At 01:07 PM 07/21/2000 -0400, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 7/18/00 10:24:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
>
><< At 06:22 PM 07/17/2000 -0400, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 7/17/00 11:06:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
> >
> ><< > > but rather it is because he argues that "intelligent design in
>biology
> > >.... is empirically detectable":
> > >
> > >Why, then, doesn't he suggest a method? He only talks in generalities.
> >
> > He does suggest a method. Mike says that ID is detectable by irreducible
> > complexity. >>
> >
> >
> >But since IC is little more than an assumption based on the ignorance
> of the
> >history of the system in question, that is no evidence at all. One should
> >wonder why nothing tangible is in evidence....
>
>
> You raise the same issue that David Hume raised about historical
> research. The truth it reveals is conditional. But we don't throw history
> out because of this. Pointing out a limitation does not invalidate the
> system. All science is based on ignorance of certain things, such as the
> future. It is also limited because any set of data has multiple
> explanations, so deciding on only one means that that truth is
> conditional. So what if IC is conditional on the imprecision of historical
> knowledge. You set IC to higher epistemological standards than is expected
> of other intellectual endeavours.
>
> >>
>
>
>Asking for tangible evidence of what is being touted as a 'theory' is setting
>the bar too high? I beg to differ.
This reply doesn't follow the preceding discussion. Nothing I said above
rules out the role of "tangible evidence" to support theories. The claim
was that Behe did not suggest a method for empirically detecting ID. I
replied that he did suggest such a method. That is all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 13:24:14 EDT