Tom Bethell on “Cancer Genes”

Marxist theory is my favorite. Popper talked about it. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

The Marxist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

Now for a little fun, replace "Marx" with "Darwin" and see how it reads...

The Darwinist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Darwinism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Darwin had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

Doesn't that just describe the neoDarwinian narrative to a tee? HAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! DaveScot

The classic example of a “deteriorating paradigm” is the astronomical model where there stars and planets revolve around the earth. As astronomical observations became more precise, the description of the "orbits" became more and more outlandish. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epicycles&db=* ep·i·cy·cle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-skl) n. In Ptolemaic cosmology, a small circle, the center of which moves on the circumference of a larger circle at whose center is the earth and the circumference of which describes the orbit of one of the planets around the earth. Encyclopedia Britticana: "In the Ptolemaic system, deferents were large circles centred on the Earth, and epicycles were small circles whose centres moved around the circumferences of the deferents. The Sun, Moon, and planets moved around the circumference of their own epicycles. In the movable eccentric, there was one circle; this was centred on a point displaced from the Earth, with the planet moving around the circumference. These were mathematically equivalent schemes. Even with these, all observed planetary phenomena still could not be fully taken into account. Ptolemy therefore exhibited brilliant ingenuity by introducing still another concept. He supposed that the Earth was located a short distance from the centre of the deferent for each planet and that the centre of the planet's deferent and the epicycle described uniform circular motion around what he called the equant, which was an imaginary point that he placed on the diameter of the deferent but at a position opposite to that of the Earth from the centre of the deferent--i.e., the centre of the deferent was between the Earth and the equant. He further supposed that the distance from the Earth to the centre of the deferent was equal to the distance from the centre of the deferent to the equant. With this hypothesis, Ptolemy could better account for many observed planetary phenomena." carbuncleup

Darwin's theory is possibly the most falsified theory in the history of science yet it lives on under a growing mountain of ad hoc modifications. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave. Popper used Marxism as an example of a scientific theory which should have been abandoned after its predictions failed yet it wasn't as ad hoc modifications were made to it time and time again to account for the failures. Darwin's theory is in precisely the same situation. DaveScot

Ok, so there is a correlation. Does that correlation guarantee causation? This is a subject near to me as my both my paternal and maternal families have high rates of several different cancers. There is obviously a genetic link somewhere, yet the mutagenic hypothesis is also obviously and deeply flawed. The messed up ploidy could be the cause of the cancer or the cancer could be the cause of the messed up ploidy; where can I find the research looking at solving it? dennis grey dennis grey

Wow, great article. As you pointed out, it's interesting to see the parallels with regard to Darwinism. I think this quote from the article emphasizes that fact. "....is the hallmark of a theory that is not working. It's what philosophers call a "deteriorating paradigm." The theory gets more and more complex to account for its lack of success." Lurker