In a message dated 7/21/00 1:24:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
> You raise the same issue that David Hume raised about historical
> research. The truth it reveals is conditional. But we don't throw
history
> out because of this. Pointing out a limitation does not invalidate the
> system. All science is based on ignorance of certain things, such as the
> future. It is also limited because any set of data has multiple
> explanations, so deciding on only one means that that truth is
> conditional. So what if IC is conditional on the imprecision of
historical
> knowledge. You set IC to higher epistemological standards than is
expected
> of other intellectual endeavours.
>
> >>
>
>
>Asking for tangible evidence of what is being touted as a 'theory' is
setting
>the bar too high? I beg to differ.
This reply doesn't follow the preceding discussion. Nothing I said above
rules out the role of "tangible evidence" to support theories. The claim
was that Behe did not suggest a method for empirically detecting ID. I
replied that he did suggest such a method. That is all.
+++ It certainly follows considering what I wrote to which you replied.
"But since IC is little more than an assumption based on the ignorance of the
history of the system in question, that is no evidence at all. One should
wonder why nothing tangible is in evidence...."
I was addressing evidence, not a supposed methood to detect such evidence.
Regardless, Behe should have actually presented some evidence supportive of
his 'theory', rather than just claim that there are ways to detect it.
"hey, I discovered the cure for cancer."
" Great! Let's see your stuff!"
"Well, actually I only know of a way to make the stuff that might cure cancer
if we ever make it.... But that means that the cure exists!"
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 17:35:38 EDT