I agree that there is a hard division line, but

> Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by 
> Science as he knows it.

I am not so sure. Popper is all about falsification. If a theory does
predictions which can be matched against the reality around us, it is
fasifyable and hence science. The trouble is that this division line
runs right through some things: most humanities (sociology, pedagogy,
political studies (!), religion studies (!)) have some parts that are
definitely science and some parts that are definitely not. I think this
division line also runs right through all the stuff people classify
under 'evolution theory'.

> Popper followers can NEVER say "we 
> know", only that their model is getting better over time and they 
> don't THINK that it's going to break any time soon.

Totally true. Popperian scientist can say "this theory is consistent
with the current evidence (or that least more consistent than any other
available theory)". Religious people can say "this theory (or belief, or
...) is consistent with my innermost conviction." Note that one is
outer-world driven, the other is inner-world driven. IMHO neither group
can say more, and if they would refrain from claiming more they would
never have to disagree on scientific/religious matters because the
intersection of the two is empty. Of course that leaves a lot of very
important points to disagree on, like topposting versus bottomposting,
the right way to store the bytes of an integer, PIC versus AVR,
assembler versus HLL, etc.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist