>SD1 Can you point to any examples of major scientific discoveries that were
accomplished by the "Proof by Elimination" method you propose?
The moon example I gave would qualify as a scientific "Proof by Elimination",
but that is not a major scientific discoveries. Science is full of examples
of the process of elimination as you point out below where false hypothesis
are determined, but examples of proof by elimination are much less. The only
examples that I am aware of are for discrete variable like the moon example,
not for continuous variables. Major scientific discoveries to me means
discoveries involving the fundamental of physics which involves continuous
variables, so there may be no examples of "Proof by Elimination" for major
scientific discoveries but certainly a lot of examples of the process of
elimination.
>SD1 Certainly eliminating hypotheses that disagree with the evidence is a
significant *part* of science. But at least as big a part (and I am leaving
out other parts) is deducing consequences of theories (preferably ones not
resulting from other theories you know about) and testing to see if those
hypothesized consequences are there. For example, evolutionary theory
predicts the existence of transitional fossils (though how many depends on
the version of the theory) and that DNA in related creatures will be similar.
That is one of the problems with "Intelligent Design" as science -- no such
predictions that I have seen.
I agree that an important part is determining observations expected by the
theory that could potentially prove the theory false is important. If my
article correctly defines intelligent design then the one fundamental
prediction of intelligent design based upon my article Figure 4 logic is that
evidence for intelligent design would be observations that could not be
explained by any possible natural deterministic or indeterministic principal.
In other words, there would be no plausible natural deterministic or
indeterministic hypothesis. If my article correctly defines supernatural
intervention then the one fundamental prediction for supernatural
intervention based upon my article Figure 4 logic is that evidence for
supernatural intervention would be observations that could not be explained
by any possible natural deterministic, indeterministic principal or natural
intelligence. In other words, there would be no plausible natural hypothesis.
The strongest case from a sacred book for evidence for supernatural
intervention that I am aware of is documented in
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/critic7.htm.
Truth claims about reality can involve problems that involve a finite number
of hypothesis. For example, if the claim concerns a characteristic that does
not require specifying all the details. For a specific example, the common
ancestor issue could be limited to just the questions of whether certain
species either share a common ancestor or they do not. In this case, there
are just two possible hypothesis, the species either shared a common ancestor
or they do not. This question could be evaluated and possibly determine one
of the two hypothesis false implying the other true without completely
determining the correct evolution or creation scenario. There are a very
large number of different possible evolution or creation scenarios.
To develop more specific predictions for super natural claims, assumptions
about the super natural intelligence have to be made. If the assumptions do
not have the super natural intelligence doing anything that violates natural
principals then no testable predictions will be made. I think an appropriate
assumption for the super natural intelligent creator is the super natural
intelligent creator would not go through extra unnecessary effort to create a
physical item in a way that makes it appear as if it was not created.
Any solution that has God doing extra unnecessary super natural intervention
(not mentioned in the sacred religious book) to make it appear that God did
not super naturally intervene in a way that is claimed in the sacred
religious book, I consider unsatisfactory because such an ad-hoc solution has
God appearing to deceive which is not consistent with the truthful nature
that God is often assumed to have. For example, claiming that God began the
universe thousands of years ago and extended the light out from distant stars
to make it just appear to have traveled for billions of year rather than
thousands would have God doing extra unnecessary super natural intervention
(not explicitly mentioned in Genesis) to just make the universe appear
billions of years old. The leading Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer
agrees with this too. In "No final conflict" he rejects the idea, "that God
created the fossils in the earth in order to fool fools. This is totally out
of character with the God of the Bible." The creation of the fossils has God
doing extra unnecessary super natural intervention (not mentioned in Genesis)
to make it appear that God did not super naturally intervene as described by
a certain interpretation of Genesis.
God making the high level of matching in the redundant sequences as described
in http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/descent.htm is clearly ad-hoc
because it has the intelligent designer going through additional unnecessary
effort of creating life in such a way to make it look like the DNA sequences
for the cytochrome C molecule for humans and mice were both derived from some
common sequence implying a common ancestor rather than being independent. I
think the aforementioned URL implies mice and humans share a common ancestor.
If a creation science approach is truly scientific it must be able to
potentially be shown wrong or falsifiable. This application of the ad-hoc
criterion to fundamental creation is the most objective one that puts limits
on what fundamental creation predictions are considered acceptable. If this
constraint does not apply to a fundamental creation theory then the approach
is free to be unfalsifiable; thus, would not pass the falsifiable
requirement; therefore, should not be considered scientific.
>SD1 There are probably a few things where your " Proof of elimination" view
of science works. These would be simple things with a small number of
variables where one could construct the set of all possible theories. But
let's get real. In the realm of science, you are talking about biology, the
development of life, the physical parameters of the universe, and other areas
that are quite complex and where many things are not fully understood. To
claim that all possible theories are considered in these areas so as to prove
something by process of elimination is preposterous.
I appreciate your advice to get real. To me this means get practical. Full
proof by elimination is very stringent. I think science has in many cases
gotten close enough to discovering the true theory that justifies claims that
observations should at least fall within a certain range. For example,
Newton's law are not perfectly correct but for practical use on the
macroscopic level there is much one can conclude. In my moon example one can
rule out there are other large moons because based on Newtonian gravity their
effects would be observed, but they are not. We do not need to the relativity
refinement of gravity to determine this.
It is still good to know the full logic requirement this way one can know the
presumptions that are being made which helps to better critic and know the
limits of knowledge. Presumptions should always be check if they are false or
they have a bias towards a personally preferred conclusions. This helps to
guide further research so it can be optimized in a way that provides the best
potential to get closer to the correct theory or perhaps even finally
determine the correct theory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 08 2000 - 09:13:26 EST