anything, a fact?
The problem is not that evolution is a fact. The problem is calling it a
fact with such finality. This is the difference between justificationalism
and non-justificationalism. In science there is nothing that is a fact in
the every-day definition. This is due to Hume's problem of induction.
Popper has attempted to solve this problem with critical rationalism. In
science calling an explanation, a fact circumvents Popper's solution.
But if evolutionary epistemology (PCR/CCR) is employed, fact is replaced by
"surviving theory." This retains the open mind, solves induction and permits
alternate improved theories. Darwinism has changed many times, it is not one
single idea or "fact." The alleged "fact" has changed and extended itself
many times. Bartley, Campbell, Radnitzky, Vollmer, Dawkins and Blackmore
(and a growing number of others) has extended this idea of pan-open
mindedness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:19 MDT