Re: Van Till's chapter

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Sat Jul 29 2000 - 04:14:45 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Van Till's chapter"

    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