From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>At 09:02 PM 07/24/2000 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>>From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>>
>> >
>> >> >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.
>>
>>I made no such argument. You seem to have missed my point. I did not
mention
>>"proof" at all. I was talking about which is the better explanation. Do
you
>>not agree that the parents hypothesis is a better explanation for presents
>>under the tree than the Santa Claus hypothesis?
>
>Ok, replace "better argument" where I said "proof" above and my point is
>the same. The identification of a "better argument" is easier to do in
>different situations.
I assume that "better argument" here is a typo, and you really mean "better
explanation". In which case I agree with you. But I never said otherwise.
You seem to think I'm claiming to have a totally objective method of
determining which of two explanations is the better. I'm not. I believe
there is a subjective element in science. Nevertheless, there are criteria
(such as parsimony) on which to base the judgement, which is why it is
generally (not always) possible for scientists (or rational thinkers) to
reach a consensus on which explanation is the best.
I think you've now departed from the original subject, which was basically a
semantic one concerning the meaning of the phrase "X is evidence for Y", and
have moved on to a more substantive issue concerning the scientific method.
I don't think you addressed my arguments on the former subject, but let's
proceed with the latter one.
>In the Santa and gremlin examples, it is easy to
>understand that neither is a real explanation of the observations.
Perhaps. But I'd like to know what it is that leads you to that conclusion.
The reason I introduced the Santa analogy was to to take an uncontroversial
example and analyse what it is about the hypothesis that enables us to
reject it. That should throw some light on the reasoning that we use in
accepting or rejecting hypotheses in general.
>Now,
>when you get to ID, what you accept as more or less realistic depends on
>your world view.
You seem to be attempting to establish a substantive difference between the
cases of Santa and ID. If so, you've so far failed to do so. I might (in
theory) hold a world view that is conducive to belief in Santa.
I would agree that the ID hypothesis is more likely to be accepted within a
non-scientific world view than within a scientific one. But I suspect that
is not what you mean.
I suspect you mean that the conclusions we reach about the world will depend
on the conclusions that we've reached previously. Well, I would agree. We
don't throw out all our beliefs and start with a clean slate every time we
look at another theory. But scientists should be willing to re-evaluate
their previous conclusions in the light of new information and arguments. Of
course, they're only human, and they don't always do so. But what's the
point you're trying to make here? That science is imperfect? OK, I accept
that. Scientists (and rational thinkers) can only do their best.
>When you say that ID is better explained by naturalistic causes than by ID,
>you are arguing against ID by invoking a plausibility argument. You say ID
>is not plausible because of your world view. By the same token, the IDrs
>say that evolution is not plausible because it is unlikely to occur by
>naturalistic causes. Both cases rely on imagination or lack thereof to
>support their respective contentions. In other words, you would say that
>you cannot imagine an intelligent designer making life and others would say
>that they cannot imagine naturalistic mechanisms making life.
I agree that plausibility and imagination are factors in scientific
judgements. But I don't accept that judgements of plausibility are as
arbitrary as you seem to be implying. Would you apply the same criticism to
the general rejection of Santa Claus? Or do you think there is a valid
scientific argument for rejecting Santa?
I would say that plausability is a relative notion; it is determined by
comparison to the available alternatives. A divine creator was far more
plausible before the the advent of the theory of evolution than it is now.
An ex nihilo big bang seems implausible to me, but it's far more plausible
than an an ex nihilo intelligent designer because it's a much simpler
phenomenon (and therefore a more parsimonious explanation).
We have a great deal of evidence which is neatly explained by the theory of
evolution by natural selection. Behe even accepts common descent. It is
clearly more parsimonious to interpolate between any unexplained holes in
the theory than to introduce an unknown and unexplained intelligent
designer. All the more so since evolutionists *do* have in-principle
explanations for the evolution of IC systems.
Therefore, I don't accept your implied symmetry between my position and that
of Behe's supporters.
>The argument from lack of imagination is pervasive in this debate and is
>quite uninformative it its ability to tell us which hypothesis better
>explains the data.
Of course we are restricted by our limited imaginations. We just have to do
the best we can within our restrictions.
If you have a better set of criteria for making scientific judgements, I
would love to hear them. Or do you think that there are no such criteria and
that science is entirely arbitrary?
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 19:09:27 EDT