Frank Kogan

I'm not seeing where you came to grips with my question "why do people think that the esoteric philosophical point is a big deal?" - the esoteric point being that "you can't get beyond the axiom to a set of facts that are 'independent' of the axiom and that therefore can be used to test the axiom." The reason I think this is a mere esoteric mere philosophical point is that (a) there are other ways to test an axiom (e.g., adopt a competing axiom and see what happens) and (b) an axiom such as natural selection isn't weakened by the philosophical point that its facts aren't "independent" of the axiom. The only thing that could weaken the axiom is a viable competing axiom that appeared to do more than natural selection does. The esoteric point says nothing about whether natural selection is likely to be superseded someday, no more than the absence of such a point (that is, the presence of the belief that there are theory-independent facts) implies that natural selection won't be superseded. (All you need to supersede it would be something that explains the (supposedly independent) facts better.)

I've not read more than a paragraph of Karl Popper, but I'd think his view - that theories can only be falsified rather than confirmed, right? - would come closer to "nothing is decided yet" than would "relativism."

In any event, your answer to my question, "why is the esoteric philosophical point a big deal," seems to be, "because people esteem philosophy." I don't know enough about academia, but I'm skeptical that people esteem philosophy all that much or that people have much of a clue what modern-day philosophers actually talk about. And my assumption is that it's English and Art Departments where "relativism" gets talked about, not philosophy departments.