From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 03:21:48 EDT
Keith Miller wrote:
"Any accepted scientific theory is simply the best existing unfalsified explanation for the observations already made. This is as true for physics as it is for evolutionary biology."
Keith, I liked your post and mostly agree with it, but for my edification I'd like to hear your (or anyone else's)responses to two sets of questions:
(1) Given what we know about Mercury's orbit today, wouldn't the inability of Newton's theory of gravity to account for the motion constitute falsification? That is, Newton would predict one thing, and we'd observe another. Yet, if we didn't have an alternative such as general relativity or something similar, wouldn't physicists still accept Newton even though he'd been so falsified?
(2) Support for the mechanisms of historical organic evolution as I understand them all come under the heading of plausibility arguments. That is (to grossly oversimplify), a number of genetic mutations occurred in an environment that weeded some out but kept others; this all happened in the past and can't be tested, but because we see the end result, it must have happened that way. Do you know how to falsify such plausibility arguments, or whether they can be falsified?
In previous posts I'd claimed that Newton would be falsified but physicists, in the absence of general relativity, would still accept his theory. I also stated that it's not possible to falsify plausibility arguments such as those that support mechanisms of organic evolution. No one responded to either assertion, but I'd be mildly surprised if everyone agreed.
My belief is that scientists tend to accept the most elegant, most comprehensive, etc., theories, including ones that can't be falsified and ones that may have been falsified in minor details but are still the best available.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Miller
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Methodological Naturalism + Phil on MN and PN
My comments below try to emphasize that scientific methodology is decidedly NOT a statement about the nature of all reality. I don't know why this distinction is so hard to get people to grasp despite the continuing efforts of many within the scientific community. The absence of such a distinction is one of the foundational errors committed by thorough-going naturalists as well as their critics among supporters of ID and creation science. Both seem to agree on the underlying materialistic basis for modern science.
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
Although different fields of scientific study have unique ways of approaching their subject, there are some basic elements that characterize the scientific methodologies.
1) Observations are made of the natural world, whether directly or through the use of instruments.
2) Perceived patterns and regularities in these observations become the basis for proposing hypotheses to explain them.
3) A new set of observations not yet made is predicted from the hypothesis.
4) The hypothesis can then be tested against these new observations, and modified or rejected if necessary.
Although hypotheses can be disproven by the methodology of science, they cannot be positively proved. No scientific theory can be proven in the sense of a mathematical or logical proof. Any accepted scientific theory is simply the best existing unfalsified explanation for the observations already made. This is as true for physics as it is for evolutionary biology.
The construction of scientific hypotheses is often influenced by philosophical, religious and cultural assumptions of which the investigator may be unaware. However, those hypotheses are subject to test, and will not become widely held by the scientific community unless those predictions are fruitful. To be widely accepted, a hypothesis must be retested and validated by other investigators, who will likely have differing philosophical, religious and cultural assumptions. This process is called peer review, and provides the essential basis for quality control within the scientific community.
ISN'T SCIENCE BASED ON AN ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY?
The answer is an emphatic NO! Science is a methodology, a limited way of knowing about the natural world. Scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause-and-effect, and confines itself to the investigation of "natural" entities and forces. This self-limitation is sometimes referred to as "methodological naturalism." Science does not affirm or deny the existence of a creator -- it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. The confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity to investigate. Methodological naturalism simply describes what empirical inquiry is, it certainly is not a statement of the nature of all reality. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality (questions of meaning and purpose and morality), while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 19 2003 - 03:19:06 EDT