On Aug. 8, Richard Wein wrote:
:
[skip]
As to whether I think the ID hypothesis is falsifiable, that depends
on what
precisely the ID hypothesis actually is. If the hypothesis is "an
intelligent agent was involved in the origin of life on Earth", then I
would
say this is not falsifiable, because we can never have 100% complete
knowledge of what happened in the past, so there will always be gaps
in
which IDers can claim that an intelligent designer was at work.
[skip]
Richard Wein (Tich)
No big deal, but I'm curious. When you suggest your stated definition
of ID is unfalsifiable (a criteria
used by some when differentiating 'science' from 'non-science'), would
not the same logic apply to
evolution (macro, biological) when defined along the same lines?
Namely, if the evolutionary
hypothesis includes "an as yet unknown natural force (law) was involved
in the origin of life on
Earth". Does this not run afoul of the identical weakness you associate
with ID?
Which again focuses attention on our perennial problem in this field,
the definition of 'science'.
Dare I suggest that both ID and evolution can (in some over-broad
context) be semantically claimed
as falling within the PROCESS of science ... that is, they are both
being comprehensively reviewed by
intelligent minds striving to determine cause-and-effect explanations to
replace existing uncertain
(possible) descriptions concerning the origin of life on earth.
But, and this is perhaps the major misunderstanding in the use of the
term, ... neither qualify as
representing a proper scientific CONCLUSION ... which is the most
generally understood usage of
the term. This latter requiring successfull fullment of some
identified and accepted proof-method. Or
some stated version of so-called scientific method.
During the PROCESS stage, anything goes. Prior knowledge, hunches,
insights, dreams, etc. are all
allowed as one attempts to phrase crucial aspects of the question into a
form (hypotheses) that can be
verified. During this early stage of 'science', NO special level of
respect or certainty can, or should,
be implied or inferred.
Only after the CONCLUSION stage is complete can the higher level of
respect associated with
science be properly claimed. CONCLUSIONS are reached only after
meeting most rigorous and
restrictive requirements. Indeed, it is by such requirements that
'science' earns its position of respect
and credibility. Unfortunately, too many authors "believing" their
favored hypotheses to be true (and
prompted by a desire to gain the credibility associated with science by
the trusting public?) ... ignore
the scientific method "validation" stage and proceed to promote them as
if they were properly
qualified scientific conclusions.
Perhaps if participants of this newsgroup would begin to emphasise the
proof-method successfully
met in confirming conclusions they present as 'science', instead of just
asserting them to be (some
undefined aspect of) "science", we might work our way out of our
seemingly never-ending semantic
quagmire concerning this key term.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 08 2000 - 15:12:49 EDT