Gil on what’s at stake in the end — the credibility of science

F/N: Newton on the inescapable limitations of the sci methods, in his 1704 Opticks, Query 31: ________ >> As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations. >> _______ Every science teacher, every science student and every College student -- as well as every citizen -- should be made aware of this and its epistemological and logical context and implications down to today. KF kairosfocus

Folks: Let's zoom in on the crucial issue from the original post. In response to the Tennessee education law Amendment's focus:

The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education . . . . Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrators shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education. (d) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

. . . I have highlighted:

a key point of concern is that science and its claims are inherently provisional and subject to correction in light of the very nature of scientific warrant. And so, prudent public discussion and policy making MUST pivot on that fact. However, too often, that key — and inescapable — weakness/limitation of science and decision-making based on its findings, has been overlooked or even dismissed. If you doubt this, think about how the logic of science works. On inferred patterns that unify observations, theories [T], models [including simulations and graphs etc] and laws are made then are tested and are tested against further observations [O]. That which is empirically reliable so far is regarded as scientific knowledge. But, the logic is: If T then O O, so T (so far) This is identically structured to: if Tom is a cat, Tom is an animal. Tom is an animal, so he is a cat. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, i.e. it is possible for a false T to imply true O’s. So, science and scientific knowledge claims are inherently provisional and subject to correction on further evidence. They may be empirically reliable to the point where we would be foolish to disregard the well-tested results, but that is not at all the same as we have “proved” T beyond correction or even abandonment. And, where we deal with the unobserved or unobservable, we must bear that in mind if we are responsible. In particular, the deep past of origins is not observable. So origins theories are subject to far less complete empirical testing than theories about the world as an operational going concern in the present. That is why it is foolish and highly misleading to suggest that say the [Neo-]Darwinian theory of macroevolution is as certain as the orbiting of planets around the sun and related laws of gravitation. And, ever since Einstein, we have known that the Newtonian theory of Gravitation is not absolutely true though it is empirically reliable under a great many relevant circumstances.

Now, if someone has a legitimate objection to the charactersation of inevitable limitations of scientific knowledge, s/he is free to submit an objection. And in fact we know that for instance NCSE's former publicist Dr Nick Matzke, obviously monitors UD and pounces wherever he thinks there is a weak point. (That means by the way, that it is not true that there have been no recent discussions with objectors here at UD. Any hints or suggestions that an artificial echo chamber has been created are false and misleading. Substantial objections and discussions are welcome, obfuscatory rhetorical game playing is not. And as the onlooker can see, where there is an error, it was promptly acknowledged and adjusted for.) We can take the silence as indicative of the substantial point: the Tennessee law is largely on target. Science has inherent limitations, and several controversial areas are riddled with problems in regards to empirical testability, empirical reliability, degree of warrant, and in some cases quite serious ethical hazards. I would however make a caveat on the law. It is understandable that it would emphasise science, but science does not exist in a vacuum. There are inherent limitations in the capacity of science to warrant claims, and such issues are strictly speaking matters of logic and epistemology, i.e. philosophy. Which is of course exactly the discipline that ethics falls under. I would like to see that students in the course of their education receive some exposure to the inherent limits of science, and the issue that science can go bad -- doing harm to people and society -- and needs to be governed by the people in the interests of channelling it to do good and not harm, just as we govern engineering and medicine, which are of course scientific disciplines. A unit on scientific methods, their strengths and limitations, with relevant case studies would cover teh former adequately. A good place to begin that would be newton's remarks in Query 31 of his 1704 Opticks, which lays out a sophisticated form of the typical definition of scientific methods commonly presented in school. Oh yes, the tendency to impose a priori materialism on science should be identified and corrected too. For ethics etc, I suggest a unit on something like Science, society and citizenship. In that unit, cases of benefit and harm in various ways should be explored, and the way society needs to manage science in its long term interest and for the good of people and other creatures, would be a good approach. Some environmental dilemmas are useful, e.g. dam building, but I would strongly feature the Nazi state as an example of where not to go. Remember, c. 1930 - 40 Germany was in effect the leading scientific nation in the world and much of what was done was done in the name of science. Social Darwinism, militaristic aggression, eugenics, euthanasia and genocide will need to be addressed, and the bridge should be made tot he American cases. And, Hunter's Civic Biology should be featured, as a context in which the Scopes issue, the trial and its aftermath and media portrayal are addressed on an objective basis; noting that his textbook advocated eugenics not only in the name of science but in an actual textbook of science used in schools for decades in the USA. It would help if Bryan's proposed closing argument were part of that process, with cross reference to the Loeb-Leopold Nietzschean Superman murder trial and Mr Darrow's role. This of course, I put forward given that Tennessee was ground zero for this case. If we refuse to learn from a fair and accurate view of history, we will be doomed to repeat or echo it. It would be interesting to see how the NCSE or ACLU or others who have been so eager to denounce Tennessee respond to this side of the matter. And if they instead elect to tip-toe around the issue, that, too, will be highly revealing. (Folks, you may want to look a the IOSE's Science in Society unit here on. Remember, this is a draft course that can be presented in a community by interested parties, using say a community hall and preliminary web based study. The model is to do preparatory reading and work, then have a training seminar with evening movies, presentations and panels open to the public, then host a summary seminar on the weekend and complete projects, getting a certificate of participation and/or achievement. In short, even if the power-groups successfully monopolise institutional education, an independent origins science education initiative can bring to bear what is being suppressed. But it would be far better if the silly power games were stopped and a responsible approach were adopted to science education. But then, if power centres and institutions were always reasonable, ethical and benevolent, Jerusalem would never have had a reputation for killing the prophets, the temple would not have had to be cleansed [it seems, TWICE] of money-changers making extortionate profits in the name of serving God, the prophet who came to town and started to teach the people after he cleansed the Temple would not have been subjected to nasty attempts to discredit, nor would his death at the hands of a kangaroo court and a corrupt governor have been bought. But then, that was Friday, but Sunday was a-coming. And if self-styled advocates of science education imagine that science and science education are immune to the moral hazards of being human then I have some prime commercial property in Plymouth, about ten miles south of where I sit, for sale. [It only needs to be cleansed of about 20 ft of volcanic ash and our hot-tempered friend only needs to shut up and go back to sleep . . . ]) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

UPDATE & CORRECTION: Mr Arrington has pointed out that the cover pic from 1977 is a fake, of course he has listed articles that show that the news mags did discuss the upcoming ice age. because I knew of the articles, I did not suspect the cover, 1977 is a little before I became a regular Time-Newsweek reader, which I remained for nearly twenty years. Apologies for the error, and kindly note the update in the original post. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

aqeels- I understand your point- Dr Liddle has her own blog http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/ Joe

Hi kairosfocus, Thanks but I think you misunderstood me. I am saying that materialism = true then ID doesn't get considered. IOW if chance and necessity can do it then, according to the EF, we do not get to consider design. IOW I am saying that materialsim = the necessity and chance decision nodes and to get to the design inference we have to go through those nodes. Joe

@Joe 4 -I have no doubt that Liddle and her ilk posted a lot of tripe, but on numerous occasions the exchanges were genuinely useful for those of us who have a casual interest in these areas. KF - nice post by the way! aqeels

Hi Joe: I think the explanatory filter defaults to explain on law of necessity, then this fails on high contingency of outcomes on similar start-points. High contingency has two and only two known causes, chance and design or purposeful selection. If we default instead to materialism (per Lewontin et al), that locks up the system to a worldview that before facts can speak, has determined that here will only be necessity or chance acting on material objects. So, no matter how remote the odds, it MUST be chance if something is highly contingent. Then, we see self referential incoherence, as this then means that mind must reduce to chance and/or necessity, which leaves no room for rational choice. Without rational choice by a self-moved, there is no reason. There are just mechanically necessary cause-effect chains with some chance jiggling riding on that. That has been on the table at least since Lucretius in his The Nature of Things:

[[Ch 4:] . . . All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists Of twain of things: of bodies and of void In which they’re set, and where they’re moved around. For common instinct of our race declares That body of itself exists: unless This primal faith, deep-founded, fail us not, Naught will there be whereunto to appeal On things occult when seeking aught to prove By reasonings of mind . . . . Again, whate’er exists, as of itself, Must either act or suffer action on it, Or else be that wherein things move and be: Naught, saving body, acts, is acted on; Naught but the inane [[i.e. void] can furnish room. And thus, Beside the inane and bodies, is no third Nature amid the number of all things . . . [[Ch 5:] Bodies, again, Are partly primal germs of things, and partly Unions deriving from the primal germs. And those which are the primal germs of things No power can quench; for in the end they conquer By their own solidness . . . .

Nothing substantially new has been added in over 2,000 years. The same implicit self referentiality and incoherence obtains. But, that is ever so hard to face. Instead, we should be open to what we see around us: things that happen in chains of necessity, things that are highly contingent -- as close as tossing a die. Things that seem traceable to chance, others that are based on the first actions of the self-moved. It is materialist a priorism that makes us refuse to face the very first fact we have, our consciousness of ourselves, and what it entails. And it is the same a priorism that locks out being able to do when it is inconvenient what we all do all the time otherwise: recognise mind at work from the traces of design left behind. So, parsimony is right, but we should not make things simpler than they are, that is to be question-beggingly simplistic. And yes newton's principle that a characteristic, known adequate cause is the best explanation for a given effect, holds almost by common sense. But then how many people looked at an apple falling from a tree? How many have seen the Moon in the sky swinging around the world? Billions. How many have connected the two using the concept that like effects, centre-seeking forces -- have like causes and then inferred Universal Gravitation? Just one. And, rightly, we call him a genius. (And by Dr Torley's reckoning, I would rate Newton at 50 Nobel Prizes alone [maybe 100], and Maxwell at 30. Add in his two dozen or so -- including the Nobel equivalent holders, and we gots dem surrounded sir.) KF kairosfocus

I am also happy not to see in these comments in UD, the ones made from sophists who do not believe in free will. Always self-defeating, because they assume it when they get their "wisdom of this world" to convince us, the Idiots, that we are just upright monkeys. If we were determined to be creationist, then a million of E.Liddle would not be enought to change our ideas. creatoblepas

kairosfocus and other UD members- I have been saying that the way to the design inference is through materialism. That is materialism, according to the EF, Newton and parsimony, gets the first crack at explaining something. And only when materialism fails does the design inference get a chance. Does anyone here disagree with that- that ID is the antithesis of materialism and the way to the design inference is through materialism? (ie the claim that matter, energy, necessity and chance are all there is) Joe

It's just you- the number of comments is irrelevant and Liddle et al didn't add anything. I like the new UD- we get to read the posts without having to deal with any nonsense. Joe

Is it me or has UD become fairly dull? Dont get me wrong. The posts are just as good and thought provoking but with the absence of our main opponents, we rarely see a thread get more than 5 comments! I just remember it was much better when Liddle et al were posting. Shame. aqeels

Forgive some typos I had to fix. If there a4e are more let me know. Typing fingers not working right this morning. kairosfocus