Re: Methodological Naturalism + Phil on MN and PN

From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 17:49:16 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)"

    One way in which Einstein's explanation for Mercury's orbit is deemed more appealing than Newton+x (x can be Vulcan, slight adjustment to formula, etc.) is that Einstein's formula predicts specifically what we see, whereas Newton plus adjustment could give not only what we see but any number of other options. Likewise, it is perfectly true that repeated invocations of God's intervention to make things look the way they do can reconcile a young-earth or flood geology model with the geological evidence, but such an approach can explain any pattern. It therefore has less appeal by this criterion than a model that specifically predicts a situation that matches what we observe. Bayesian statistics may provide a quantification of the relative merits of the options in a situation like this.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        University of Alabama
        Biodiversity & Systematics
        Dept. Biological Sciences
        Box 870345
        Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
        bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
                     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 17:52:17 EDT