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.
No.
Definitions (from a google search):
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
My car invented ID, and the number 8.
My book told me so.
Based on your definitions, evolution is also a belief and ID is also a theory.
Evidence for it an proof are not the same. Even evolutionists admit that evolution is not a fact.
That's a stunningly dishonest statement, and flat-out wrong to boot.
Evolutionists admit that the Theory of Evolution is not a "fact," because no theory is. The Theory of Gravity isn't a fact either, to use scientific terminology. No theory is, that's what makes them "theories." That's where your statement is dishonest - it pretends that words don't mean what they mean in a scientific context.
Here's where your statement is flat-out wrong - evolution within a species is a fact. We can observe it in the lab, and in the natural environment. It happens, it is observable, it is testable. It is as much a fact as anything else in biology.
You're throwing around terms without regard to their meaning, attempting to redefine words to fit your ideology.
The historical evidence of Jesus Christ is far greater than that for evolution.
But not the evidence for his divinity - the only thing supporting that is the eyewitness testimony of his own followers, some of it recorded well after the fact. I do not doubt that the man lived, or that he had a profound impact on his society. But divine? That's an element of faith and faith alone, since there is zero objective evidence for it.
granted, belief in Jesus Christ does require an element of faith; but so does a belief in evolution; doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. No matter how much creationists might try that canard, it simply isn't true. Evolution only seems an article of faith if you close your eyes and ears to the evidence and pretend that it doesn't exist.
And once again, let me reiterate that I'm not against faith. I'm only against people confusing faith with fact, and then whining that their faith isn't being given affirmative action in the science classroom.
You have much greater tact and patience than I. That is why I usually just post an item, maybe make a comment, sit back and watch the fur and feathers fly.
I am against faith. However, I acknowledge everyone's individual right to abandon his mind and irrationally to believe.
Not to metion that the term "fact" in science doesn't mean what most people seem to think it does. Scientific "facts" are constantly subject to revision as new measuring tools and other investigative techniques become available. The term "fact" in science doesn't refer to some metaphysical truth, but to something established by repeated observation and limited by the tools and techniques of that observation.
Well, except for the part where ID "theory" is neither well-substantiated nor organized.
Belief only enters into it if you choose for it to. The choice of "believe or reject" is a false dichotomy. One can choose "no evidence to accept" rather than "reject". The difference is subtle but distinct.
Your comment about murder and mayhem in advancing religion is meaningless.
Assertion Without Proof. You need to expand upon this statement for it to have any meaning in itself. Murder and mayhem have been used to advance nearly every religion in existence. That is an historical fact. Refute it before claiming it "meaningless."
You accept the peaceful message of Jesus and his rules for living. You use those to reject Islam.
You read too much into my statements. I "accept" or endorse neither in my comments, I was contrasting the difference between them, both religious precepts. For example, if somebody tries to rob you, shoot the bastard. Forget "peace."
And then you use them to support Jesus and his divinity. Don't you see that this is circular reasoning?
To clarify, I was constrasting the two views, not supporting either. You would have to explain the circular reasoning since there are no embedded premises.
As far as the resurrection is concerned, I don't see how that can be anything but a matter of faith,
Yes, I agree. But what does any of this have to do with science, especially ID? If it is a matter of faith, which it is, it isn't science.
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).
Once again the first sentence is not accurate. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and others neither "try to spread the word" nor consider themselves "exclusive." Such religions consider other religions as renegade variations of their own. When has the Dali Lama said a single word against another religion or claimed his as the only "exclusive" way. This is your own viewpoint injecting itself onto the viewpoint of others. You think this way, so others must. Sorry.
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.
You assume that everyone has a "faith". What of the person who considers the concept of "faith" in the same league as the person who believes in UFOs, ghosts, Unicorns (my favorite!), Menehune, vampires, poltergeists and all the rest?
What of fantasy concepts that have no meaning in the real world?
And thank you for civility.
Thank you, since I am so often accused of having none. I do try.
(A)If no proofs exist for things that do not exist
(B)Then you will have demonstrated that at least one such proof exists.
Now notice, we only have two terms here and they do not share middle terms. (A) concerns itself with "things" and (B) concerns itself with demonstrations about proofs, an abstract. An abstract is not a "thing."
There is no connection between the two. Logically the statement is entirely fallacious and has no meaning. Since it is 2 terms and not 3 it is not a syllogism and is not logic.
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.
The difference is profound. The rules of logic and math are abstracts, reality isn't.
in essence you're saying that logic and math have no place in discussions of reality
Don't tell me what I'm saying when you clearly lack the intellectual fortitude to undersand what I am saying.
I said no such thing as they have "no place" in discussions of reality.
that two of the fundamental tools of modern science are therefore invalid.
Once again, in terms simple enough you might be able to absorb. Math and logic are "maps" that describe reality. They are not that reality, but they help us navigate it. Just as a street map helps us navigate the cities we live in, they are not those cities. They are abstract representations of those cities, not the cities themselves. This doesn't make them invalid, just incomplete, like all human knowledge.
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.
Don't understand when you make my point, do you? You can't "verify" that which doesn't exist; to use your terminology what "is wrong". Just another way of saying the logic precept Can't Prove a Negative." Get it yet?
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.
Definitions define the parameters of the concept. Premises are built upon concepts and science depends upon accurate conclusions, which are dependent upon valid premises which are dependent upon clear definitions. If a conclusion contradicts the premise then either the definition was faulty or the logic was faulty.
My reference to "by definition" refers to when a conclusion contradicts a premise that is embedded in that conclusion.
For example:
There is evidence in the natural world for a purely supernatural Being.
I didn't believe you were so thick that I thought it was. Oh, well.
Sorry furballs. I was writing on reflex before retiring. Missed the CC to me. Guess I'm "that thick." At least my wife says so.
The quotes were not from you. I just copied you because I though you'd like to see some of these. Appears you caught on. I'll try to be more explicit in the future.
Fine. Please prove your assertions. Specifically:
The difference is profound. The rules of logic and math are abstracts, reality isn't.
Is it really a "profound" difference? One wonders about that, given their demonstrably very great power for describing reality, to the point of being able to describe aspects of reality before we can observe them. Rather than simply asserting such, you are required to demonstrate that the difference is "profound." Burden of proof, and all that rot.
Don't tell me what I'm saying when you clearly lack the intellectual fortitude to undersand what I am saying. I said no such thing as they have "no place" in discussions of reality.
LOL! Ducking the issue, are we? Lack of fortitude, indeed. You didn't say it directly, but words do have meaning, and I'm assessing the meaning of your words. The thing is, your statements, here and before, clearly draw a distinction between math and logic (mere "abstracts") on the one hand, and reality on the other. Look at the direct quote above: you say the difference between them is "profound." What you have said, flat out, is that mathematical or logical results are irrelevant to your statements about reality, because logic and math are not "reality." A pretty large statement, with profound consequences. Don't blame me for the fact that you said something silly.
Once again, in terms simple enough you might be able to absorb.
(snicker) Thanks for your kindness in descending to our uncomfortable and poorly-bathed existence. We know how uncomfortable you must find it. You have no idea how comforting it is to us.
Math and logic are "maps" that describe reality.
There is some dispute about that, as suggested by the question: is mathematics invented or discovered? (See, e.g., The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics). If we look at General Relativity, we find an intricate mathematical exposition of certain aspects of reality, developed before the tests confirmed the predictions derived from it. You seem to be taking the "Math is invented" approach. But General Relativity suggests that it's not that simple: Einstein didn't invent a way to describe something he already knew, which is what "maps" are all about. Instead, math took him to places he didn't know, and it appears that it did so correctly -- suggesting that there is some connection between math and reality that mere "map-making" cannot explain.
Don't understand when you make my point, do you? You can't "verify" that which doesn't exist; to use your terminology what "is wrong". Just another way of saying the logic precept Can't Prove a Negative." Get it yet?
Oh, I do get it. The question is: do you? If we use mathematical results to conclude that some scientific hypotheses are not worth pursuing, then that is an example of "proving a negative."
Again: please prove your statement that you "Can't prove a Negative."
My reference to "by definition" refers to when a conclusion contradicts a premise that is embedded in that conclusion.
Alas, no. Your use \of "by definition" seems to be applied as an attempt to close off discussion before it starts.
"Belief only enters into it if you choose for it to. The choice of "believe or reject" is a false dichotomy. One can choose "no evidence to accept" rather than "reject". The difference is subtle but distinct."
I understand this. I can give you a real world example. In the UK years ago in trials fro murder, for example, there were 3 possible outcomes from the jury.
1. Guilty - evidence supports conviction.
2. Innocent - evidence does not support conviction.
3. Not Proven - it is not possible to determine.
But with r9etb's assertion on faith. Yes, you can believe it on faith, or reject it on evidence and you can walk away and shrug "so what?". But in effect the latter two are rejection. Same as believer, atheist and agnostic.
If you choose to continue to chew on r9etb, I will watch with pleasure.
Yes, hand me two furniture and a dozen personal goods.
I'm assessing the meaning of your words.
You assess wrongly.
your statements, here and before, clearly draw a distinction between math and logic (mere "abstracts") on the one hand, and reality on the other.
There is a distinction. And your assessment of "mere" abstracts is also wrong. Abstracts are more powerful than mere concretes but become damaging and dangerous when confused with concretes, the meaning of the word "reification."
What you have said, flat out, is that mathematical or logical results are irrelevant to your statements about reality, because logic and math are not "reality."
I said no such thing. I said that they are valuable ('relevant' in your liberal, touchy feely language) to the degree that they accurately describe reality.
There is some dispute about that, as suggested by the question: is mathematics invented or discovered?
Invented, otherwise no one could ever make any mistakes concerning it. Begs the Question - Invented by whom?
Einstein didn't invent a way to describe something he already knew, which is what "maps" are all about. Instead, math took him to places he didn't know, and it appears that it did so correctly -- suggesting that there is some connection between math and reality that mere "map-making" cannot explain.
If a person creates a map that documents there is a shoreline here and then 1000 miles away a shoreline there, then why is anybody surprised when there is a body of water discovered in between? This goes back to what I said about abstracts and the inability of the concrete bound mind to differentiate between the difference.
If we use mathematical results to conclude that some scientific hypotheses are not worth pursuing, then that is an example of "proving a negative."
You clearly don't have any understanding of the fundamentals of logic. I didn't "invent" Can't Prove a Negative, this is a standard logical fallacy. If you don't understand or accept it, it only proves your ignorance of standard scientific criteria for evidence.
Your use \of "by definition" seems to be applied as an attempt to close off discussion before it starts.
It only seems that way to you because you don't get it. When a premise contradicts itself by its very definition it is invalid and no longer worthy of consideration.
For example, to say:
The earth contains the solar system.
Is a contradiction in terms. The earth is a lesser part of the solar system so cannot contain it, by definition.
By analogy to say:
The Supernatural is scientifically verifiable.
Is a contradiction in terms because there is no evidence of the Supernatural in the natural world, by definition.
It is really very simple, which is probably what throws you.
By Definition.
Ah, yes. If all else fails (and for you it has), resort to accusations of "liberalism."
You do a whole bunch of asserting, and little or no proving. Call us back when you can live up to your screen name.
Every phenomenon can be explained by natural causes. Every phenomenon can be explained by supernatural causes. From a scientific standpoint the distinction is moot. From a philosophical standpoint it is not.
Science takes what it does not understand and applies what we call "natural" meanings. The application of a meaning, or degree of human understanding, has no effect upon the reality of the thing. One may proudly take the stand that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Few scientists go that far. If there really is such a thing, then why should it be declared out of bounds for science? Science is entitled to explore everything that may be real.
There is nothing unscientfic about inferring a designer where design is present. There is plenty philosophical in asserting design is the product of anything but a designer.
Can't handle the content of the post so you toss off slurs, eh?
Go fallacy off.
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.