Karl Popper (1902-1994): Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. His parents, who were of Jewish origin, brought him up in an atmosphere which he was later to describe as ‘decidedly bookish’. Popper obtained a primary school teaching diploma in 1925, took a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1928, and qualified to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school in 1929. In 1946 he moved to England to teach at the London School of Economics, and became professor of logic and scientific method at the University of London in 1949. He was knighted in 1965, and retired from the University of London in 1969, though he remained active as a writer, broadcaster and lecturer until his death in 1994. (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Today is Charles Darwin 200th birth anniversary, perhaps the most controversial scientist ever lived. When only 16 his father sent him and his brother to Edinburgh for the best medical education Great Britain had to offer.When he finally broke the news of his distaste for medicine to his father, he was enrolled to take a degree in Divinity at Christ College, Cambridge University, from which he graduated. However, he became an agnostic in the later part of his life and died as one, contrary to the report that he died as a convert having recanted his theory. Dawin was a mild English gentleman who was disturbed when his scientific theory aroused much controversy specially as people misused his theory to support various causes he would not even dream of. He died on April 18, 1882.
Trying to define Science is as slippery as trying to define Religion. For both enterprises definition that would satisfy all has been elusive. American Physical Society defines Science as “ the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.” Though this is a widely accepted definition it is not free from being problematic because the definition allows even Social Science enterprises like Sociology, Economics and Psychology to fit into the definition. And no wonder some people argue that these disciplines should be included in Science. After all if study of animals and plants are part of Science why not study of human being? Though the argument seems valid we are not quite convinced that these academic disciplines should be part of Science. Philosopher of Science has widely accepted three parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. One, the theory should be falsifiable; two, it should be able to explain the observed data; three, it should have predictability strength. Sometimes one might also like to include elegance, coherence etc. But the first three are very essential.
Karl Popper initially rejected theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Popper understood evolutionary biologists to say that their theory predicts that natural selection allows only the fittest organisms to survive; and he countered saying that the ‘fittest’ organisms are defined as those who survive, but that makes the argument tautological. ( tautological means that the truth of the predicate is present in the subject itself) Later on, Popper recanted what he had said. But why the change? Because there are independent parameters for determining which members of species are ‘fittest’. “ Biologists employ optimisation analyses to predict which combination of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely to be advantageous in the range of environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then sample natural population of organisms, determine in which they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical predictions on where natural selection should push the population next. Finally, biologists wait until the next generation of organisms come out and measure their characteristics again." So theory of evolution is testable, in the sense that using the theory they predict the outcome of the research. It is also falsifiable in the sense that if human being is found alonside dinasaur, in the absence of alternative explanation, we might have to discard the theory or make some drastic refinement. One reason why Intelligent Design theory is considered invalid is because it is not falsifiable. How can one emperically falsify that God is not behind that 'irreducible complexity'? One can never do that emperically, and so ID theory cannot be scientific.
Theory of evolution meets the criteria to be a scientific theory more or less like Big Bang theory meets the criteria. In fact, Big Bang theory has more rival theories than theory of evolution. Theory of evolution has been the reigning champion for some 150 odd years now, though with some refinement like neo-darwinism emerging to give a more explanatory power of the observed data. Intellectual honesty and responsibility requires that until a better rival theory emerges we use the available theory, however weak it is. Suppose we expel theory of evolution from Science which academic discipline takes up the study? Humanities or Social Science? Both cannot do justice to the issue at hand because the nature of the subject requires study of various branch of Science. This is also one reason why definition of Science should not be too narrow. Study of continental shift, Big Bang, evolution etc have met essential parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. Since theory of evolution is falsifiable, as a believer in Jesus Christ who is the source of all truth, I am not afraid of the truth. If it is wrong Science will disprove it. If it is right, how much ever attack it receives from its critic, it will remain firm.
This issue has been very divisive among evangelical Christians, should I say along with issues like role of women in the church and charismatic gifts. The latter two is confined within ourselves. Theory of evolution, however, takes the debate outside of the Church. And if we are not careful it’s going to harm the cause of Christ.My humble suggestion is that those of us who are keen to have a say in the matter need to read up theologians who interpret the Bible, philosophers who provides the framework of the debate and scientist who engages in empirical research. Should I also include historians who provide detail how various schools emerged and how different individuals have participated in the debate! This does not mean I have also done sufficient reading... But I am trying to. God bless.
Karl Popper initially rejected theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Popper understood evolutionary biologists to say that their theory predicts that natural selection allows only the fittest organisms to survive; and he countered saying that the ‘fittest’ organisms are defined as those who survive, but that makes the argument tautological. ( tautological means that the truth of the predicate is present in the subject itself) Later on, Popper recanted what he had said. But why the change? Because there are independent parameters for determining which members of species are ‘fittest’. “ Biologists employ optimisation analyses to predict which combination of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely to be advantageous in the range of environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then sample natural population of organisms, determine in which they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical predictions on where natural selection should push the population next. Finally, biologists wait until the next generation of organisms come out and measure their characteristics again." So theory of evolution is testable, in the sense that using the theory they predict the outcome of the research. It is also falsifiable in the sense that if human being is found alonside dinasaur, in the absence of alternative explanation, we might have to discard the theory or make some drastic refinement. One reason why Intelligent Design theory is considered invalid is because it is not falsifiable. How can one emperically falsify that God is not behind that 'irreducible complexity'? One can never do that emperically, and so ID theory cannot be scientific.
Theory of evolution meets the criteria to be a scientific theory more or less like Big Bang theory meets the criteria. In fact, Big Bang theory has more rival theories than theory of evolution. Theory of evolution has been the reigning champion for some 150 odd years now, though with some refinement like neo-darwinism emerging to give a more explanatory power of the observed data. Intellectual honesty and responsibility requires that until a better rival theory emerges we use the available theory, however weak it is. Suppose we expel theory of evolution from Science which academic discipline takes up the study? Humanities or Social Science? Both cannot do justice to the issue at hand because the nature of the subject requires study of various branch of Science. This is also one reason why definition of Science should not be too narrow. Study of continental shift, Big Bang, evolution etc have met essential parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. Since theory of evolution is falsifiable, as a believer in Jesus Christ who is the source of all truth, I am not afraid of the truth. If it is wrong Science will disprove it. If it is right, how much ever attack it receives from its critic, it will remain firm.
This issue has been very divisive among evangelical Christians, should I say along with issues like role of women in the church and charismatic gifts. The latter two is confined within ourselves. Theory of evolution, however, takes the debate outside of the Church. And if we are not careful it’s going to harm the cause of Christ.My humble suggestion is that those of us who are keen to have a say in the matter need to read up theologians who interpret the Bible, philosophers who provides the framework of the debate and scientist who engages in empirical research. Should I also include historians who provide detail how various schools emerged and how different individuals have participated in the debate! This does not mean I have also done sufficient reading... But I am trying to. God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment