I regret that I must contradict your statements. I presented specific
criticisms of your suggestions that indicated that they ranged from the
dubious to the preposterous. Had you understood my statements you would
recognize that your position is without better foundation than wishful
thinking.
Dave
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:03:22 EST SHinrichs9@aol.com writes:
>
> 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 - 20:46:28 EST