From: David Bradbury <dabradbury@mediaone.net>
>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?
Well, I think you're mixing up evolution with abiogenesis. There is as yet
no scientific theory of abiogenesis. Also, it is not necessarily the case
that any new natural laws are required for a naturalistic explanation of
abiogenesis. There *may* be some new natural laws to be discovered, or
abiogenesis may eventually be explained in terms of the natural laws we
already know. If you want to talk about the hypothesis that "undirected
abiogenesis occurred on Earth", I think that is falsifiable in principle.
Suppose we found relics of an alien civilization which described exactly how
they created life on Earth, with samples of the first organisms.
As far as evolution is concerned (as opposed to abiogenesis), the theory of
evolution explains evolution in terms of known natural forces, though it
doesn't claim to be a complete explanation by any means.
>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.
I would agree with that.
>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.
As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, I would certainly not agree
that it doesn't qualify as a scientific conclusion.
As far as abiogenesis is concerned, I would tentatively say that undirected
terrestrial abiogenesis *does* qualify as a scientific conclusion, on the
grounds that we are here, and this hypothesis is the most parsimonious
explanation of that fact. However, this may be controversial, and I suspect
most scientists would call undirected terrestrial abiogenesis a working
assumption rather than a scientific conclusion.
>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.
"Proof" is a dangerous term, because some people will take that as meaning
the kind of certain proof one can arrive at from a deductive argument. But
there is no certain proof in science.
Unfortunately, there is no precise definition of the scientific method, so,
to some extent, we have to rely on the subjective assessment of the
scientific community. Broadly, I would say that science chooses the most
explanatory and parsimonious of the available explanations. But I don't
claim to have precise definitions of these terms, and the two criteria tend
to conflict with each other, so a balance has to be found between the two.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 08 2000 - 18:39:52 EDT