Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?
Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself? Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter. Not very honest of them, is it?
Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.
So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in), nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.
So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel. If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic. Read this if you're still unclear on the concept: Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution. "Argument from authority" is still a logical fallacy.
Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.
“Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself?” [excerpt]Ah yes, you must be referring to his statement that Darwinism was not testable.
Definitively a hot button subject.It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.[13] In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.[14] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[15]
“Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter.” [excerpt]I do find it interesting how the lines between the former and the latter are blurred.
“Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.” [excerpt]Perhaps its because Popper's works were so damaging to these sudo-sciences?
“So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in),” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]Well, Darwin was no scientist, he was just a med school dropout turned theologian.
“nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.” [excerpt]I don't expect you to agree with something that you disagree with.
“So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel.” [excerpt]Sounds like you don't like Popper.
“If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic.” [excerpt]Facts?
“Read this if you're still unclear on the concept:” [excerpt]I learn about science from talkorigins like I learn about Capitalism from a Communist.
“Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.” [excerpt]Correct, science is not a religion.