[Marxism] Re: Popper

paul illich paul_illich at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 31 03:30:22 MST 2004

Mike & Nestor wrote

>>Respuesta a: [Marxism] evolution, species concepts, final word
>>Remitido por: Mike Friedman
>>Fecha: Miércoles 29 de Diciembre de 2004 Hora: 22:53
>>Popper considered evolution to
>>be non-scientific, because he felt it was non-falsifiable

>I have always wondered whether Popper was an ape. Or (begging excuses from
>actual gorillas), at least a gorilla in the Latin American sense. Or maybe
>he was non-scientific.

Surely Popper's view was that if falsifiability was impossible than a
proposition could not rise above theory, and as such was more akin
to philosophy than science? In accepting that Darwin's theory of
evolution is just that - a theory - surely we must accept the
concommitant judgement that it is not strictly science? Since when
was this unacceptable, anyway? I for one see no shame in advancing
philosophic concepts that have difficulty "aspiring" to science - the
latter is not a religion, and is firmly rootd in the former. I also do not
accept the argument [and I know that YOU guys are not making it,
and that we all know which types are] that there is nothing to tell
between two "theories", or that a theory that hasn't the full weight
of being "science" is therefore necessarily weaker because of it.
Popper's view would be that no scientific "fact" is proven anyway -
the whole point of his musings on science was to say that the only
sure "facts" involved were those relating to dis-proof not proof.


More information about the Marxism mailing list