Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of...

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 16:02:27 EDT

  • Next message: Steve Clark: "Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of..."

    From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>

    >
    >> >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.
    >
    >The ambiguity can also be traced to claims as you made above. In order to
    >accurately debate science, one cannot eliminate the logic of argument and
    >of evidence. A continuing error, which confounds the evolution/creation
    >debate, and to which you succumb above, is to think that data must PROVE an
    >hypothesis. If it doesn't, then you argue that the other side has not
    >PROVEN its case.

    I made no such argument. You seem to have missed my point. I did not mention
    "proof" at all. I was talking about which is the better explanation. Do you
    not agree that the parents hypothesis is a better explanation for presents
    under the tree than the Santa Claus hypothesis?

    >Of course the other side is guilty of overstating its
    >case. A lot of talking past one another would be avoided if all sides
    >exercised proper understanding of hypotheses, data, proof and evidence.

    I quite agree. And another common cause of people talking past one another
    is failure to address the arguments actually presented!

    Please re-read my post which you quote above. If it's unclear, I'll be happy
    to elaborate.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 16:16:27 EDT