Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.
Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.
To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?
In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).
One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.
So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.
What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.
Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.
What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.
If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.
It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.
None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.
The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.
At the same time, science should be recognized as a philosophy.
In practical terms, what does that mean?
It is a philosophy that has played an important role, to be sure, but at root it is a philosophy. Other philosophies have played important roles too.
I'm not sure who's diminishing the role of other philosophies, either in our history or today. All we're saying is that we shouldn't let the dogma of one philosophy intrude upon the workings of another discipline.
I'm sorry that you don't see it and I don't think I'll be able to persuade you.
Perhaps you might take into consideration the Jewish concept that the only pure "mitzvah" (pretty much, but not exactly a "good deed") is that of throwing soil onto the grave. There is no possibility of the deed being repaid. Every other mitzvah carries with it the possibility of reciprocation or recognition.
Purists will no doubt say that it still wasn't any affair of the Federal Government, but one also has to put it in the context of a social tinderbox where there were very real anarchist and communist movements afoot in the country and there was no guarantee that republican (in the non-party sense of the term) sensibilities would win out in the end. Many of TR's actions were largely pragmatic efforts to relieve some of those pressures before the whole social structure fractured beyond repair, and he had as much if not more distaste for the attitudes of labor union extremists as he did for the Trusts.
I think it would be a refreshing move to get the nation out of the science/creation debate into a higher level of thought.
The philosophy called science is notable for its fruits in the physical world: medicine, energy, food. It is guided by physical observations.
The philosophies called religions are notable for their fruits in the spiritual realm: ethics, comfort, purpose. It is guided by spiritual revelation.
There are areas of truth claims where the two conflict in their conclusions and people need to choose a philosophy in order to resolve the issue, or may choose to leave the question open.
Perhaps this is belaboring the obvious.
I'm going to jump in here with a question. What principle do you follow if the property was originally a gift from the government?
There's no escaping the system. I could say that if you fill up and tend my grandpa's grave, I'll fill up and tend yours.
I do not have the freedom to use my property in a way that injures my neighbor. For example, I do not have the right to store radioactive nuclear waste on it.
Also, in a free market, competition is not designed to drive your competitors out of business.
It is designed as a place where customers can bid on available commodities.
If the farmer's market in our area had someone come in week after week giving away what everyone else was selling, then it would surely drive the others out of business.
Just because I have water in the desert, it doesn't make it ethical for me refuse water to a man dying of thirst until he signs over all his property and accounts.
The market might be able to bear it at that moment in that situation, but it is clear extortion.
"What principle do you follow if the property was originally a gift from the government?"
I vote the government out.
Good information. Thanks.
I respectfully disagree. The Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman Acts have been rather successful in maintaining a competitive marketplace for the last century. The notion that price fixing and monopolistic predation is an inherent, and indeed virtuous, element of a free market strikes me as somewhat akin to the notion that fraud is a competitive virtue. There are thresholds of human connivance that we have, as a society, declared inviolable.
"Also, in a free market, competition is not designed to drive your competitors out of business."
Yes it is. They don't have a right to be in business if they can't provide services and goods a competitive rate.
"It is designed as a place where customers can bid on available commodities."
Freely and at whatever rates both parties agree on. The government has no legitimate power to interfere.
"If the farmer's market in our area had someone come in week after week giving away what everyone else was selling, then it would surely drive the others out of business."
And they would perfectly within their rights to do so.
"Just because I have water in the desert, it doesn't make it ethical for me refuse water to a man dying of thirst until he signs over all his property and accounts."
Forcing someone to give another their property because of alleged *need* is immoral.
"The market might be able to bear it at that moment in that situation, but it is clear extortion."
No, it's a free market.
Try practicing it sometime.
"The notion that price fixing and monopolistic predation is an inherent, and indeed virtuous, element of a free market strikes me as somewhat akin to the notion that fraud is a competitive virtue."
I never said fraud was a virtue. That would be stealing. I am talking about being able to sell your property at whatever levels someone else agrees to purchase them. Or to give them away if you wish. Why is this so controversial?
"The Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman Acts have been rather successful in maintaining a competitive marketplace for the last century."
They have been a bludgeon used by the less successful businesses to get a piece of what they feel they are entitled to.
"There are thresholds of human connivance that we have, as a society, declared inviolable."
That doesn't make it moral.
We have vastly different ideas on what constitutes a free market.
Our here in farm land, when they take the cattle to market and folks stand around and bid on them, we understand what market price means.
As soon as all those bidders have a gun to their head, then it is no longer a free market.
You don't kow my private life as I don't know yours.
But...
I practice it on these threads for all here to see.
When I respond to a courteously worded post, I try to be at least equally courteous in response.
When the other poster is rude, I call them on it and become increasingly more terse in my responses. I try not to be rude because that is not who I am.
If I erroneously or inadvertently produce a less than courteous reply, as soon as I become aware of it, I apologize.
In other words, "No", you do not believe the first 10 words of the bible and "Yes", the bible starts out by spewing lies.
I can accept that answer. Why don't you just answer the questions like that? Are you afraid to express your beliefs?
Frankly I have no problem with evolutionists and intelligent design critics who do not believe in the God revealed in the Bible. I would expect them to deny the existence of such a God for the God revealed in the Bible takes credit for CREATING "the heavens, the earth and all that in them is". Maybe such a God does not exist. I accept skeptisim of that fact. What I have trouble with is those who claim to be followers of Christ and who claim to be believers in the God revealed in the Bible, yet they deny the truth of the book in which that God reveals himself to mankind.
If the first 10 words of the Bible do not express TRUTH, then the rest of the book cannot be trusted.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (2 Peter 1:16-17 KJV)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.