Re: [asa] Untestable -- Is it Science?

I think Louise makes a very important point here, and I think the sign is misleading. While hypotheses regarding the behavior of dinosaurs are -- currently -- not "testable" in the sense that they can't be directly subjected to experimental analysis, they are, in fact, testable in principle. For one thing, certain aspects of the physiology of extinct species have been recently "resurrected" and studied, and it could be that somday we'll see more specific tests of various hypotheses regarding the behavior and physiology of extinct organisms. And the *idea* itself is testable, meaning that it can be evaluated in light of additional data, or in light of simulations/models based on that data.

But more importantly, the word "testable" encompasses divergent senses of testability. Some hypotheses are not testable *practically*, due to all sorts of technical/practical issues that may or may not be surmountable. This is the sense in which dinosaur physiology hypotheses are not testable. But some hypotheses are not testable for more fundamental reasons. The most obvious example here is any Last Thursday hypothesis, in which an agent performs supernatural interventions and then covers his/her tracks. For example, the old-earth creationism of Reasons To Believe involves a repeated-miracles scenario for the history of life that is untestable in a far more profound way than is the most fanciful speculation on the use of dinosaur skulls.

I would even say that the invocation of miraculous intervention in the past is inherently untestable, because it cannot be distinguished, even in principle, from competing explanations. (It follows, I think, that the same applies to philosohical naturalism here.) What *can* be "tested," I think, is the proposal that natural history exhibits the kind of explanatory gaps that would require supernatural explanation. The explanation (that a superintelligence intervened) is not "testable", but the proposal (that there are gaps of some kind) is, I think, clearly testable. This is one reason why I think it is a poor strategy to assert, without careful explication, that ID is "not science."

Steve Matheson

>>> "Freeman, Louise Margaret" <lfreeman@mbc.edu> 06/07/08 11:00 AM >>>
It seems to me that the sign is conflating "direct observation" with "testing." By this standard,
we cannot "be sure" that T. rex used its teeth for eating meat or pteradactyls used their wings
for flying. But I know few scientists who would be uncomfortable with those conclusions or
deny that the support for them was unscientific.

The unusual bone structure of those dinosaurs may be a somewhat harder puzzle to solve, but
it doesn't mean that scientists should speculate and test their hypotheses by whatever tools are
available (modeling, comparative anatomy, etc.)

__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

-----Original Message-----
From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: "ASA List" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:08:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [asa] Untestable -- Is it Science?

> But this signage says simply: "untestable." So something can be
> "untestable" and yet be a "scientific" theory because, as Dave S. said,
> they
> are applying what is know to what is observed, even though the
> resulting
> theory cannot be tested by any kind of observation?
>
> (I don't doubt, BTW, that theories about how dinosaurs behaved can be
> called
> "scientific." It just interests me that "testable" isn't really the
> gold
> standard here.)
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course. It depends on the theory, not all of them are testable.
> But
> > if a theory of animal behavior predicts certain findings, and those
> findings
> > are able to be preserved in the fossil record then the theory can be
> tested.
> >
> > BTW I heard of a camp at that museum for kids, where you get to spend
> and
> > evening and then sleep over one night inside the museum, have you
> heard
> > about that?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > *To:* ASA List <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
> > *Sent:* Friday, June 06, 2008 10:21 PM
> > *Subject:* [asa] Untestable -- Is it Science?
> >
> > I spent a lovely afternoon today with my ten year old son at the
> Museum of
> > Natural History in New York. This display of a pachycephalasaurus --
> an
> > alien-looking, dome headed dinosaur -- caught my eye. If you can't
> see the
> > attached photos, the signage says: "we cannot be sure how
> > pachycephalasaurus used their skull caps, becuase theories about the
> > behaviors of extinct animals cannot be tested." So are theories
> about
> > extinct animal behaviors "science"?
> >
> > --
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 7 14:25:25 2008