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.
The first sentence is false (What is a miracle then?) The last sentence is false. A scientific standpoint only concerns that for which there is evidence.
Meanings, schmeanings. Science is about evidence, not meanings. "Science" doesn't "understand" anything. Reification.
Science takes what it does not understand and applies what we call "natural" meanings.
For science to consider that there are "supernatural" causes requires proof that the "supernatural" exists prior to the cause, the one thing that cannot be proven.
The application of a meaning, or degree of human understanding, has no effect upon the reality of the thing.
Yes, and science is the process of discovering that "reality."
One may proudly take the stand that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Few scientists go that far.
Of course, to do so would require Proving the Negative.
Science is entitled to explore everything that may be real.
Aye, and therein lies the rub. The "supernatural" - by definition - leaves no evidence of its "existence" in the natural world, i.e., "the real." If it did it wouldn't be SUPERnatural and would simply be natural. This is called a conundrum.
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.
Begs the Question that there is a "design." This is a limitation of language, not fact. To say that a foot is "designed" to assist an animal in walking is inaccurate. To say that a foot "evolved" to assist an animal is more accurate.
An analogy is the "ether" which was once thought to be the medium through which energy traveled. It is a false concept which has no validity. Same for saying that evolved structures are "designed." It is anthropomorphism. There is no evidence of a designer, pure and simple. There is no evidence that anything is "designed."
On the contrary, name any phenomenon that cannot be explained by "natural" causes.
LOL! Read your own posts to me, then get back to me with your apology.
As for the "content" of your post ... well, it would be a stretch to call it that. For example, back to the very root of our disagreement:
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.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Oh, goodness ... the old "I don't have to prove it but you have to accept it or you're too stupid to understand" ploy. That, truly, takes the cake! You know, it's becoming abundantly clear that you can't prove your assertion, and you're just too prideful to admit it. I never claimed that you "invented" it, but you're claiming special knowledge about the statement.
You said: "you can't prove a negative."
Please prove the statement.
Virgin Birth
Did a Virgin Birth really happen?
If you are either too stupid or too ignorant of logic to understand why this is true then you have violated the three fallacy rule in a single sentence.
For the final time - you cannot prove true that which does not exist and for which there is no evidence.
You can't Prove a Negative.
Can't prove it did.
So your understanding of science is that it may only deal with the proven and provable? Science has yet to prove the cause of gravity.
Sigh. Must you resort to this crap yet again?
For the final time - you cannot prove true that which does not exist
No problem here. This can be demonstrated, by (for example) showing that the assumption of truth leads to a contradiction. Logic says that by demonstrating a contradiction, it's possible to prove certain statements false. (And thereby, incidentally, proving a negative: X does not exist.)
and for which there is no evidence.
This, however, has no place in the discussion. A lack of evidence is not the same thing as "non-existence." Non-existence implies lack of evidence, of course, but the converse is not true. (I'm sure you remember this from your logic classes.)
You can't Prove a Negative.
Symbolically, then, in the form you've provided above, you're saying that "Proofs of Negatives" do not exist. However, "you can't prove a negative" has the unfortunate property that it is a negative.
If you can prove then statement, then it is a false statement -- a classic dilemma.
And of course, if you cannot prove this statement, then it is without meaning: a self-negating statement.
So please curb your unpleasant tendency to toss insults instead of logic, and PROVE YOUR STATEMENT.
Proving the cause of gravity, and that it exists are two different things. Your conflation skills are sloppy.
An in stating that gravity "exists" has science thereby proven gravity to be anything less than supernatural?
You are Conflating proving "statements" false with proving there is no physical evidence for that which does not exist.
BTTT
BTTT
Hi, just curious why you pinged me twice on your BTTT on the ID/Evolution thread. Anything in particular that requires my attention? :-)
The double ping was a mistake. The BTTT was b/c I liked the way you stated the situation as it exists. FReegards
I am merely asking you to prove your statement. You've been blustering for a few weeks now.
Prove that I haven't.
Cop-out. Not unexpected.
ID is an excellent scientific theory. It is, in fact, the only true theory that will soon replace the pseudo theory of evolution.
Evolution is all speculation with zero speciation.
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.