Reflectorites
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:26:19 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>>RW>I've certainly never said that the ID hypothesis has been falsified. What I
>>>have said is that the alleged scientific arguments for ID (Dembski's and
>>>Behe's) have been shown to be invalid.
>SJ>Well, since the Dembski and Behe's (together with Thaxton, et al's)
>>arguments at this stage comprise much of the scientific content of "the ID
>>hypothesis", to claim that their "scientific arguments" are: 1) "alleged" (i.e.
>>not even scientific) and 2) that they " have been shown to be invalid", is
>>tantamount to claiming that "the ID hypothesis has been falsified".
RW>Stephen, you've just made exactly the same logical error again. Let me try
>to explain it in more detail.
No I haven't. If Richard would spend more time actually trying to deal
with people's arguments instead of trying to rule them out as logically
invalid, he might actually *learn* something!
RW>First ,some definitions:
>A "hypothesis" is an assertion, i.e. a statement of alleged fact.
This is Richard's own definition. Here is what the online Webster's says a
hypothesis is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis
... hypothesis ... 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of
argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as
the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or
empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by
inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.
HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a
tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the
dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater
likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of
order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the
same conditions <the law of gravitation>. ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID would probably be happy at this stage with either: "2 : a tentative
assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical
consequences" or even "3... insufficient evidence to provide more than a
tentative explanation".
RW>"Falsifying a hypothesis" means proving that the assertion is untrue.
See above re "assertion". If we are going to be pedantic, I disagree with the
words "proving" and "untrue" in science. Later on in this same post, Richard
himslelf says "science cannot *prove* a hypothesis to be true, in the sense of
absolute proof."
RW>The hypothesis with which we're concerned here, the "ID hypothesis", is the
>assertion that "an intelligent designer was involved in the origin of life"
>(or something like that).
Maybe Richard should take a bit more time to find out first what exactly it
is he is claiming to refute. As I have stated a number of times recently, the
"ID hypothesis" is not about "an intelligent designer" but about intelligent
*design*.
In the case of "the origin of life" the "ID hypothesis" would be that
unintelligent causes (i.e. chance or law, or any combination of the two)
were insufficient to account for the origin of life, and therefore life must be
also the product of an intelligent cause or causes.
RW>So, falsifying the ID hypothesis means proving
>that no intelligent designer was involved in the origin of life.
No. "Falsifying the ID hypothesis means" showing that unintelligent natural
causes can plausibly produce life from non-living chemicals.
IOW experimental proof of the materialistic-naturalistic hypothesis that the
origin of life was solely by unintelligent causes, would falsify the "ID
hypothesis" in the area of the origin of life.
RW>I claim that the arguments made in support of the ID hypothesis are not
>valid.
Since Richard doesn't even state the "ID hypothesis" correctly, his claim
that "arguments made in support of the ID hypothesis are not valid" itself is
not valid!
RW>In other words, I claim that the ID hypothesis has not be shown to be
>true.
See above.
RW>On the other hand, I do not claim that it has been proven to be false.
In the case of the origin of life, Richard could not "claim that it" the ID
hypothesis "has been proven to be false" until he has proved that a the
materialistic-naturalistic hypothesis is true.
RW>There remains the possibility that genuine evidence of ID will be found in
>the future.
There already is "genuine *evidence* of ID" but Richard and his kind just
rule it out on philosophical grounds. But as I have said before, ID does not
have to convince committed atheists like Richard. Barring a miracle, that is
probably impossible. All it needs to do is convince a large proportion of the
80% of the public and the 40% of scientists who already do believe in some
form of design.
RW>In short, demonstrating that something has not been shown true is not the
>same as proving it false.
What Richard said was that "the alleged scientific arguments for ID
(Dembski's and Behe's) have been shown to be invalid." If they have been
shown to be invalid, then they have been falsified.
RW>Note: I've been careful above to distinguish between "show" and "prove". As
>has been frequently stated, science cannot *prove* a hypothesis to be true,
>in the sense of absolute proof; it can only show the hypothesis to be true
>to a certain level of confidence, which is what we mean by scientific
truth.
Whether Richard uses "show" or "proved" makes no difference to his claim
that "Dembski's and Behe's" "scientific arguments for ID" have been
falsified.
RW>On the other hand, a hypothesis can (in theory) be absolutely proven false,
>i.e. falsified. For example, if my hypothesis is that all cats are black,
>then it only takes one non-black cat to absolutely falsify my hypothesis.
>So, in the case of falsification, we are talking about *absolute* proof of
>falsity.
And so it is with the "ID hypothesis" regarding the origin of life. Just *one*
plausible experimental demonstration of how non-living chemicals can give
rise to life, without the guidance and/or intervention of intelligent agents,
and the "ID hypothesis" regarding the origin of life would have been
falsified.
RW>In practice, falsification is not as straightforward as this (cf the
>Duhem/Quine thesis), but I won't get into that here.
[...]
In the case of the "ID hypothesis" regarding the origin of life, it is very
"straightforward". The "ID hypothesis" is falsifiable if even *one*
materialistic-naturalistic explanation of the origin of life can be
demonstrated.
But OTOH Richard's materialistic-naturalistic hypothesis is not falsifiable.
That is because Richard can always claim, despite 40+ years of
experimental failure, that the cause was fully materialistic-naturalistic but it
is now permanently unknown. Or Richard could claim that the cause was
fully materialistic-naturalistic and it will be discovered in the future!
Even if ID succeeded in building life from non-living chemicals, using
human intelligent design, guidance and/or intervention, materialists would
still claim that a naturalistic explanation is just around the corner and that
therefore the ID simulation was invalid.
So, in the case of the origin of life, ID is falsifiable, but materialism-
naturalism is not. To test this, I have stated how ID would be falsified in
the area of origin of life. But can Richard state how his materialist-
naturalist position could ever be falsified?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely
on general considerations. (1) on its being a vera causa, from the struggle
for existence, and the certain geological fact that species do somehow
change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's
selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible
point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove
that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species
has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial,
which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some
species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me
hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former
case of supposed change." (Darwin C., letter to G. Bentham, May 22,
1863, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", D.
Appleton and Co: New York NY, 1898, Vol II, p. 210).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 19:08:00 EDT