At 09:02 PM 07/24/2000 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>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?
Ok, replace "better argument" where I said "proof" above and my point is
the same. The identification of a "better argument" is easier to do in
different situations. In the Santa and gremlin examples, it is easy to
understand that neither is a real explanation of the observations. Now,
when you get to ID, what you accept as more or less realistic depends on
your world view.
When you say that ID is better explained by naturalistic causes than by ID,
you are arguing against ID by invoking a plausibility argument. You say ID
is not plausible because of your world view. By the same token, the IDrs
say that evolution is not plausible because it is unlikely to occur by
naturalistic causes. Both cases rely on imagination or lack thereof to
support their respective contentions. In other words, you would say that
you cannot imagine an intelligent designer making life and others would say
that they cannot imagine naturalistic mechanisms making life.
The argument from lack of imagination is pervasive in this debate and is
quite uninformative it its ability to tell us which hypothesis better
explains the data.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 16:43:49 EDT