Having it Both Ways
by MikeGeneSeth Roberts summarizes a recent example of politics in academia. While the subject has nothing to do with ID, some here might find that this passage comes with an uncanny resonance:
Well, which is it? "Proven wrong" by "almost everyone" (McCloskey) or "unfalsifiable" and without "predictive capabilities" and "untestable" (Conway)? McCloskey and Conway must have talked many times. This discrepancy in how they attacked Blanchard's theory shows how little they cared about its truth "” or that they knew it was true.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am
The site you linked to seems broken (and it looks like a lame attempt to compete/clone scienceblogs.com) but the material I think you were trying to refer to is here.
Comment by mtraven — August 19, 2007 @ 1:12 am
August 19th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Thanks
Comment by MikeGene — August 19, 2007 @ 8:25 am
August 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Well, luckily, in the ID debate, the only people who think that someone is arguing that ID is both false and unfalsifiable are the ID proponents themselves.
Out in the real world, it breaks down like this; Claims about evolution are testable, and thus the ID movement's negative claims about evolution are testable, have been shown false. On the other hand, claims about the supernatural (or any ID hypothesis vague enough to include the supernatural, which is all of them so far) are not testable, and thus whatever else they may be, they ain't science.
It's quite simple, really, but essentially the entire body of ID proponents is confused about it.
PS: You will find that the Kitzmiller decision makes this exact distinction very explicitly — we took special pains to make it clear in court. Not that this has even been noticed by the ID guys, who prefer cheap talking points, whether accurate or not…
Comment by nickmatzke — August 19, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
August 19th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Hi Nick,
Before it is too late, good Luck on your move to Berkeley.
If you have the time, Please take a look at my Guest Post.
I would be interested in your reation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 19, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
August 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
nickmatzke wrote:
If by 'evolution' you mean the hypothesis that the evolution of species was an unguided, unintentional, undesigned process, then in what way is that hypothesis testable? Surely that would be a philosophical hypothesis, not at all a scientific one, for it equates evolution with evolutionary naturalism. And in what way is evolutionary naturalism a testable scientific hypothesis?
But if by 'evolution' you simply mean common descent with natural selection operating on engines of variation over a long period of time, then surely evolution in that sense is quite compatible with the hypothesis that evolution was an intentionally guided process using an intelligently designed set of algorithms.
I suspect the distinction between self-ordering and self-organization in the paper johnnyb linked to in this post is relevant to that hypothesis.
Enjoy Berkeley. I did for three and a half years.
Comment by stunney — August 19, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 12:59 am
I don't, except in the very limited, scientific way that one can say that the weather, earthquakes, etc. don't appear to be directly designed/guided because they appear instead to be stochastic results of prosaic natural processes. You can always postulate supernatural guidance of natural processes but this is impossible to empirically test.
You could say the same thing for the weather. Empirical evidence can't rule such things out, because they have no empirical accessibility. Atmospheric scientists don't consider divine guidance behind the weather. Or do you think they should include a class on that along with fluid dynamics and chaos theory?
Comment by nickmatzke — August 20, 2007 @ 12:59 am
August 20th, 2007 at 1:38 am
nickmatzke,
Who needs 'direct'/supernatural guidance of such things? Maybe those natural processes were themselves designed. Granted, this would be a philosophical or theological idea, but it's still a distinct one from those mentioned.
Which leads me to ask, considering your role in the ID debate: Since you'd apparently argue there's no real way to detect design in a grand sense, does it really matter to you whether someone believes/suspects that there is or is not purpose behind natural processes, so long as they stipulate that neither view can be tested in the laboratory?
I'm not talking about the specific claims of Dembski or Behe, or whether these are appropriate ideas to allow in a public school classroom. I'm just wondering if you think that a belief in something unfalsifiable like a Creator/creators (or lack thereof) behind the universe and nature is an impediment to science.
Thanks!
Comment by nullasalus — August 20, 2007 @ 1:38 am
August 20th, 2007 at 4:38 am
nickmatzke wrote:
Have you ever played bingo, or poker, or Russian roulette, or bought a lottery ticket? If so, did you get the impression that it was an unintentional, undesigned activity or process?
You can always postulate undesigned, unguided, unintentional natural processes but this is impossible to empirically test.
As far as I know—I'm not a metereologist—-the weather abides by the laws of physics. What evidence is there that the laws of physics arose spontaneously by an unintended, undesigned, unguided process? I'm not aware of there being any such evidence whatsoever.
In all likelihood, professional soccer players don't consider divine guidance to be behind the way the color of grass looks green to players of normal eyesight in normal lighting conditions during games. But then, why would anyone imagine that professional soccer players are the go-to experts on such a question? And why would anyone with even a modicum of nous imagine that atmospheric scientists are the go-to folks for whether the weather is divinely guided?
No. Which is precisely why I regard the opinion of atmospheric scientists as being intellectually worthless, qua atmospheric scientists, as regards questions of God's role in guiding weather systems. It would be about as sensible as asking plumbers for their professional opinion about God's role in determining water pressure requirements for Manhattan skycrapers. But it doesn't logically follow from the fact that Manhattan plumbers don't ordinarily invoke God as regards thinking about and explaining water pressure requirements for plumbing in Manhattan skyscrapers, that naturalism is true.
Comment by stunney — August 20, 2007 @ 4:38 am
August 20th, 2007 at 4:41 am
nickmatzke wrote:
Have you ever played bingo, or poker, or Russian roulette, or bought a lottery ticket? If so, did you get the impression that it was an unintentional, undesigned activity or process?
You can always postulate undesigned, unguided, unintentional natural processes but this is impossible to empirically test.
As far as I know—I'm not a metereologist—-the weather abides by the laws of physics. What evidence is there that the laws of physics arose spontaneously by an unintended, undesigned, unguided process? I'm not aware of there being any such evidence whatsoever.
In all likelihood, professional soccer players don't consider divine guidance to be behind the way the color of grass looks green to players of normal eyesight in normal lighting conditions during games. But then, why would anyone imagine that professional soccer players are the go-to experts on such a question? And why would anyone with even a modicum of nous imagine that atmospheric scientists are the go-to folks for whether the weather is divinely guided?
No. Which is precisely why I regard the opinion of atmospheric scientists as being intellectually worthless, qua atmospheric scientists, as regards questions of God's role in guiding weather systems. It would be as sensible as asking plumbers for their professional opinion about God's role in determining water pressure requirements for Manhattan skycrapers. But it doesn't logically follow from the fact that Manhattan plumbers don't ordinarily invoke God as regards thinking about and explaining water pressure requirements for plumbing in Manhattan skyscrapers, that naturalism is true.
Comment by stunney — August 20, 2007 @ 4:41 am