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

From: Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 15:20:35 EDT

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

    >
    > >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.

    The ambiguity can also be traced to claims as you made above. In order to
    accurately debate science, one cannot eliminate the logic of argument and
    of evidence. A continuing error, which confounds the evolution/creation
    debate, and to which you succumb above, is to think that data must PROVE an
    hypothesis. If it doesn't, then you argue that the other side has not
    PROVEN its case. Of course the other side is guilty of overstating its
    case. A lot of talking past one another would be avoided if all sides
    exercised proper understanding of hypotheses, data, proof and evidence.

    > >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.

    But let's don't make the same mistakes that Behe makes. The proper way to
    view his claim is that IC is not inconsistent with ID. That is ID could be
    falsified without IC. That is not trivial for Behe's position.

    cheers

    Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
    Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
    University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
    600 Highland Ave, K4/432
    Madison, WI 53792

    Office: (608) 263-9137
    FAX: (608) 263-4226

    ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
    http://www.humonc.wisc.edu/clark/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 15:19:59 EDT