From: Steven P Crawford <stevenpcrawford@juno.com>
[...]
>Yes, I need to explain myself here. What I meant by this was not
>necessarily ID but undecidability supplanting the present paradigm.
>Since I think ID cannot scientifically prove more than undecidability, I
>tend to mix the two together (though I shouldn't). The present
>scientific paradigm does not, at least in general, seem to accept even
>the possibility of undecidable phenomena. Of course, I will be the first
>one to admit I'm wrong since this is merely an impression on my part.
>The future paradigm needs to accept undecidables as a possibility and
>actively seek them out for confirmation. This is where I see ID making a
>genunine scientific contribution.
I think a certain amount of confusion is caused by use of the term "ID"
without qualification. It seems to me that it's important to distinguish
between the ID hypothesis (that an intelligent designer was involved in the
origin of life) and the arguments made by the existing ID movement in
support of the hypothesis.
The ID movement is making two types of argument:
1. A philosophical argument, that the current scientific method is
unsatisfactory and should be replaced by something that Phillip Johnson
calls "theistic science". As far as I'm aware, however, he has never defined
what theistic science means. Thus we must consider these arguments to be
merely attacks on the existing scientific method.
2. Scientific arguments in support of the ID hypothesis. These arguments
suffer from the following problems:
(a) They are arguments *against* the theory of evolution, and are only
arguments in support of ID if we accept that there are no other
possibilities.
(b) Since we as yet have no alternative to the existing scientific method,
we must evaluate these arguments in terms of that method. In these terms,
the arguments fail. That is, they are contrary to the existing scientific
method.
(c) Futhermore, some of the arguments (and I'm thinking particularly of
Dembski's Design Inference) are contrary to logic, so would be invalid even
under some theistic science (unless there is also a theistic logic which
differs from the system of logic currently in use!).
Perhaps there are genuine scientific arguments to be made for the ID
hypothesis, but the existing ID movement has not made them. Far from making
a genuine scientific contribution, they are attempting to undermine the
existing scientific method without stating what they aim to put in its
place.
[...]
>I've given some thought to this too. Science is inherently inductive,
>while math is deductive. Could it be that undecidability is strictly a
>matter of deductive logic, not inductive investigation?
I believe so. In science *nothing* is strictly decidable.
"In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start
to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms." [Stephen J. Gould]
[Apologies to those subscribers who have seen this quote repeated ad
nauseam. ;-) ]
It seems to me that the interesting questions are:
1. Are there any facts about the real world which are undecidable *in
principle*?
2. Is there any effective method other than science (in the broadest sense
of the word) for answering questions about the real world?
I have no opinion on question 1 (perhaps the question is itself
undecidable!). On question 2, I claim that there are no other known methods,
and I doubt whether there are any unknown methods (but that point may also
be undecidable).
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 04:16:08 EDT