http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000412.html contains an introduction of
the article I wrote explaining a methodology for identifying supernatural
intervention. I do not think anybody exposed a flaw in the logic involved
with the proof by elimination (PE) logic the article attempts to use. The
major legitimate criticism is the point that it is very difficult to identify
all possible natural hypothesis nonetheless rule them all out to logically
imply supernatural intervention. I included some new sections that respond to
this point. The main response is listed below. It does refer to the article
so it will need to be read to understand the complete argument.
Section 2.7 from http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm
Much of the criticism about supernatural claims is warranted. However, this
article has explained how supernatural claims can be substantiated in a valid
way. This section attempts to respond to criticism of the valid approach not
the invalid approaches.
Determining all possible natural hypothesis nonetheless ruling them all out
is a big challenge and it is questionable if it has ever been accomplished.
However, before assuming it has never been accomplished, first one should
consider that there are certain types of phenomenon which have a finite limit
of possible explanations. Section 2.5 explains that discrete phenomenon can
have a finite number of explanation and even for when there is an infinite
amount it is still possible for a finite effort to deal with them. Also,
section 2.5 explains that a finite number of categories of hypothesis may be
identified which could allow for a general conclusion to be made without
determining the specific correct hypothesis.
Another complaint made about the approach of those making supernatural claims
is that their approach does not make any predictions; thus; is not
falsifiable or testable. The most fundamental use of the PE approach does
make any assumption aside from the presupposition that there is a correct
theory for explaining the reality being investigated and that reality follows
the law of no contradiction. If these presuppositions, proven natural
principals and a set of observation imply through the correct application of
appropriate rational criterion that the supernatural intervened, then the
supernatural has been substantiated without any specific predictions. Thus,
specific predictions about the supernatural may not be necessary to infer
supernatural intervention. The approach proposed in this article is
falsifiable. According to the approach proposed in this article by just
showing there is just one plausible possible natural hypothesis a specific
claim that there is proof for supernatural intervention is falsified. Also,
as mentioned in Section 2.6, assumptions about the supernatural can be made
from which specific falsifiable predictions could be developed.
The approach proposed in the article is not erroneous, but correct because it
is based upon PE in the same straight forward way that science attempts to
use PE. Thus, if PE does not have the potential to imply supernatural
intervention as proposed in this article, then PE does not apply in general
which would means there is no logical basis for determining something true
scientifically.
Some critics claim since supernatural intervention is not humanly repeatable,
it cannot be evaluated scientifically. Ability to repeat is very helpful
because it allows for more testing of the theory, however, just because some
phenomenon cannot be repeated does not mean it is impossible to
scientifically verify a theory about the phenomenon. Scientific analysis is
often applied to unrepeatable historical events such as in astronomy,
archaeology, forensic science, etc... For example, the big bang occurred once
within the life of our universe; however, there is plenty of scientific
reasoning that indicates it is true by evaluating it's after effects. The
after effects of the supernatural could also be evaluated and if there is
definitely no natural plausible explanation, then PE implies the supernatural
intervened.
There is a legitimate debate concerning probability calculations. However,
the probability approach proposed in this article is conservative to ensure
the calculated probabilities are not under estimated. Scientific evaluations
most always involves probability calculations or estimates. Scientific
theories are supposed to be falsifiable; thus, if an analytical tool
involving probability is scientific, then it should have the potential to
show a low probability for natural hypothesis implying the hypothesis is
implausible. If all natural hypothesis are implausible, then PE implies the
supernatural has intervened. Thus, those that claim that PE has no potential
to substantiate claims about intelligent design or the supernatural, imply
the scientific probability tools do not really have the potential to imply
all natural hypothesis false. Thus, they are just making an artificial
invincible defense to protect their naturalistic presuppositionalism just
like many theist build artificial invincible defenses to protect their
theistic presuppositionalism. See Section 5.4 of Ref. 1 for a description of
presuppositionalism and their associated artificial invincible defenses.
Just as natural scientist should be given every opportunity to find a natural
explanation, so should those who are interested in finding a rationale for a
meaningful explanation for humans, be given every opportunity to find the
intervention of the supernatural. However, the search for the supernatural
should still follow an appropriate rationale.
Later I plan on presenting two specific examples, but first I wanted to limit
the discussion to just the evaluation of the rules and logical basis for
scientifically evaluating the evidence, then once there is agreement on the
logical basis for scientifically evaluating the evidence then there is a good
basis for discussing actual evidence. The Florida recount shows good reasons
to first agree upon the rules before going into evaluating the evidence.
People tend to be more objective and unbiased when the are discussing the
rules without knowing what the evidence is because they are not aware of what
the resulting conclusion would be from the evaluation of the evidence. There
was an immense amount of spin doctoring coming from the public pundits of
both parties during the recount; however, there was never any such comments
prior to the election results in Florida being known.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 13 2001 - 23:11:53 EST