Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
(Bolding mine.)
Cottshop, you’ve been pwn3d big time by ahayes!
The fundamental problem with Behe's definition of science is that it removes the necessity of falsifiablity from the process. He removes the requirement that a scientific theory present some testable criteria. Under his umbrella, all theories are valid, even if they have been seriously refuted. In other words, a theory is still scientifically valid even if it has be falsified by testing and/or evidence. That is not the science we operate under today.
[[Take it up with Behe, CottShop. He testified in court under oath that astrology is as much science as intelligent design. From the Dover transcripts:]]
I don’t care what he said about astrology- The fact is that ID was on trial here and the FACTS were presented about ID which were completely ignoreed by hte judge- You’ve introduced a false and misleading respresentation of hte trial by insinuating that the trial consited of nothign more strong than a completely irrelevent comment made by Behe that didn’t affect the trials issues one iota-
Oh and Doc- pwned- Cripes- you have VERY low standards I see- thnaks for tippiong your hand and revealing your intellectual dishonesty right off the bat- go play in DC’s palypen- you’ve brought NOTHING worthwhile to htis thread-0
I have a few questions for those who believe the Theory of Evolution. How could the TOE be falsified? What predicitons does the TOE make that are testable? Is SETI a legitimate scientific enterprise? Is it possible to detect the existence of intelligent extra-terrestial life through their radio emission?
Q But the way you are using it [the word "theory"] is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
____________________________________________
For those who are interested in what Michael Behe actually meant.
After the discussion resulting from the previous post on this subject I thought I would ask him....
Q1. At the deposition for the Dover trial when you were asked the question about astrology where you answered "It could be...Yes" were you thinking of "astrology" as it is practiced in terms of the present day...horoscopes etc or were you thinking in terms of astrology related to astronomy in the history of science... or something else?
(deposition statement)
17 Q. Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using
18 your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a
19 scientific theory?
20 Behe. No.
21 Q. What about creation science?
22 Behe. No.
23 Q. Is astrology a theory under that definition?
24 Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.
Michael Behe:
I was not thinking of the modern superstition of astrology, but of the idea of astrology in the middle ages, when people were trying to discern what forces actually were in play in nature. After all, if planetary bodies such as the moon and sun could affect the tides on earth, perhaps they could affect other things as well, such as people's behavior. We now know that to be wrong, but at the time it was a reasonable idea, based on physical evidence. I am told by some historians of science that the educated classes of Europe thought astrology to be quite scientific.
Q2. At the time of your deposition statement did you believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) was included within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"
Michael Behe:
No, not modern astrology, as practiced by card readers with bandanas on their heads and such. I had in mind astrology of centuries ago, when educated people thought it might really have explanatory power.
Q3. Do you currently believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) is included now within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"
Michael Behe:
No, of course not. Best wishes. Mike Behe
This was what I had surmised from reading the transcript of Behe from the trial. It is good to know that I had understood his position correctly.
Complete with non-understanding of the testimony.