Re: ID science (subtopic 4)

From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 21:00:15 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Woodmarappe attacks Morton"

    I had written: "
    >4. If a theory survives long enough, it is referred to as "fact." Of
    >course,
    >this may be just word definitions. I like to equate "fact" with "truth," at
    >least verisimilitudinous truth. Maybe I can do that.

    Howard replied: "In the context of discussions about scientific theory
    evaluation, words like
    "hypothesis," "theory," "law," "fact" and "truth" are used in a bewildering
    variety of ways. Scientists of all sorts could help by being more sensitive
    to this sea of ambiguity and by being more candid about matters of
    uncertainty, tentativeness, levels of confidence, incomplete knowledge, and
    the like."

    I'd go farther than this. It is just this ambiguity that leads to much of
    the polemic arguments that abound. But I hasten to admit that I see that
    ambiguity as inescapable. We have to use words to communicate, and each of
    us uses those words just a tad differently than the next guy. Worse -- word
    definitions change over time, and this is not going to stop.

    I subsequently wrote:
    >So far, as I understand, ID has not come up with anything terribly useful
    >--
    >that is, science today is pretty much where it would have been had ID never
    >been invented. What must the ID folks show to convince the world of science
    >they are to be taken seriously?

    Howard replied: "
    Here's one suggestion: To "convince the world of science that they are to be
    taken seriously" ID science must demonstrate that it produces theories that
    come out substantially better on theory evaluation criteria like: 1.
    Observational relevance; 2. Predictive accuracy; 3. Coherence; 4.
    Explanatory scope; 5. Unifying power; and 6. Fertility; without needing to
    make a strong appeal to aesthetic qualities like Worldview Comportance."

    And again we agree. Not much here to fight about, is there? <G>

    With those four precepts pretty much in hand, I will -- later -- go on to
    picking up some of the arguments in Del Ratzsch's recent book (not at hand
    -- forgot title) which sets forth further considerations which might support
    ID.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 21:00:24 EDT