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.
Prove something cannot be explained. By what agency are you going to prove this? Prove that Leprechauns didn't build the process that cannot be "explained" by natural means.
Can't Prove a Negative. Until humanity explores every possible explanation of natural selection being responsible for that biological structure then a supernatural explanation is premature. Only problem is, you have to wait for eternity to exhaust all those options.
Yeah, you get it. Everything is now a "transitional" species. The fallacy of reification is what defines "species" as what exists now.
I asked one of those IDiots out there, who cowardly chose not to answer; are wolves, dogs, coyotes and dingos different species or just one specie? They can freely interbreed but they are considered separate species. Kind of destroys the concept, doesn't it?
Really, what evidence did He provide against a theory that didn't exist for another 1900 years?
The concept of species has never been firm, except in the minds of the ignorant. If you read anythin from the early history, even before evolution, you would know this.
I don't see an objective bit of difference between the strength of the beliefs of a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. (& some of Coyoteman's favorites).
You believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
A Muslim believes the Koran is the inerrant word of God.
A Navajo believes his religion is inerrant.
A Hindu believes his scriptures are inerrant.
(fill in the blank on FSM).
In each case an adherant believes he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Since there is no objective proof for any of the world's great religions, there is no objective reason why only one or any one is correct.
In any case, at least 2/3 of the world is going to Hell by your reasoning. You are free to believe what you will, but you do not have the right to force other people to your beliefs, especially since the odds are that you are wrong. America is not a Theocracy.
Saying that the Koran is not the word of God is objectively baseless, just as Mohammed Ali of whereever would be wrong saying the Bible is not the word of God. The subjectivity of your opinion, as you so correctly pointed out with Mao's little red book, does not make your belief, the word of God.
This is just so blatant, I couldn't resist. The statement made was essentially "A" could not be explained by "B". You changed that to essentially "A" could not be explained. Well bread pudding does not explain why roses are red. I don't think that requires proof, except maybe to you.
P.S. I'll bet you confuse all and any
I have made no such reasoning. That is your problem.
I'll call you a liar on the FSM.
Why all this disdain re: the FSM? He seems harmless enough.
Will someone prove without using faith (i.e. objectively)that the bible is the word of God and the Koran isn't, or vice versus.
I don't think it can be done, but if someone has an answer I'd like to see it. We need all the help we can find against the islamowackos.
Well, gee, that is why it is called faith. By the way, what are your feelings about invisible green grues that haunt the planets on stars in the Andromeda Galaxy?
So it's just your word against Mohammed's. Sigh.
About the LGM - I know they exist. I've seen them.
Yeah, me too, hanging off of F-4's
Oh? Can you prove that?
A lot of folks love to toss that statement around. But simply to look at it is to recognize the claim as a very stupid one. Simple logic will tell you that it's either wrong, or unproveable.
As it happens, as a general statement it is wrong. For example, in math it is quite common to prove negatives (e.g., "non-existence" statements) by, for example, assuming the positive opposite and demonstrating that it leads to a contradiction. Also, it's quite obvious that a negative statement such as "there are no green mammals" can be refuted by the simple expedient of producing a green mammal.
"There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection".
To which you responded:
This is just so blatant, I couldn't resist. The statement made was essentially "A" could not be explained by "B". You changed that to essentially "A" could not be explained.
The Negative proposition that:
There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection
is unprovable BY DEFINITION.
The fact that something cannot be explained by something else does NOT demonstrate the existence of anything. In this case:
There exists at least one biological structure or process
The fact that this statement isn't negated doesn't make prove the existence of anything else. There is no proof for this statement: there exists. The Burden of Proof is incumbent upon the person making the Assertion. The Existence of such a biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection is a matter of opinion, not science.
Logically it is an invalid proposition. One cannot prove what doesn't exist - only what does exist. That is what makes science science and faith faith. One is dependent upon evidence and the other needs none.
And you never seem to understand the difference.
It is fun playing in the sandbox with you from time to time though.
No I didn't. I responded to your mischaracterization of the statement. Pot!
A lot of folks love to toss that statement around. But simply to look at it is to recognize the claim as a very stupid one. Simple logic will tell you that it's either wrong, or unproveable.
What you prove is you don't understand the rules of logic.
What the Fallacy means is that you cannot prove that which does not exist. For example, I can prove the existence of a horse by providing one to your senses. I cannot prove the existence of a Unicorn because there is no such thing to prove it to you as an example of.
This is why science no longer considers the existence of the "ether" as a valid explanation of the propagation of light and energy. There is no evidence for it and that Einstein's Theories hold sway. You have to give some evidence to support your proposition.
As it happens, as a general statement it is wrong. For example, in math it is quite common to prove negatives
This is the Fallacy of Conflation. Math is a theoretical system, not a physical one. The rules are different. It is possible to prove a statement wrong but it is not possible to prove a fact wrong. Volcanoes exist. Rivers exist. Bears exist. Evolution exists.
ID cannot be prove to exist. By definition.
it's quite obvious that a negative statement such as "there are no green mammals" can be refuted by the simple expedient of producing a green mammal
This is known as the "White Crow Fallacy" since it would require examining every crow in the Universe to prove there are no "White Crows." This is why in logic the Burden of Proof is upon whoever is making the Assertion.
For example, the Assertion that Homosexuality is "unnatural" is refuted by examining the lives of Bonobo apes. They are very "perverted." If homosexuality is a moral issue then mere animals couldn't indulge in such behavior. If not, then the Fallacy holds.
One cannot prove one thing true by proving another thing false. Keep studying. You might understand this truth someday.
The Founder of the Baha'i.
OK the tumblers have fallen into place.
That's Dr. Coyoteman to you, son.
I like all your fallacies, but they are not necessary.
Any thinking person can see the virtual impossibility of proving a negative. Even with one variable, the number of possible permutations that would require testing become enormous and thus practically impossible.
That's why scientists always design their experiments to produce positive evidence for something. Creationists are always saying that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. But that was not his experiments. He proved that broths became turbid with bacterial growth because bacteria were present in air. That is a positive proof, not a negative one.
The only thing that can ever be proved about spontaneous generation is that it exists. When some scientist shows a process for "life" appearing from "non-life" then spontaneous generation will become fact. It will never be disproved, because it is impossible to test every possible scenario.
He, he, he. I don't suppose ol' Doc Savage is anything more than a cartoon character.
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.