Intelligent designers down on Dover

The York Dispatch ^ | 9/20/2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

[Right Wing Professor]

Theory's largest national supporter won't back district

The Dover Area School District and its board will likely walk into a First Amendment court battle next week without the backing of the nation's largest supporter of intelligent design.

The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit that describes itself as a "nonpartisan policy and research organization," recently issued a policy position against Dover in its upcoming court case.

John West, associate director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, calls the Dover policy "misguided" and "likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design."

Eleven parents filed a federal suit last December, about two months after the school board voted to include a statement about intelligent design in its ninth-grade biology classes.

Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being, that life is too complex to have developed through evolution as described by biologist Charles Darwin.

The parents, along with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the board had religious motives for putting the policy in place.

The non-jury trial is expected to start in Harrisburg Sept. 26.

No surprise: The school board's attorney, Richard Thompson, said he isn't surprised the Discovery Institute has distanced itself from the school board's stance.

"I think it's a tactical decision they make on their own," said Thompson, top attorney with Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a law firm that specializes in cases related to the religious freedom of Christians.

Though the Discovery Institute promotes the teaching of intelligent design, it has been critical of school boards that have implemented intelligent design policies, Thompson said.

Discovery Institute's Web site offers school board members a link to a video titled "How to Teach the Controversy Legally," referring to the organization's opinion that there is a controversy over the validity of the theory of evolution.

The video doesn't specifically mention teaching intelligent design.

But Discovery Institute is the leading organization touting intelligent design research and supporting the scientists and scholars who want to investigate it.

Dover is the only school district that Discovery has publicly spoken out against. West said that's because they mandated the policy. Discovery Institute supports teaching intelligent design, but not requiring it through a school board policy.

He said there are few proponents of intelligent design who support the stand Dover's board has taken because the district has required the reading of a statement that mentions intelligent design and directs students to an intelligent design textbook.

"They really did it on their own and that's unfortunate," West said.

The "bad policy" has given the ACLU a reason to try to "put a gag order" on intelligent design in its entirety, he said.

Discovery also spoke out against Pennsylvania legislators who wanted to give school boards the option of mandating the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.

Avoiding politics: Teaching intelligent design is not unconstitutional, but the institute doesn't support the Dover school board's stand because it doesn't want intelligent design to become a political issue, said Casey Luskin, program officer in the Public Policy and Legal Affairs department at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

He said the Discovery Institute is "not trying to hinder their case in court," but the organization wants intelligent design to be debated by the scientific community, not school boards.

Lawyer: Won't hinder case: Thompson said the Discovery Institute's noninvolvement in the trial won't hinder Dover's case because "the judge is going to look at the policy ... not who is in favor of it on the outside."

But the institute has been a hindrance to the school district's attempts to find "scientific" witnesses to testify about intelligent design, Thompson said.

Though Discovery representatives said they have never been in support of Dover's policy, Thompson said the organization's unwillingness to get involved in the trial became evident after it insisted that some of its fellows -- who were lined up to testify -- have their own legal representation, instead of the Thomas More Center, which bills itself as "The Sword and Shield for People of Faith."

Some of the Discovery Institute's intelligent design supporters backed out of testifying, even after Thompson told them they could have their own legal representation if they wanted, Thompson said.

"It was very disappointing" that the institute would prevent its members from testifying, Thompson said.

But he still found some willing Discovery fellows to testify that intelligent design is not a religious movement: Michael Behe from Lehigh University and Scott Minnich from the University of Idaho.

West said Discovery fellow Charles Thaxton is also slated to testify.

[AndrewC]

But "Yes" is the one that is true here.

Nope.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Nope.

Defend this claim if you can.

[AndrewC]

"A v ~A" is a tautology and it is logically true

"A v ~B" is not a tautology and is logically true when either A is true or B is false.

Logical truth is not the same thing as tautology.

BTW "A * ~A" is a contradiction.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Replace your schemata with actual formulas and then we'll talk about what's a tautology and what's not.

[AndrewC]

Replace your schemata with actual formulas and then we'll talk about what's a tautology and what's not.

I ate supper at home or I did not eat supper at home.

I ate supper at home or I did not eat supper at MacDonald's

[AndrewC]

I am going to bed or I am not going to bed.

.

.

I am going to bed.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I ate supper at home or I did not eat supper at home.

Tautology. (Certainly not hard to verify algorithmically.)

I ate supper at home or I did not eat supper at MacDonald's

Give these propositions truth values and then either the disjunction or its negation becomes formally verifiable.

[AndrewC]

Give these propositions truth values and then either the disjunction or its negation becomes formally verifiable

IOW it is not a tautology. (And it is logically true) --- Now off to bed.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I'm perfectly comfortable using "tautology" in the sense of "formally verifiable". Why aren't you?

[AndrewC]

I'm perfectly comfortable using "tautology" in the sense of "formally verifiable". Why aren't you?

Because tautology does not mean that. Godel did not waste his time proving tautologies.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Who said I was only talking about tautologies in the object language? Any deduction can be converted to a tautology in a metalanguage.

For that matter, even if I were the first person on earth to use the word in such a general sense, it wouldn't matter a bit. What we call things is entirely beside the point. The only notion I am using here is that of formal verifiability - whatever you choose to call it.

As far as Gödel is concerned, why do we need to call undecidable statements "true"? Remember, we're not speaking formally when we talk about "truth" in this context, so the fact that they're "formally" true is irrelevant. In the type of discourse we are using here undecidable propositions are simply "undecidable".

[AndrewC]

Any deduction can be converted to a tautology in a metalanguage.

Wow! or ~wow!

And who said anything about "undecidable" prior to your mention of it?

[Vive ut Vivas]

And who said anything about "undecidable" prior to your mention of it?

Who knows, and who cares? If you continue, you'll be reduced to arguing that my use of terms is nonstandard (i.e. not the same as someone else's). But then I win by default, because terminology is absolutely irrelevant. Suppose, after all, that my terminology is better than anyone else's. Care to argue the point? Or are you just interested in trying to prove the dubious proposition that you "know more" (in the sense, I suppose, of having read more books) about the subtleties of logic?

Even if you are the greatest logician alive, you have not refuted my statement that verifying logical truths requires the scientific method. Or the larger point that the scientific method is the only reliable method for arriving at truth claims.

Try sleeping on it.

[AndrewC]

Even if you are the greatest logician alive, you have not refuted my statement that verifying logical truths requires the scientific method.

You have it all wrong guy. Assertions remain assertions until proven. You asserted that the scientific method was the only "something". That is laugable. Logic comes before science despite your obfuscation and blathering. You repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance of logic. Your last such demonstration---

As far as Gödel is concerned, why do we need to call undecidable statements "true"?

Undecidable statements are neither true nor false. They are undecidable.

[Vive ut Vivas]

You have it all wrong guy.

You have the wrong sex.

Assertions remain assertions until proven.

Nothing I said contradicts this - unless you restrict the meaning of "proven" to "translated into a formal language and then algorithmically checked by a computer".

You asserted that the scientific method was the only "something". That is laugable.

So laughable that you haven't been able to refute it?

Logic comes before science despite your obfuscation and blathering.

Blathering?! Surely you jest. The fact is that I have given you a run for your money, and you know it. I'm willing to defend my claim that, for the purposes of this discussion, there's no essential difference between tautologies and so-called "other" types of logical "truths" (and that's of course what I mean when I elliptically say that logical truths "are" tautologies). But I don't think you're up to that discussion, because I don't think you would be willing to think beyond whatever logic book you've read. Apparently, it's good enough for you that you've read that book, and you think that if you can somehow show that I haven't (good luck), then you have scored some sort of point.

Undecidable statements are neither true nor false. They are undecidable.

Um, that's exactly what I said. My point here is that "logical provability" has nothing to do with "truth". I am claiming that "truth" should be regarded as an empirical property. By contrast, you seem to think that only logically provable formal statements are "true". But that's silly, and it's silly because of the work of your friend Mr. Gödel, among other things. In your world, if one discovers an undecidable proposition (one that cannot be proved or disproved from the axioms), all inquiry about the "truth" of the proposition would cease to be meaningful. So, then, what form do you think discourse about the Continuum Hypothesis ought to take? Or should there be any discourse about it?

[AndrewC]

So laughable that you haven't been able to refute it?

I refuted it. You just don't recognize it. Logic comes before science.

And "run for your money" is another hilarious statement. Since you continually tromp on yourself. Such as "Um, that's exactly what I said."

This is exactly what you said

As far as Gödel is concerned, why do we need to call undecidable statements "true"?

We call undecidable statements, undecidable.

In any case, your further attempt at obfuscation is ignored. We have Euclidean geometry and we have Riemann geometry. They are both studied.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I refuted it. You just don't recognize it. Logic comes before science.

Is that supposed to be a refutation? I have no idea what "comes before" means in this context, but it sounds to me like you're just denying my claim. If you don't see what's wrong with that, let me quote you: Assertions remain assertions until proven.

This is exactly what you said: "As far as Gödel is concerned, why do we need to call undecidable statements 'true'?"

Notice that question-word "why". It doesn't sound to me like I want to call undecidable statements anything other than undecidable. But if you need confirmation, I also said this: In the type of discourse we are using here undecidable propositions are simply "undecidable". That kind of sounds like: We call undecidable statements, undecidable, doesn't it?

In any case, your further attempt at obfuscation is ignored.

Or, rather, my substantive point is ignored. Perfectly consistent with the way things have been proceeding.

We have Euclidean geometry and we have Riemann geometry. They are both studied.

We also have Lobachevskian geometry, among many others. Your point is....?

[AndrewC]

Is that supposed to be a refutation?

No that was a statement. It is simple enough to refute you by stating... 'If you can assert, I can assert'.

It doesn't sound to me like I want to call undecidable statements anything other than undecidable

It may not sound like a elephant's bellow either, but we don't call undecidable statements any thing but undecidable. Your statement was meaningless.

Your imagined "substantive" point is obfuscation. If you can't see the connection between ....

In your world, if one discovers an undecidable proposition (one that cannot be proved or disproved from the axioms), all inquiry about the "truth" of the proposition would cease to be meaningful.

and

We have Euclidean geometry and we have Riemann geometry. They are both studied.

that is your problem(and your CH red herring is pointless).

[Vive ut Vivas]

No that was a statement. It is simple enough to refute you by stating... 'If you can assert, I can assert'.

But I didn't just assert, I provided substantiation. I said that verifying logical truth requires the use of the senses, or, more generally, "awareness" of data (evidence). I dare you to refute this.

It may not sound like a elephant's bellow either, but we don't call undecidable statements any thing but undecidable. Your statement was meaningless.

Let me get this straight. You think the statement "We ought not to call undecidable statements true, we ought to call them undecidable" lacks meaning?

Your imagined "substantive" point is obfuscation. If you can't see the connection between ....that is your problem(and your CH red herring is pointless).

Nonsense. It's perfectly reasonable to inquire about the "truth" of either the parallel postulate or the Continuum Hypothesis, provided we're clear about what we mean. When we want to know whether a certain "mathematical" proposition is "true", we attempt to derive it (or its denial) as a theorem in our formalism (according to the rules of correspondence we have set up between our concepts and the formalism). Occasionally, we can't do this (i.e. we can prove it is impossible), so we reinvestigate our formalism (and the rules of correspondence). This sometimes leads to reinvestigating and clarifying our concepts themselves. And sometimes, we find that different (and even "contradictory") formalisms are useful for different types of concepts. Welcome to mathematics.

[AndrewC]

I said that verifying logical truth requires the use of the senses, or, more generally, "awareness" of data (evidence). I dare you to refute this.

Whose senses and which ones?