I would like to summarize my evaluation of the responses to my previous post
which introduced my article http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm.
Nobody identified a flaw in the logic of the following paragraph that makes
the cases for proof by elimination (PE) as a key logical principal for
science. Also, nobody presented another logical concept that has the
potential to logically prove something true about reality as PE does.
The two assumptions PE is based upon is that there is a correct theory for
explaining the reality being investigated and that reality follows the law of
no contradiction. Without these two assumptions reason could not determine
the truth about any reality, supernatural or natural. If there is a correct
theory that describes a certain reality and all possible hypothesis for
explaining that certain reality are false except for one hypothesis, then PE
implies that this one non-false hypothesis is true. If the remaining
hypothesis was also false then there would be no correct theory which would
contradict the premise that there is a correct theory. Thus, if the premise
that there is a correct theory is true then the one non-false hypothesis must
be true otherwise the premise would be contradicted. Thus, PE is derived from
the requirement for no contradiction which is a fundamental logical
principal. Since PE is derived from a logical concept PE is also a logical
concept. Science attempts to use PE and other logical concepts to determine
the truth about reality; thus, the scientific procedure has the potential to
logically determine something true about reality.
Nobody identified a flaw in the straight forward extension of the PE logic
for making the case for a supernatural claim as explained below.
The approach for identifying the supernatural proposed in
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm.makes use of this logical PE
principle, by just extending it to the case where there is no plausible
natural hypothesis. If all possible natural hypothesis for explaining a
certain real event are false, then there is a logical argument that the
supernatural was involved with causing the event to occur.
Thus, I believe the basic idea as proposed in
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm that there is a valid scientific
method for substantiating a claim that the supernatural intervened in the
observable world was not refuted by the group discussion.
Quite a few legitimate points were made that it is often impossible to get to
the point of showing all possible hypothesis false except one. I appreciate
and acknowledge this important point. I agree that for especially continuous
phenomenon in most cases it is not possible to determine all the possible
hypothesis nonetheless rule all of them out except for one. However,
especially for discrete phenomenon it is more possible to identify all
possible hypothesis and rule out all except for one. For example, the number
of large moons orbiting earth involves a discrete phenomenon. There are
either 0,1, 2, 3, … I think it is possible to rule out the theory that there
are 2 or more. It is evident there is at least one, thus, PE determines there
actually is only one.
Since I think there is a valid logical concept, I hope to see further
development in developing the valid method for the substantiation of claims
for the supernatural. For example, discussing appropriate criterion for
falsifying natural hypothesis, procedures for determining all possible
hypothesis and identify types of issues where the number hypothesis are few
enough to possibly address all of them. This would be more constructive than
dead ended criticism.
The strongest case from a sacred book for evidence for supernatural
intervention that I am aware of is documented in
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/critic7.htm.
Truth claims about reality can involve problems that involve a finite number
of hypothesis. For example, if the claim concerns a characteristic that does
not require specifying all the details. For a specific example, the common
ancestor issue could be limited to just the questions of whether certain
species either share a common ancestor or they do not. In this case, there
are just two possible hypothesis, the species either shared a common ancestor
or they do not. This question could be evaluated and possibly determine one
of the two hypothesis false implying the other true without completely
determining the correct evolution or creation scenario. There are a very
large number of different possible evolution or creation scenarios.
To develop more specific predictions for super natural claims, assumptions
about the super natural intelligence have to be made. If the assumptions do
not have the super natural intelligence doing anything that violates natural
principals then no testable predictions will be made. I think an appropriate
assumption for the super natural intelligent creator is the super natural
intelligent creator would not go through extra unnecessary effort to create a
physical item in a way that makes it appear as if it was not created.
Any solution that has God doing extra unnecessary super natural intervention
(not mentioned in the sacred religious book) to make it appear that God did
not super naturally intervene in a way that is claimed in the sacred
religious book, I consider unsatisfactory because such an ad-hoc solution has
God appearing to deceive which is not consistent with the truthful nature
that God is often assumed to have. For example, claiming that God began the
universe thousands of years ago and extended the light out from distant stars
to make it just appear to have traveled for billions of year rather than
thousands would have God doing extra unnecessary super natural intervention
(not explicitly mentioned in Genesis) to just make the universe appear
billions of years old. The leading Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer
agrees with this too. In "No final conflict" he rejects the idea, "that God
created the fossils in the earth in order to fool fools. This is totally out
of character with the God of the Bible." The creation of the fossils has God
doing extra unnecessary super natural intervention (not mentioned in Genesis)
to make it appear that God did not super naturally intervene as described by
a certain interpretation of Genesis.
God making the high level of matching in the redundant sequences as described
in http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/descent.htm is clearly ad-hoc
because it has the intelligent designer going through additional unnecessary
effort of creating life in such a way to make it look like the DNA sequences
for the cytochrome C molecule for humans and mice were both derived from some
common sequence implying a common ancestor rather than being independent. I
think the aforementioned URL implies mice and humans share a common ancestor.
If a creation science approach is truly scientific it must be able to
potentially be shown wrong or falsifiable. This application of the ad-hoc
criterion to fundamental creation is the most objective one that puts limits
on what fundamental creation predictions are considered acceptable. If this
constraint does not apply to a fundamental creation theory then the approach
is free to be unfalsifiable; thus, would not pass the falsifiable
requirement; therefore, should not be considered scientific.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 09:03:33 EST