From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>At 03:05 AM 07/24/2000 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>>From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>> >Behe says that the evidence for ID is irreducible complexity. Whether
or
>> >not you agree with it (I do not) it is evidence nonetheless. You need
to
>> >debate him on other grounds.
>>
>>To say that IC is evidence for ID is like saying that finding presents at
>>the foot of a Christmas tree is evidence for Santa Claus.
>
>If your hypothesis is that Santa brings presents on Christmas eve, then the
>presents are indeed evidence to support that theory.
It rather depends on whether you are considering the hypothesis in
isolation, or in relation to one or more alternatives. If the Santa Claus
hypothesis is our only one, then the statement above is correct. If, on the
other hand, we have two alternative hypotheses (Santa Claus or parents),
then to say that the presents are evidence for Santa Claus (without
mentioning the parents hypothesis) is highly misleading.
In the same way, "IC is evidence for ID" would be interpreted by many as
meaning that ID is the better explanation for IC out of those available (ID
and naturalistic evolution). You may say that that is simply a
misinterpretation of the statement. I'm not so sure. In any case, natural
language is an imprecise medium, and to use a phrase in a way which is so
liable to misinterpretation is unwise, to say the least.
>>(For the sake of
>>argument, I'm setting aside the question of whether IC has actually been
>>adequately defined.)
>
>That is a different issue, but perhaps a better one to challenge Behe with
>than the simplistic claim that he hasn't provided evidence for ID.
>
>
>>That is, it is an observation which could be explained
>>by the hypothesis, but science (or rational thinking) should reject this
>>explanation because there is a more parsimonious explanation which is
>>consistent with the data.
>
>Alternative explanations always accompany a given set of data. Martians
>also could have deposited the presents. This explanation fully explains
>the observation.
Quite. There is an unlimited number of possible hypotheses consistent with
an observation, many of them quite ludicrous. To say of each of them that
the observation is evidence for that hypothesis undermines the usefulness of
the phrase.
Now, if everybody accepted that "X is evidence for Y" was synonymous with "X
is consistent with Y", that might not matter. But I think most people would
take "X is evidence for Y" to mean something like "Y is the best explanation
of X".
In view of this ambiguity, I would suggest that the phrase be avoided,
especially on such a contentious matter as the claims of ID proponents.
>When trying to decided between alternative explanations,
>parsimony is but one way, and it is highly overused and its limitations not
>fully appreciated. I know that parsimony is touted as a "law" of science
>but it's role in science also has been severely challenged. So, beware of
>this argument.
I'm aware that I was simplifying the issue, because it was not the main
point of my argument. The point was that few (if any) adults would claim
that "Santa Claus did it" is the best explanation for the observation of
presents.
>Now, it seems to me that the best interpretation for the presents under the
>tree is to say that this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that
>Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve.
That would indeed be a much better way of stating it.
>Likewise, Behe's argument would
>be best stated as the observation of IC is consistent with ID.
But that is not Behe's argument at all. Of course IC is consistent with ID.
That is a trivial fact. Behe's argument is that IC is *inconsistent* with
the alternative hypothesis, naturalistic evolution. When Behe says that IC
is evidence for ID (I'm not sure if he actually uses that phrase), he *is*
claiming that it's the best available explanation.
>No matter
>how you view ID, this statement is accurate and provide evidence in support
>of the ID hypothesis.
For the reasons given above, I find this statement to be misleading.
Richard Wein (Tich)
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 14:53:44 EDT