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.
Indeed -- and thus the statement "there are no white crows" is refuted, and we need not continue casting about for proof of the statement.
But the use of "White Crow Fallacy" is simply illustrative, as you know. You just chose to ignore it.
No, I simply chose to demonstrate that one need not natter on about the supposed difficulties of proof once the original statement has been refuted. LW's original statement is poppycock precisely because it has been refuted.
But I also noted that you can prove a negative, and gave a) a specific means to do so; and b) an admittedly poorly recollected example where it was actually done. (I could dig among my old texts if you really want chapter and verse.)
Thus it is demonstrably false that "you can't prove a negative."
Well, you're wrong. And arrogant, too. Not a happy combination.
One doesn't prove it "does not exist" which is why the Burden of Proof in logic and science is upon the person making the Assertion.
Fine. Then prove the statement "you can't prove a negative."
If you can prove this statement, then you will have proved a negative, and thus invalidated your original claim. If you cannot prove your statement, then it is logically meaningless, and we need not be bound by it.
I'll be interested to see your proof.
Oh, sure, but like I said, in our soundbite-oriented world, it's more concise than "It's often very difficult to prove a negative proposition, for the following reasons: A)..." ;)
Are you that thick?
Sorry you're unhappy. Go cry in your beer.
If you can prove this statement, then you will have proved a negative, and thus invalidated your original claim. If you cannot prove your statement, then it is logically meaningless, and we need not be bound by it
Been there, done that, for like the upteenth time.
How can a put this that even a nitwit like you can understand?
Proving a "statement" negative and proving an "assertion about reality" negative - are two, completely different things. It is easy to prove a negative abstraction invalid by the very definition of the terms. It is not possible to prove an assertion about reality wrong because there is no evidence to prove it right or wrong, by definition.
I understand you aren't intelligent enough to understand the difference but that isn't my problem, it is YOURS!!!
While your at it, have another beer on me and cry in that too.
I'm not particularly disposed to proving negatives, but it is provable that allah is not the same God as worshipped by Christians.
Can I prove that allah is not the true God?
I think that if I prove Mohammed used murder and mayhem to advance his religion and that Jesus rejected that in favor of others receiving faith because His "kingdom is not of this world." then I have highlighted the difference between the two.
Finally, Jesus claimed to be divine. His resurrection proves his point.
Mohammed was not divine. His death also proves Jesus' point.
Interesting point.
And even assuming for the moment that God did, how does that mean that every word in the Bible must be interpreted in its most literal sense, which is the discussion that P-Marlowe and I were having?
Finally, Jesus claimed to be divine. His resurrection proves his point.
Prove that Jesus was resurrected, then.
What evidence would you accept?
Eyewitness testimony?
Circumstantial evidence?
Both?
Or
Neither?
"I'm not particularly disposed to proving negatives, but it is provable that allah is not the same God as worshipped by Christians.
Can I prove that allah is not the true God?
I think that if I prove Mohammed used murder and mayhem to advance his religion and that Jesus rejected that in favor of others receiving faith because His "kingdom is not of this world." then I have highlighted the difference between the two.
Finally, Jesus claimed to be divine. His resurrection proves his point.
Mohammed was not divine. His death also proves Jesus' point."
Interesting commentary. And thank you for civility. It's sometimes hard to find here.
I know you can't prove the negative. That's the point. Mohammed says he was divinely inspired. No one can prove it one way or the other. So, you either have to believe it or reject it. Mohammed never claimed to be divine. He claimed to be a prophet and that his word was the last word from God (I always liked that bit, nice touch - adds to the exclusivity). So, of course he died.
Your comment about murder and mayhem in advancing religion is meaningless. All religions, including Christianity, have done that (take a look at what the Catholic church did to the Philippines, among many other places). You accept the peaceful message of Jesus and his rules for living. You use those to reject Islam. And then you use them to support Jesus and his divinity. Don't you see that this is circular reasoning?
As far as the resurrection is concerned, I don't see how that can be anything but a matter of faith, and it adds to the exclusivity of Christianity.
All religious groups try to find some way to make themselves exclusive (a reason for being) and they all try to find some way to spread the word. Some are more physically violent than others. The only exception I can think of is Judaism and that may be the reason why there are so few of them after so many years (Hitler certainly helped keep the numbers down, but Judaism just doesn't grow).
I certainly respect your faith as I do the sincere beliefs of all people. I just reject the idea that any one faith is religiously superior to any other.
Anything concrete would do. And no, eyewitness testimony from people with a vested interest in the outcome doesn't count.
xzins claimed that he could prove the Bible was the word of God and the Koran is not. He offered the resurrection of Jesus as "proof."
His claim, therefore the burden of proof is his. I'd love for him to prove his claim.
Considering that the eyewitnesses were tortured and killed because they refused to recant their testimony, I'd say that your refusal to accept their testimony is unreasonable.
Will you accept the circumstantial evidence? The refusal to recant in light of torture and execution is circumstantial evidence of the veracity of their testimony. The fact that rumors were spread that the disciples stole the body and that Christ was still alive when placed in the grave is circumstantial evidence which confirms the eyewitness testimony that the grave was empty.
Your refusal to even consider the eyewitness testimony is evidence that you will refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever. In that case it would be impossible to prove anything to you.
The silence of the poeple with vested interest in disproving the resurection of christ is also proof.
The Saducees and pharasess had a vested interest in bringing out a body of Jesus which would have stopped this Christian thing cold. Why didn't they?
Also why did they pay hardened roman troups to stay quiet about the 12 fishermen that over powered them and took the body? These items have to be dealt with in a rational mannor for your 'lack of evidence' claim to be maintained.
Ask any lawyer - eyewitness testimony is spectacularly unreliable.
Try again - hardly the "proof" that he asserted.
The problem is, of course, that your statement sets you up for a classic dilemma. Specifically: if you can show that no proofs exist for things that do not exist, then you will have demonstrated that at least one such proof exists; namely, the proof you just accomplished.
Proving a "statement" negative and proving an "assertion about reality" negative - are two, completely different things.
It's rather amusing that you'd make such a distinction between reality on the one hand, and the rules of logic and math on the other. I'm really floored, as a matter of fact, as in essence you're saying that logic and math have no place in discussions of reality, and that two of the fundamental tools of modern science are therefore invalid. I'm sure that's not what you really believe, but it is one implication of what you said.
It is easy to prove a negative abstraction invalid by the very definition of the terms. It is not possible to prove an assertion about reality wrong because there is no evidence to prove it right or wrong, by definition.
Oh, my. This is something of a train wreck.
First, it's rather obvious that "assertions about reality" are among the set of "statements" about which you are talking. Any scientific "assertion about reality" requires you to define terms in such a way that you can unambiguously identify the physical phenomenon you're addressing. You need to have a well-formulated hypothesis before you can test it. As an example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity relies on mathematics to define the terms of the phenomena he's describing. Before anything else, it's clear that his (or any other) theory must make mathematical sense. If the math is wrong, there's no point in expending further effort on trying to verify the theory.
Once Einstein's math passes muster, then it's possible to gather experimental data to check his math. If the data don't match the math, then it's generally accepted that Einstein's "assertions about reality" would be incorrect.
I sense that you're big on saying things "by definition." I'd be a whole lot more impressed if it weren't so easy to find real examples that violate your definitions.
I just asked myself, and I responded that eyewitness testimony is only as reliable or unreliable as the witnesses themselves.
Any witness who would refuse to recant his testimony in the face of torture or death must be considered as a reliable witness. There you have the circumstantial evidence which confirms the veracity of the eyewitnesses. Where is your evidence to refute the veracity of their testimony? I don't think you have any.
BTW, where did you get your law degree?
And if the disciples didn't steal the body, then the authorities would have taken them to the grave and proven that the body was still there.
They didn't do that because the body was missing.
This circumstantial evidence verifies the account of the eyewitnesses.
Incidentally, those who give their lives for saying that they saw something that they did see does not invalidate their account because they were interested in the outcome.
Does a soldier who gives his life for his country have his testimony invalidated if he records that he is an American, and that his country is the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Are we to discount his testimony because he is an American?
Wouldn't an American know best? And especially one who is willing to give his life for his belief.
And if the disciples didn't steal the body, then the authorities would have taken them to the grave and proven that the body was still there.
They didn't do that because the body was missing.
This circumstantial evidence verifies the account of the eyewitnesses.
Incidentally, those who give their lives for saying that they saw something that they did see does not invalidate their account because they were interested in the outcome.
Does a soldier who gives his life for his country have his testimony invalidated if he records that he is an American, and that his country is the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Are we to discount his testimony because he is an American?
Wouldn't an American know best? And especially one who is willing to give his life for his belief.
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.