Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of...

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 14:54:06 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of..."

    From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>

    >At 03:05 AM 07/24/2000 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
    >>From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
    >>
    >>[snip]
    >>
    >> >Behe says that the evidence for ID is irreducible complexity. Whether
    or
    >> >not you agree with it (I do not) it is evidence nonetheless. You need
    to
    >> >debate him on other grounds.
    >>
    >>To say that IC is evidence for ID is like saying that finding presents at
    >>the foot of a Christmas tree is evidence for Santa Claus.
    >
    >If your hypothesis is that Santa brings presents on Christmas eve, then the
    >presents are indeed evidence to support that theory.

    It rather depends on whether you are considering the hypothesis in
    isolation, or in relation to one or more alternatives. If the Santa Claus
    hypothesis is our only one, then the statement above is correct. If, on the
    other hand, we have two alternative hypotheses (Santa Claus or parents),
    then to say that the presents are evidence for Santa Claus (without
    mentioning the parents hypothesis) is highly misleading.

    In the same way, "IC is evidence for ID" would be interpreted by many as
    meaning that ID is the better explanation for IC out of those available (ID
    and naturalistic evolution). You may say that that is simply a
    misinterpretation of the statement. I'm not so sure. In any case, natural
    language is an imprecise medium, and to use a phrase in a way which is so
    liable to misinterpretation is unwise, to say the least.

    >>(For the sake of
    >>argument, I'm setting aside the question of whether IC has actually been
    >>adequately defined.)
    >
    >That is a different issue, but perhaps a better one to challenge Behe with
    >than the simplistic claim that he hasn't provided evidence for ID.
    >
    >
    >>That is, it is an observation which could be explained
    >>by the hypothesis, but science (or rational thinking) should reject this
    >>explanation because there is a more parsimonious explanation which is
    >>consistent with the data.
    >
    >Alternative explanations always accompany a given set of data. Martians
    >also could have deposited the presents. This explanation fully explains
    >the observation.

    Quite. There is an unlimited number of possible hypotheses consistent with
    an observation, many of them quite ludicrous. To say of each of them that
    the observation is evidence for that hypothesis undermines the usefulness of
    the phrase.

    Now, if everybody accepted that "X is evidence for Y" was synonymous with "X
    is consistent with Y", that might not matter. But I think most people would
    take "X is evidence for Y" to mean something like "Y is the best explanation
    of X".

    In view of this ambiguity, I would suggest that the phrase be avoided,
    especially on such a contentious matter as the claims of ID proponents.

    >When trying to decided between alternative explanations,
    >parsimony is but one way, and it is highly overused and its limitations not
    >fully appreciated. I know that parsimony is touted as a "law" of science
    >but it's role in science also has been severely challenged. So, beware of
    >this argument.

    I'm aware that I was simplifying the issue, because it was not the main
    point of my argument. The point was that few (if any) adults would claim
    that "Santa Claus did it" is the best explanation for the observation of
    presents.

    >Now, it seems to me that the best interpretation for the presents under the
    >tree is to say that this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that
    >Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve.

    That would indeed be a much better way of stating it.

    >Likewise, Behe's argument would
    >be best stated as the observation of IC is consistent with ID.

    But that is not Behe's argument at all. Of course IC is consistent with ID.
    That is a trivial fact. Behe's argument is that IC is *inconsistent* with
    the alternative hypothesis, naturalistic evolution. When Behe says that IC
    is evidence for ID (I'm not sure if he actually uses that phrase), he *is*
    claiming that it's the best available explanation.

    >No matter
    >how you view ID, this statement is accurate and provide evidence in support
    >of the ID hypothesis.

    For the reasons given above, I find this statement to be misleading.

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
    it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 14:53:44 EDT