Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:48:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5987 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with
> Creationism wherein you said:
>
> > Creationism is not falsifiable, does not make any predictions that can be
> > tested, fundamentally undermines empirical observation, and is not repeatable
> > in any meaningful sense. For these reasons Creationism is *NOT* science
>
> The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the
> 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions that can be tested".
> Now, I took that to mean something along the lines of "doesn't further
> assist our understanding of the universe by creating useful information".
Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian
interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an
infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is
also, by the way, why studies into the purported medical benefits of prayer
are doomed to be non-scientific.
If we're simply taking about "creator entity X" (and up till now I haven't
been), then we enter an arena in which some theories remain falsifiable, but
it's still necessary to establish the nature of the creator entity so that
we can address how that entity's existence messes up the observations.
> So, let's rephrase: I'd like to consider theories which have empirical
> evidencial support, yet yield no *further* 'useful' information or *further*
> areas in which to test (IE *IF* this theory is true, here's *another* thing
> we could test/use based on and ONLY on its truth, apart from existing
> evidence), as still plausibly scientific. And, I'm thinking you'd probably
> agree. And just in case we still need an example, it sounds like the below
> one works fine:
I've done more reading on this specific subject and have come up with a
few more criteria by which distinctions can be made. As always,
www.skepdic.com has good information re: critical thought, so I'll quote the
currently relevant bit directly:
> The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory,
> however. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the
> greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept
> it. However, to confirm is not the same as to prove logically or
> mathematically. No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty.
http://skepdic.com/science.html
Before anyone jumps on that last sentence, let me remind the readers that
the pro-science posters here have always made that exact point and have
generally (and correctly) idenfitied it as a strength of science.
But wait, there's more:
> Furthermore, the more tests which can be made of the theory, the greater its
> empirical content (Popper, 112, 267). A theory from which very few empirical
> predictions can be made will be difficult to test and generally will not be
> very useful. A useful theory is rich or fecund, i.e., many empirical
> predictions can be generated from it, each one serving as another test of the
> theory. Useful scientific theories lead to new lines of investigation and new
> models of understanding phenomena that heretofore have seemed unrelated
> (Kitcher). This feature of fecundity is probably the main difference between
> the theory of natural selection and the theory of special creation. The
> theory of special creation has not led to new discoveries, better
> understanding, or increased understanding of the relatedness of areas within
> the field of biology or between such fields as biology and psychology. As
> such, the theory of special creation is nearly useless. And, since the theory
> is put forth as dogma, it is the antithesis of a scientific theory.
also from http://skepdic.com/science.html
Obviously there's no ironclad, universal definition of what science is,
but there are certainly some things that it is not.
Another necessary distinction is that a theory may be falsifiable, but if
it's also *false* (such as literal biblical creation) then the theory's
worth (scientific or explanatory) is just about zero.
> > In your re-modified example above, your prediction is now: "A comet that
> > came from the asteroid belt should have trajectory X." Then you test it
> > and, through observation, determine whether the comet has trajectory X. If
> > it does, then you have another piece of evidence to support your hypothesis
> > that the comet came from the asteroid group. If it does not, then either
> > your hypothesis is incorrect and needs to be adjusted, or the comet did
> > *not* come form the asteroid belt.
>
> Sounds like you think it's a scientific theory.
When did I say it wasn't? In
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17131
you tried to make the point that a theory need not make predictions in order
to be scientific, but in support you provided an excellent example of a
theory that does make predictions. *That* is what I've been trying to show.
Your asserted intent was to provide a scientific theory that made no
predictions, but you didn't do so.
I would go further to say that, based on the trajectory and chemical
composition data (let's pretend that the comet didn't blip into the sun),
you would have a basis for forming additional theories about other celestial
bodies. This is the principal of fecundity as mentioned above; your theory
receives confirmation through observation, and from that basis you can form
other theories, which may confirm themselves and, by extension, the original
theory. See how it works?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) I'll still argue that Biblical Creationism is falsifiable-- it's just that CreationISTS tend to either bend with the evidence, or refuse it. If, for example, we were able to "prove" that humans preceeded the Earth, out goes Biblical (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with Creationism wherein you said: (...) The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
