On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:55:13 -0700 Brian D Harper
<bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Up to this point I agree almost 100%. What you have described,
> without actually using the term, is Methodological Naturalism.
> Further, the other extreme, where science CAN, often goes by
> the name Scientism. Scientism is, I believe, fairly rare (with some
> really notable and famous exceptions). There are many philo-
> sophical naturalists that recognize the limits of science and of
> human reason.
>
> For this reason I think much of what follows is a strawman.
You may be correct. I haven't read enough of the philosophy of science
to really know. I will be the first one to admit I was responding to an
impression of mine, not any hard core statements.
> Before I go on, let me ask a question. I really liked your example
> of undecidability in mathematics. I have used the same example
> myself except that I use Chaitin instead of Godel. Not to slight Godel
:),
> its just I'm more familiar with Chaitin.
>
> Toward the end of your essay you write about scientific undecidables
> fitting more easily into a theistic interpretation. Using
undecidability in
> mathematics as our analogy, I'm wondering how this can be? Well,
> its clear that many will take it that way of course. What I'm
questioning
> is the logic. Do you think mathematicians should interpret
undecidability
> theistically? Are undecidable propositions intelligently designed?
> Chaitin showed that there are mathematical facts that are true for no
> reason. Do we say "There is randomness in mathematics, therefore
> God exists." ?
I did not actually claim that scientific undecidables would better fit
into a theistic grid. I said that atheists at times seem to be afraid
that this may be the case and this might explain why they react to the
concept with scorn and loathing, bordering even on irrational-sounding
diatribes (as is evidenced by some posts on this list). I remember the
paragraph where I mentioned this, and my own conclusion was that
undecidables in science would not make everyone theists. It would only
mean that we can't take science as far as people once believed.
The mathematical analogy here would be the program of Hilbert, Russell,
and Whitehead who thought they could find axioms that would eventually
solve every mathematical problem given enough logical deduction. The
massive Principia Mathematica is a monument to this approach. Of course,
Godel brought the whole thing to a screeching halt. Now, people are much
more guarded about the "power" of math.
No, of course, Godel's undecidable propositions do not tilt mathematics
any closer to theism than other philosophies. I have reasons for
believing a theistic understanding of mathematics, but Godel is not one
of them.
>
> No, undecidable means undecidable. Even if you could show that the
> origin of life is undecidable it does give even the slightest argument
> in favor of ID. Hey, even Fats Waller understood this point. (see my
> sig) :)
I agree. I wrote a follow-up post to this effect. ID is a strictly
metaphysical interpretation of scientific undecidables (assuming, of
course, they exist). All scientists should be able to agree on the
existence or non-existence of physical phenomena that cannot be explained
through natural laws or processes. This is true regardless of their
philosophies. But ID appears to make the claim that ONLY theism can
explain such undecidables. I doubt this is the case. Competing
philosophies have a habit of coming up with their own ingenious
explanations. For instance, one could resort to the notion (even though
it's scientifically improbable) that the Universe is eternal and that
life has always existed. This scheme would not require theism.
For the record, I do hold to a theistic-interventionistic interpretation
of scientifically undecidable phenomena, but I do not claim that science
therefore "proves" my metaphysics. I look at science through my faith,
rather than vice versa. Faith is my pair of spectacles through which I
see the world. ID theorists try to make science become the pair of
glasses through which we apprehend the realm of faith. I think I can
show from even the Bible's own teaching how this is not possible.
> Later in your essay you try to defend ID's inability to come up with a
> theory. But if they do not, then what does ID have to offer? It cannot
> be undecidability, since this has nothing to do with ID. Further,
> none of the insurmountable difficulties that you mention wrt the
> origin of life have, almost without exception, been discovered by an ID
> researcher.
My follow-up post obliquely addressed this point as well. Again, I agree
with you here. I don't believe that ID has anything to offer besides the
undecidability concept. They try too much to mix the theistic
intepretation of the idea with the idea itself. When, for example,
Michael Behe points out irreducible complexity in certain systems, he is
at best demonstrating that science cannot give an explanation for how
such systems arose through natural processes (undecidability). At the
very most, he has only shown that the scientific method cannot positively
or negatively answer the question of the origin of such systems. But for
him to claim that this is "proof" of intelligent design is taking a leap
of logic. He needs to demonstrate how undecidability implies ID as a
LOGICAL NECESSITY. Of course, any attempt to do so is no longer in the
realm of science but is now a matter of metaphysics.
I for one agree with Behe, but I'm not going to claim that my case is
totally scientific. This is where ID'ers make their mistake. Under the
limitations of science, undecidability is as far as we possibly can go.
The next step is inherently religious.
> Of course, anyone has the right to challenge scientific theories
without
> introducing their own. But the goals of the ID movement are broader
> than that. For example, later you talk about ID supplanting the
> present paradigm.
Yes, I need to explain myself here. What I meant by this was not
necessarily ID but undecidability supplanting the present paradigm.
Since I think ID cannot scientifically prove more than undecidability, I
tend to mix the two together (though I shouldn't). The present
scientific paradigm does not, at least in general, seem to accept even
the possibility of undecidable phenomena. Of course, I will be the first
one to admit I'm wrong since this is merely an impression on my part.
The future paradigm needs to accept undecidables as a possibility and
actively seek them out for confirmation. This is where I see ID making a
genunine scientific contribution.
> [...]
>
> >To be honest, I do not understand why TE's such as yourself should
> be so
> >opposed to this conclusion. The seven reasons you list in favor of
> TE do
> >not seem to explain TE's vigorous conflict with even the mere
> possibility
> >of undecidables within the scientific method.
>
> I cannot speak for other TE's of course, but I fully expect that there
will be
> many undecidables in science. I expect though that science may be
different
> from mathematics in that it may not be possible decide whether
> something is undecidable. :)
I've given some thought to this too. Science is inherently inductive,
while math is deductive. Could it be that undecidability is strictly a
matter of deductive logic, not inductive investigation?
Thank you for drawing these to my attention. My ideas are still in
evolution, and I need to be more careful in expressing them.
Steve C.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 28 2000 - 17:26:12 EDT