Pat Robertson's failed prediction and supernatural explanations
by KrauzePat Robertson's less-than-impressive ability to predict the future:
Last year, Robertson predicted that a terrorist act, possibly involving a nuclear weapon, would result in mass killing in the United States. Noting that it hadn't come to pass, Robertson said, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."
Comments ScienceBlogs' Ed Brayton:
And this is exactly why supernatural actions cannot be a part of science: they can't be tested because no matter what happens, you can always find a rationalization for why it didn't happen.
But this is the wrong conclusion to draw from poor Pat's sorry prophecy-record. You can always find rationalizations, whether or not the supernatural is involved. For example, Pat Robertson could have made the exact same "prediction", claiming that space aliens with the ability to read and influence minds had prevented the terrorist attack. This explanation is fully naturalistic, yet no less ridiculous than the supernatural explanation involving a terrorism-foiling god.
The God-did-it and the space-aliens-did-it explanation are ridiculous for the same reason: They both involve an inscrutable, capricious designer. But there's no reason why natural or supernatural designers must be capricious. In The Design Matrix, for example, my fellow telician Mike Gene uses the concept of a rational designer to flesh out insights about the machinery of life.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
One other thing needs to be singled out. The Design Matrix puts forth concepts based on real, identifiable biological mechanisms. Brayton et. al. promote their own strawman conflating ID with supernatural propositions. Noone is suggesting that we test the supernatural but that won't deter the Braytons of the blogosphere from suggesting otherwise.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
January 9th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Krauze wrote:
The difference is that the space aliens, being part of the universe, are subject to scientific observation (difficult though it might be in practice). An unconstrained supernatural entity is not observable unless it chooses to be.
Where I differ with Brayton is that I think that constrained supernatural entities — whether those constraints are self-imposed or external — can be amenable to scientific inquiry (if they exist at all, of course).
The crucial distinction is that you cannot make falsifiable statements about an unconstrained supernatural entity.
True, there's no reason why they must be capricious, but there's also no reason why they must not. Unless you are willing to specify that your candidate designers are non-capricious, that possibility remains open.
Also, note that specifying a non-capricious designer does not solve the problem by itself. You also need to know something about the goals of the designer. Even a non-capricious designer might find it advantageous to appear capricious in furtherance of its goals. You can't say that a designer is behaving rationally or not, capriciously or not, without knowing something about its goals.
Having said all that, let's agree on the main lesson here: Pat Robertson is a wingnut.
Comment by valerie — January 9, 2008 @ 5:24 am
January 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Just passing through again, but I saw this:
You're either accidentally or deliberately missing Ed's point. The target wasn't against the supernatural explanation, it was the rationalization of it. Granted, supernatural or superstitious explanations will always involve rationalizations. They're all "just so" stories that cannot be called science (re-read Popper).
Comment by Dan — January 9, 2008 @ 11:13 am
January 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Dan:
We understand where Ed is coming from but noone is proposing that the supernatural be tested or that superstition become part of science. Consider those strawmen. On the other hand is Ed aware of real ID concepts like those of The Design Matrix? It is Ed and his buddies who have "either accidentally or deliberately" missed the point.
Comment by Bradford — January 9, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
January 10th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Valerie,
I am trying to understand your comments. Would it be possible to rephrase them without using the words "capricious", "goals" and "rational". All of these words lose their usual meaning when applied to purely material processes. Can chemical reactions behave capriciously, have goals, or function rationally?
Thanks!
Comment by Anton — January 10, 2008 @ 1:03 am
January 10th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Anton,
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. We're speaking of hypothetical designers in this thread, so the words "capricious", "goals" and "rational" seem appropriate to me.
Why do you object?
Comment by valerie — January 10, 2008 @ 2:14 am
January 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Hi Valerie,
"The difference is that the space aliens, being part of the universe, are subject to scientific observation (difficult though it might be in practice)."
So if Robertson had phrased his prediction in terms of mind-reading aliens, it would have been more reasonable, because the aliens could one day be detected?
"Unless you are willing to specify that your candidate designers are non-capricious, that possibility remains open."
I refered to Mike Gene's "The Design Matrix", which operates with an explicitly non-capricious designer, and I agree with him that this is a fruitful approach.
"Also, note that specifying a non-capricious designer does not solve the problem by itself. You also need to know something about the goals of the designer."
Sure: The goal of the designer was to bioengineer a set of lifeforms that were front-loaded to evolve into more complex organisms.
Comment by Krauze — January 10, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
January 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Hi Dan,
"You're either accidentally or deliberately missing Ed's point."
Ed's point was pretty clearly laid out in his post: "And this is exactly why supernatural actions cannot be a part of science: they can't be tested because no matter what happens, you can always find a rationalization for why it didn't happen."
Comment by Krauze — January 10, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
January 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Krauze,
Yes, and you said "But this is the wrong conclusion to draw from poor Pat's sorry prophecy-record," and went on conclude "But there's no reason why natural or supernatural designers must be capricious."
That's true, I know of friends who are engineers and designers who are not capricious. I know, you're referring to deities though - and while yes, not all gods (or aliens) described throughout history are capricious either, all of them to-date have been rationalized, the source of superstition, non-falsifiable, etc. And, despite your assertion about Ed's being the wrong conclusion, Ed is right - those are exactly the reasons why they cannot be part of science - they cannot be tested or otherwise falsifiable.
Comment by Dan — January 11, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
January 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ed is wrong. Assumptions about the nature of a designer are secondary to data favoring a design inference. A non-capricious assumption is made as a basis for proceeding just as an assumption of order and rationailiity is made. These assumptions are practical and allow for testing- whether design is concluded or not.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
January 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
"And this is exactly why supernatural actions cannot be a part of science: they can't be tested because no matter what happens, you can always find a rationalization for why it didn't happen."
This looks remarkably like the situation for Darwinism. There is always a "plausible" story explaining either how something happened or how it failed to happen. Falsification is (almost) impossible. Of course this in itself doesn't disprove or invalidate Darwinism, just that it is properly to be considered Science.
Comment by magnan — January 13, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
January 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am
"This looks remarkably like the situation for Darwinism."
Quite true. Darwinism, or Adaptationism, often conjures plausible but unsupported scenarios as explanations. Telling these scenarios apart from more strongly-supported evidences in evolutionary biology requires a more critical analysis and substantial knowledge of the scientific literature.
"Assumptions about the nature of a designer are secondary to data favoring a design inference."
No, such assumptions and data are inseparable, as you note in the remainder of your comment, in weighing the strength of competing assumptions. In the case of your assumptions, the nature of a deity is not falsifiable - the interpretation of data as favoring a design or creation inference is therefore predicated upon assumptions which have no empirical or logical support themselves.
In the case of my assumptions, however, I cannot tell when nor whether a deity might intervene or interfere in the day-to-day business of the natural world, or instigated the Big Bang or some other First Cause, or does not exist at all. I make the assumption that absence of evidence implies non-absence, although I cannot prove this - as an assumption though, this assumption is clearly better than placebos, prayers, or wishful thinking in terms of precision and parsimony.
Comment by Dan — January 14, 2008 @ 7:31 am
January 15th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Sorry, just checking back to see whether there are further responses, I noticed this typo in my last comment:
"non-absence" should have been "non-existence."
Comment by Dan — January 15, 2008 @ 4:01 am
January 15th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Dan writes:
So you've discovered that first causes are predicated on assumptions that are empirically unsupported. Good. Think about that because whether an initial cause is a deity or something else you have an unempircal starting point. A no God paradigm does not eliminate unempirical base assumptions. It merely causes some to believe that is the case. Whether atheist or theist we all impute a degree of rationality to laws of nature. It is a practical necessity. We do not need to be able to falsify base assumptions. Base assumptions are intrinsic to theoretical concepts. As long as we are able to falsify hypotheses, built on the foundation of our base assumptions, we are able to make empirical conclusions.
Comment by Bradford — January 15, 2008 @ 6:47 am
January 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
"So you've discovered that first causes are predicated on assumptions that are empirically unsupported. Good. Think about that because whether an initial cause is a deity or something else you have an unempircal starting point."
Precisely. "It's turtles all the way down," as the saying goes.
"A no God paradigm does not eliminate unempirical base assumptions."
Correct, it doesn't eliminate all unempirical base assumptions, just the God assumption. As I said, eliminating such an assumption is more parsimonious, and at least as precise in explanatory capacity.
Comment by Dan — January 15, 2008 @ 7:40 am
January 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am
You guys are making this too complicated. The best conclusion to draw from this series of events is that Robertson is full of bullshit when he claims to be speaking for his god and that the next time he makes a prediction, no one should take him seriously.
Comment by bipod — January 15, 2008 @ 8:01 am
January 15th, 2008 at 9:16 am
bipod,
I beat you to it:
Comment by valerie — January 15, 2008 @ 9:16 am
January 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Parsimony is secondary to accuracy in desireability. Eliminating the possibility of teleology does not serve the interest of reality when teleology is indicated.
Comment by Bradford — January 15, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
January 16th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Accuracy isn't part of science - accuracy implies a target. Science is more about precision, which is not the same thing (it implies reproducibility and consistency of results).
But yes, if telic explanations are ever found to explain an experimental result better than non-telic explanations, then those explanations will be more parsimonious. Until then….
(My apologies for droning on, but I think it related to Robertson's case. You see, I think it fair to say that Pat Robertson's rationalizations are based on the same mistaking of opinion/scripture for empirical fact as that which Bradford is espousing.)
Comment by Dan — January 16, 2008 @ 9:45 am
January 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
bipod:
Yep, and I'm sure Ed would agree, which is why he's wrong when he says that supernatural explanations are categorically untestable. If that were true, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything from Pat Robertsons, um, less-than-substantiated track record. But, obviously we can conclude that he's a quack who simply pulled his predictions, which have no supernatural inspiration, from out the wrong end.
The mere fact that something can be rationalized by a determined enough person doesn't mean it isn't testable. Humans can rationalize literally anything, especially if they're not altogether there. That this person exists is evidence enough of that.
Comment by Deuce — January 17, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
January 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
That's stereotypical thinking but hard to document based on TT comments. I may be wrong about some things but my reasons reference causes and biological systems. Robertson's predictions were purely personal in nature. They were not even derived from the scriptural doctrines he says he believes.
Comment by Bradford — January 17, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
January 18th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Bradford,
Are you saying that your arguments for design aren't rationalizations??? What are they then?
Comment by Dan — January 18, 2008 @ 8:51 am
January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Dan
That's right. They're arguments for evidence of design.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2008 @ 9:55 am
January 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Yes, but they're also rationalizations, are they not? You don't know anything about the design specifications, and can rationalize any sort of design you want. I could falsify any particular pattern as being proof of God, and you still would be playing the rationalization out that it must be some other type of design.
Comment by Dan — January 18, 2008 @ 10:21 am
January 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The design specifications are suggested by biological structures. Living organisms and physical laws constrain empirical claims about design.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
January 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
"The design specifications are suggested by biological structures."
So you rationalize.
Comment by Dan — January 19, 2008 @ 10:54 am