Have we profoundly misunderstood Harvard Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin in his Jan 1997 NYRB article, “Billions and Billions of Demons”?

I have responded in a new post here, in which I have marked up the above, point by point.kairosfocus

October 24, 2011

October

10

Oct

24

24

2011

10:27 AM

10

10

27

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle (and onlookers): I have just got back to this thread, and will respond later to the above. I just note right off that I am very aware of the incidental context, which does not change the significance of the major a priori commitments Lewontin undertakes and sets up as controlling scientific reasoning. Later on DV, I will do a stepwise response. GEM of TKI PS: One of the key mis-steps in reasoning that many seem to male today is to confuse cause with a sufficient set of causal factors. Radioactivity for instance is subject to any number of necessary factors, but of course the apparent randomness of the decay -- driven by a decay constant -- means that we do not know the sufficient set of factors that will cause a particular atom to decay at a particular time. But, for instance,t hat atom must be present under the prevailing laws of physics, to decay. Those are necessary factors. (Cf recent discussion here at UD on causality and its implications.)kairosfocus

October 24, 2011

October

10

Oct

24

24

2011

06:02 AM

6

06

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Apologies for the delay, kairosfocus. Here is my response: First of all, the NYRB article was a review of a book by Carl Sagan, called The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It is very important, I would argue, to keep this in mind as you read the review. Lewontin starts off by contrasting Sagan with Gould: Gould, he says, was concerned to explain how knowledge is constructed; Sagan’s project, he says, is “more elementary” – simply to disseminate a “knowledge of the facts”. But he then says:

But Sagan realizes that the project of merely spreading knowledge of objective facts about the universe is insufficient. First, no one can know and understand everything. Even individual scientists are ignorant about most of the body of scientific knowledge, and it is not simply that biologists do not understand quantum mechanics. If I were to ask my colleagues in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard to explain the evolutionary importance of RNA editing in trypanosomes, they would be just as mystified by the question as the typical well-educated reader of this review.

This paragraph is vital as it puts your first quotation into perspective. Let me emphasise: Lewontin is emphasising the ignorance of scientists, and the fact that “no one can know and understand everything”. This is important, because what follows is that in some respects, we have no choice but to accept an expert view. We cannot afford simply to disbelieve a scientific proposition simply because we personally do not understand the evidence and reasoning that went behind it. In order to do this, clearly, it is important, Lewontin goes on to say, that we establish a “social and and intellectual apparatus” that can, on our behalf, establish truth. This “social and intellectual apparatus” he says, is Science. Now I am convinced, although I may be wrong, that when Lewontin talks about “truth” he is not talking about philosophical or moral truths, but simply about what causes what – the truth about how tornados form; what makes thunder and lightning; where mountains come from; why we get smallpox; why some children are born with Down Syndrome; why we get cancer – this becomes very clear as we go through the review. On that assumption I will proceed: However, Lewontin next says, that to ready ourselves for reception of the propositions that science will present us with, but which most of us will be ill-equipped to check personally, first we have to rid ourselves of erroneous ideas. So here is your first commented quotation:

[Second] to put a correct view of the universe [1 --> a claim to holding truth, not just an empirically reliable, provisional account] into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out [2 --> an open ideological agenda]

Which you comment amounts to “a claim to holding truth, not just an empirically reliable, provisional account into peoples heads”, and “[opening an] ideological agenda”. (I hope I have parsed your comments correctly). No, I don’t think he is doing this at all, and he certainly doesn’t say so. In the context I have just given, it seems to me he is quite clearly saying: we need to construct a “social and intellectual apparatus”, namely Science, which will reliably tell us the truth about things we ourselves cannot be equipped to check, but in order to receive such knowledge, we must first rid ourselves of what has been shown to be false. This interpretation is to my mind supported by the immediately following passage, that ends immediately before your next quote:

People believe a lot of nonsense about the world of phenomena, nonsense that is a consequence of a wrong way of thinking. The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of, for that vast project is, in its entirety, hopeless.

[ [Rather, ] the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations [3 --> a declaration of cultural war], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth. [ 4 --> this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

As I see it “explanations” for natural events (lightning-bolt-hurling gods; disease-causing witches; fiery horses pulling the chariot of the sun across the sky), and delegate the task of explaining these things to a social and intellectual apparatus (i.e. system of methodologies) we call “Science”. You, on the other hand, read it as a “declaration of cultural war” and a “self-refuting” philosophical claim. I think this is quite wrong. On the assumption that I have made that Lewontin is talking about “factual” truth, not “moral” or “philosophical” truth, which may of course be wrong, but I don’t think so, I think that all he is saying is something with which you would probably agree: that post-Enlightenment, instead of resorting to “superstitious” explanations of natural phenomena, and consulting oracles, or witch-doctors, or even priests about how the universe works, we delegate the task of finding out those explanations to the “social and cultural apparatus” of Science. He then sets up his argument that “the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality” thus confirming btw, my interpretation that what he is talking about is, merely “physical reality” not moral or philosophical truth. To do so he says:

The reason that people do not have a correct view of nature is not that they are ignorant of this or that fact about the material world, but that they look to the wrong sources in their attempt to understand...Sagan's argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons. As one bit of evidence for the bad state of public consciousness, Sagan cites opinion polls showing that the majority of Americans believe that extraterrestrials have landed from UFOs. The demonic, for Sagan, includes, in addition to UFOs and their crews of little green men who take unwilling passengers for a midnight spin and some wild sex, astrological influences, extrasensory perception, prayers, spoon-bending, repressed memories, spiritualism, and channeling, as well as demons sensu strictu, devils, fairies, witches, spirits, Satan and his devotees, and, after some discreet backing and filling, the supposed prime mover Himself. God gives Sagan a lot of trouble. It is easy enough for him to snort derisively at men from Mars, but when it comes to the Supreme Extraterrestrial he is rather circumspect, asking only that sermons "even-handedly examine the God hypothesis." The fact that so little of the findings of modern science is prefigured in Scripture to my mind casts further doubt on its divine inspiration. But of course, I might be wrong. I doubt that an all-seeing God would fall for Pascal's Wager, but the sensibilities of modern believers may indeed be spared by this Clintonesque moderation.

Although Lewontin doesn’t think much of Sagan’s “But of course I might be wrong” in regard to God, in no way does he contradict it. On the other hand, he thorough approves (as presumably you would too) the rejection of “to UFOs and their crews of little green men who take unwilling passengers for a midnight spin and some wild sex, astrological influences, extrasensory perception, prayers, spoon-bending, repressed memories, spiritualism, and channeling, as well as demons sensu strictu, devils, fairies, witches, spirits, Satan and his devotees”. And he also approves that fact that:

Most of the chapters of The Demon-Haunted World are taken up with exhortations to the reader to cease whoring after false gods and to accept the scientific method as the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world.

Again we see, supporting my assumption, that all Lewontin is talking about is “a correct understanding of the natural world”, and commends the Scientific Method as the unique pathway to that understanding. Now you may disagree that the Scientific Method is a good pathway to understanding the natural world, in which case you not only disagree with Sagan and Lewontin but with me! And, I suggest, with a good many ID proponents as well. You then quote what follows:

[To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [5 --> a self evident claim is that this is true, must be true and its denial is patently absurd. But actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question, confused for real self-evidence] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [6 --> Science gives reality, reality is naturalistic and material], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test. [7 --> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim: if you reject naturalistic, materialistic evolutionism, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, by direct implication] . . . .

You interpret Lewontin as saying that reality is natural. I think he is saying exactly what he says explicitly, namely that physical reality (why would he add that adjective otherwise?) is “natural”. What else would physical reality be? Why else would physics be called Natural Science? We even talk about the laws of physics as “the laws of nature” which, some claim, are occasionally suspended for Divine purposes. In contrast, he says, explanations that invoke demons and sprites and naiads and dryads and nereids – the pantheon of “nature spirits” that served for “explanations” of natural phenomena and had to be appeased in order that the world would continue to turn and the rains arrive “fail every reasonable test”. And they do. Don’t they? So he then asks:

So why do so many people believe in demons? Sagan seems baffled, and nowhere does he offer a coherent explanation of the popularity at the supermarket checkout counter of the Weekly World News, with its faked photographs of Martians. ... Nearly every present-day scientist would agree with Carl Sagan that our explanations of material phenomena exclude any role for supernatural demons, witches, and spirits of every kind, including any of the various gods from Adonai to Zeus. ... Sagan believes that scientists reject sprites, fairies, and the influence of Sagittarius because we follow a set of procedures, the Scientific Method, which has consistently produced explanations that put us in contact with reality and in which mystic forces play no part. For Sagan, the method is the message, but I think he has opened the wrong envelope.

And here is where Lewontin gets interesting. Sagan, he says, thinks it is the Scientific Method that leads scientists to reject the “demons” of pre-Enlightenment. Lewontin begs to differ, and, indeed, goes on to say a great deal that you probably agree with! First of all, having noted that Sagan doesn’t actually describe the Scientific Method, but attempts to show that it works. Lewontin demolishes each of these claims in turn:

First, we are told that science "delivers the goods." It certainly has, sometimes, but it has often failed when we need it most. Scientists and their professional institutions, partly intoxicated with examples of past successes, partly in order to assure public financial support, make grandiose promises that cannot be kept.

and he goes on to note various failures of science to deliver on big promises. Then he says:

Second, it is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data and assertions without adequate evidence. But no serious student of epistemology any longer takes the naive view of science as a process of Baconian induction from theoretically unorganized observations. There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become "observations" we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited. In the 1930s well-established and respectable geneticists described "dauer-modifications," environmentally induced changes in organisms that were passed on to offspring and only slowly disappeared in succeeding generations. As the science of genetics hardened, with its definitive rejection of any possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, observations of dauer-modifications were sent to the scrapheap where they still lie, jumbled together with other decommissioned facts.

A man after my own heart! He agrees with me that “facts” at one levels are merely “models” at another, and must themselves be subject to scrutiny, and their provisional nature borne in mind. Then he says:

Third, it is said that there is no place for an argument from authority in science. The community of science is constantly self-critical, as evidenced by the experience of university colloquia "in which the speaker has hardly gotten 30 seconds into the talk before there are devastating questions and comments from the audience." If Sagan really wants to hear serious disputation about the nature of the universe, he should leave the academic precincts in Ithaca and spend a few minutes in an Orthodox study house in Brooklyn.

In other words, a religious organisation can put scientists to shame when it comes to self-criticism! And he adds, amplifying his earlier point, that while

within each narrowly defined scientific field there is a constant challenge to new technical claims and to old wisdom

He readily concedes that outside

....the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution.

Eat that, Dawkins :) He then re-frames his question: why do scientists believe the propositions of science? Not because those propositions are, intuitively, credible, he says:

Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.

In other words: why are scientists prepared to accept such unlikely propositions as wave-particle duality, which comes from scientists, yet balk at the Holy Trinity, which does not? This is the question that Lewontin attempts to address in the passage you take most vigorous exception to. He starts by saying:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

So what is this key? He answers:

We [i.e.scientists] take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

[ It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world [8 --> redefines science as a material explanation of the observed world], but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [9 --> another major begging of the question . . . by imposition of a priori materialism as a worldview that hen goes on to control science as its handmaiden and propaganda arm that claims to be the true prophet of reality, the only begetter of truth] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. [10 --> In short, even if the result is patently absurd on its face, it is locked in, as materialistic "science" is now our criterion of truth!] Moreover, that materialism is absolute [11 --> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [12 --> Hostility to the divine is embedded, from the outset, as per the dismissal of the "supernatural"]

To which you object that he redefines science as a material explanation for the observed world. No, he doesn’t “redefine science” thus. Science is thus already defined. The entire scientific project is, as he points out, set up to find out what, rather than nature-spirits and demons, cause the phenomena we observe in the observed world. There is no scientific method for testing a supernatural hypothesis, as we have been discussing on the “miracles” thread, because scientific methodology involves deriving predictive hypotheses, and miracles, by definition, cannot be predicted. As you seemed to agree when you dismissed (rightly IMO) the big study that showed no effect of prayer. Science operates entirely in the domain of the predictable – it seeks to derive general laws that allow us to make predictive models of the observed world. This is not a “redefinition”. As Galileo allegedly said: “eppur si muove” – our models need to predict data, so that they can be tested against data. You also claim that he advocates that science be the “handmaiden” of materialism. No, he does not. What he says that having set out to discover natural explanations of phenomena our methodology must be such that natural explanations are what it produces, no matter how counter-intuitive those explanations turn out to be. That is not making science the handmaiden of any “ism” at all – it is devising a methodological “apparatus” that will generate explanations that deliver reliable predictions, no matter how counter-intuitive those explanations may be. To which of course you object! This is not surprising, given what I consider a misreading of his intention. But what you are reading as the forcing of the improbable at the expense of the supernatural is, I would argue something quite different: what he is saying is that by rigorously insisting that our models deliver reliable predictions, even when they are counter-intuitive, we can trust what they deliver, unbiased by any a priori ideas about what is, and is not, likely. For example, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are both extremely counter-intuitive – nonsense, on face value. Yet they deliver reliable predictions that other previous models did not. That insistence on reliable predictions is what guarantees even the most counter-intuitive of claims. But by insisting on reliable predictions, by the same token, we must exclude causal mechanisms that posit a “demon” – or, rather, in less fancily poetic terms, we must assume that the universe obeys its own laws. That is the price of our confidence in counter-intuitive propositions. This is why he says the “adherence is absolute”. Not because he has a “fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind” nor because of “hostility to the divine” but because scientists (remember he is talking about scientists) can only uncover predictive models. What he is saying – and it’s a somewhat subtle point – is that it is only because scientists know that in non-predictive models (as non-material models must be) are rigorously excluded that can they have any grounds for believing the hugely counter-intuitive models they may be presented with. To take the quantum example – if we thought that scientists could posit mischievous pixies to account for quantum weirdness, we’d have no reason to prefer science over pixies. But because we know they can’t, however pixie-like their propositions are, we can grant them credibility. Which is why Lewontin then quotes Beck:

[The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. [13 --> a slightly more sophisticated form of Dawkins' ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, certainly, irrational. This is a declaration of war! Those who believe in God, never mind the record of history, never mind the contributions across the ages, are dismissed as utterly credulous and irrational, dangerous and chaotic]

No it isn’t. Nothing like, though it is certainly provocative. It is explained by his next sentence:

[To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

He is saying that in science appeals to a deity are in effect to allow that science is useless – that none of our data can be trusted, that statistically “significant” effects may be “non-significant” and “non-significant” effects may be “significant”, and there is no way to tell, because at any time, the omnipotent deity may be monkeying with the laws we are trying to retrieve. That is why science cannot “appeal to an omnipotent deity”. It doesn’t mean that God can’t exist, or must be denied; it does mean that supernatural hypotheses have no place – and can have no place – in science. I’m sure you disagree, but what I am trying to explain is that this is not a “declaration of war” but a perfectly standard view of science, held by theist and non-theist scientists alike, and even by many theist non-scientists – and expressed by Gould in his phrase “non-overlapping magisteria”. Finally you say:

[ [14 --> Perhaps the second saddest thing is that some actually believe that these last three sentences that express hostility to God and then back it up with a loaded strawman caricature of theism and theists JUSTIFY what has gone on before. As a first correction, accurate history -- as opposed to the commonly promoted rationalist myth of the longstanding war of religion against science -- documents (cf. here for a start) that the Judaeo-Christian worldview nurtured and gave crucial impetus to the rise of modern science through its view that God as creator made and sustains an orderly world. Similarly, for miracles -- e.g. the resurrection of Jesus -- to stand out as signs pointing beyond the ordinary course of the world, there must first be such an ordinary course, one plainly amenable to scientific study. The saddest thing is that many are now so blinded and hostile that, having been corrected, they will STILL think that this justifies the above. But, nothing can excuse the imposition of a priori materialist censorship on science, which distorts its ability to seek the empirically warranted truth about our world.]

There is no “censorship” of science, kairosfocus, at least not in the manner you seem to think, and Lewontin IMO is not advocating censorship. What he is saying is that the Scientific Method necessarily excludes supernatural hypotheses, not ideologically but methodologically. The project of Science is to retrieve the natural laws that underpin the universe. It cannot retrieve any causal agency that is not subject to those natural laws. If it adjusts its methods in order to accommodate such hypotheses, we are back in the situation of being unable to distinguish between Quantum Weirdness and mere Woo. Science cannot illuminate the supernatural – it can’t even illuminate the Divine. For that you need theology, or philosophy, or, indeed, a pure heart. But not science!Elizabeth Liddle

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

09:42 AM

9

09

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

RH7: Pardon, but I will have to be fairly insistent: we live in a world where we have to address the rhetoric of suggestive subtext and invidious associations. Let us compare:

[RH7, at the first:] So Pseudoscience is really just a derogatory label for legitimate science conducted outside the arbitrary limits of a prejudicial, illogical, and ideologically-driven system? [RH7 now:] You need to get this straight. I did not say that ID was Psudeoscience, in fact I said it was legitimate science because the ID theorists voluntarily, purposely use the Scientific Method

It is strictly accurate in the narrow sense but highly misleading in the wider context to assert that you did not SAY that ID is pseudoscience, when in context that is precisely what you suggested by associations, and that in a context that does the same, only much worse. You compound the problem by proceeding to try to lecture me on how ID uses methods in use in origins sciences, highlights the provisionality of scientific findings, and points to the methodological equivalence of design and descent. These, as though that is not what I have said and/or linked all along. In short, that refusal to acknowledge or respond to what I have put on the table right from the outset, is a smoking gun. In fact, you raised the issue of "pseudoscience," and used a very sarcastic remark that in context -- Lewontin's notorious article! -- would naturally associate design theory with the likes of astrology and UFO cults (the latter at a time when there had been a cultic mass suicide). I therefore corrected you that the science/pseudoscience demarcation issue is a pseudoproblem. The sounder approach is that which asks what is well warranted as an empirically grounded knowledge claim, rather than worrying overmuch about laudatory labels like "science" and namecalling tags that suggest fraud, like "pseudoscience." I then went on, in response to further demands on your part, to draw out some details on scientific methods and their limitations on warrant. These, you have not responded to, instead your latest acts as though I did not put the matters on the table with linked substantiating details. Pardon, but that is not good enough, please do better next time. Anyway, let us see if we can build on what you now acknowledge. Design theory uses standard Origins Science methods, and appeals to reasonable principles of provisional empirical warrant. Design theorists may be in error -- scientific methods are not foolproof, as Newton highlighted in Opticks Query 31 -- one of the key points in Newton's presentation that is too often left out in school level summaries of "THE scientific method." But, abstract potential for error should not deter us from acknowledging the force of empirically reliable findings. In this case, the known source of key signs such as functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. (I find, too, that the tendency not to acknowledge antecedents such as Newton in Opticks, Query 31 interesting, probably because the text is explicitly design oriented, analyses the roots of the cosmos and the system of reality in terms of chance, necessity and choice as alternative key causal factors, and is also explicitly Biblical in its Theism.) The real issue on the table today is that which is highlighted in the 14 points of concern in the original post: a priori materialism imposed on especially origins science and distorting its ability to respond to the actual force of the relevant evidence on the empirically known cause of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. I trust we can now move forward on a more reasonable and balanced footing, now that the "pseudoscience" suggestion is off the table. GEM of TKI PS: Given your remarks on plurality presented as singular, I should add a note on scientific methods of investigation. One of the problems with the usual presentations of THE scientific method, is that it suggests that there is a method that only and all scientists in good standing use. In fact, the methods of inquiry are inductive methods, using variations on abductive inference to best current explanation. If we survey the fields that are conventionally labelled sciences, we will see that there is no one method that covers the sciences [especially when we contrast observational and experimental sciences and origins/deep past reconstruction and operations sciences that study the current world]. Similarly, the same or substantially equivalent methods are used in a host of fields of responsible endeavour that are not conventionally labelled sciences. So, the wise approach is to study inductive methods, define sciences as fields that use such methods, and highlight the principles and practices of sound inductive investigations, with notes on their limitations similar to those noted by Newton. In particular the challenge of the affirmation of the consequent in the logic of science and the principle of abduction need to be far better presented to students.kairosfocus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

02:33 AM

2

02

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle: I still await your substantiation of your assertion of profound misunderstanding, in light of your response to the 14 points of concern in the original post above and the wider context of the behaviour of key sectors of the materialist elites of our day; not to mention the "quote mining" talking point that has been pushed as an attempt to deflect attention from the issues in the 14 points of concern. I note, this is now Oct 21, and the comment has been pending since the evening of the 18th. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

01:56 AM

1

01

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus, You need to get this straight. I did not say that ID was Psudeoscience, in fact I said it was legitimate science because the ID theorists voluntarily, purposely use the Scientific Method (which does encompasses more than one method, yet still retains the singular title).

FAQ: Can we positively say something was designed? If nothing in science can be positively said with 100% confidence, how then do we learn through the scientific method? Inductive reasoning, or inference, is used to validate hypotheses in science. While no hypothesis is ever said to be "proven", it can be supported, to varying degrees, by evidences which it predicts. Thus, science is tentative, incomplete, and never completely final. Well-supported theories are often said to be "fact", though in the strict sense of the word, there is no such thing as a true "scientific fact" . . . Epistemology is the study of knowledge--It asks the question, "how do we know what we claim we know?" Design and evolution are on the same epistemological level: both evolution and design are based upon historical unrepeatable events, and we "infer" the past action of one process or the other by working like "detectives" to try to find clues as to what happened. Neither can be proven 100%, but when we find the predicted evidence of design or evolution, we are justified in inferring one (or the other):

and

Coverage of Last Night's ID Lecture at OU The way Stephen C. Meyer came to that conclusion, was using Charles Darwin's own scientific method of determining which cause to accept for scientific questions in the remote past. "The irony of that is that a conclusion that points to intelligent design" is reached by Darwin's own methods, Meyer said.

You need to discriminate: objecting to the a priori exclusion of design is not the same thing as objecting to the Scientific Method in principle (a.k.a various accepted scientific methodologies employed in the Sciences). ID theorists did not event a whole new Science to study Design, instead they engage in the same practice with the same methods. That means ID theory relies upon the Scientific Method to present its case, and why, repeatedly, ID theorists claim that their field of is legitimate Science.rhampton7

October 20, 2011

October

10

Oct

20

20

2011

10:56 AM

10

10

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Jerry was being very sloppy is his phrasing, so much so that he invited psuedoscience to the table."

Maybe I did not phrase it best but I suspect most readers know what I meant. An ID scientist could come to the same conclusions as other scientists in 99.9% of the studies published in the history of science but in a few would offer different conclusions using the framework of the scientific method and the tools of modern science. Somehow this became the equivalent of admitting pseudoscience into the discussion. If the ideas were sloppily presented which I am willing to concede then the correct way to approach this is to suggest how to phrase it more accurately and not imply what was said was nonsense by suggesting that pseudoscience would now be the same as science. I introduced the idea that ID scientists actually practice better science because it is not the first time in the last 6 years that I saw Lewontin's article being discussed. I felt it appropriate to add this perspective to the discussion since it goes to the heart of what this article seems to be saying, namely what is good science. I will just add this following observation about pseudoscience. Are the Darwinists practicing pseudoscience? One of the problems today is that we have a lot of activity masquerading as science not because the studies are a sham (though some may be) but because the conclusions do not stand up to the data. It has been almost two years since I read Richard Dawkins' book, "The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution." But I did not find any evidence in the book for the origin of anything really complicated. I found plenty of evidence on how modern genetics plays out over time as influenced by environmental forces. So when Dawkins claims that Darwinian processes as modified by the latest synthesis is responsible for all changes in the history of life, is he practicing pseudoscience? He is making conclusions that are not warranted by the data. I also remember watching on youtube the debate at Stanford between Will Provine and Phillip Johnson. At the end Provine could not summon any evidence to support his conclusions, only faith that deep time made it happen. Actually Provine presented almost no evidence during the debate at all. Did this make Provine a pseudoscientist? Definitely in this case, though he was extremely well respected in the science community and a lot of what he ascribed to was genuine science. Was Johnson a pseudoscientist as all he did was present evidence from the very studies that evolutionary biology produced and make conclusions off the evidence? Johnson was not a scientist but used the evidence of science to make his points. I don't think that would classify him as a pseudoscientist though I am sure some would like to label him that way. My point being is that "pseudoscience" was brought into the debate as a rhetorical device to undermine a point of view and that it is selectively misapplied. A better response would be to make a suggestion that would clarify what was meant if one thought it was needed.jerry

October 20, 2011

October

10

Oct

20

20

2011

07:58 AM

7

07

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SA: Just spotted this -- we need that chronological view. Actually materialism is not compatible with not just science but with rationality and even morality. As has been known since the days of Plato in The Laws Bk x, 2350 years ago The problem with materialism in science is the imposition of a question-begging a priori on scientific investigations that warps the ability of science to pursue the truth about the cosmos. Cf the OP above and the 14 points of concern to see this. Remember Lewontin is simply being the Young Turk who blurted the matter out loud, spilling the cat out of the bag. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 20, 2011

October

10

Oct

20

20

2011

05:21 AM

5

05

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

RH7: Pardon, but at this point, you are just repetitively spewing tangential talking points as you were doubtless taught -- after all, in school we all learned about THE Scientific Method and were warned against Pseudoscience, and were told of the long war of Religion against Science -- complete with gross misrepresentations of what happened with Columbus and Galileo. Also -- pardon directness, but it seems something has to be directly said to focus attention -- you are still trying to play at prosecuting attorney using demonstrably outdated and faulty ideas, pushing Design Theory in the dock instead of getting your own ducks in a row first. Meanwhile, as the OP and even the double post you are commenting into the middle of document beyond reasonable doubt, the real problem is that origins science has been taken ideological captive to a priori materialism and is twisting sound empirical investigatory methods into pretzels of censorship as a result, undermining the credibility of what it presents as "science." Wake up, please! For instance, you are still talking as though there is a THE Scientific Method. There simply is not. There are only empirical investigative methods, that are commonly used by scientists and others, and are adapted to the circumstances of a particular subject. Methods --

as in, what do "“If Tom is a cat then Tom is an animal” does not entail “Tom is an animal, so he must be a cat”" and the fallacy in F/n 3, "affirming the consequent" mean and why are these directly relevant to the limitations of scientific inference? [Link, yet again, please read and respond] --

. . . that are not capable of guaranteed delivery of the ultimate truth, but can only guide us in seeking the empirically reliable and possibly true. In the case of the particular problem being pursued by design theory, you need to respect the issue on the table: can we credibly, reliably know the source-cause of certain phenomena reflecting things like specified complexity or irreducible complexity and Wicken wiring-diagram complex, specific functional organisation, from the patterns in front of us, where we do not directly know the causal story and/or agents that may have been involved? The well-founded answer is that we can investigate this and draw reasonable best current explanation conclusions, by extending scientific investigatory methods used to look at and reconstruct or model the past. Namely, inference to best explanation driven by empirical facts of traces and consequences of the past of origins accessible in the present; which also looks at the tested, reliable signs of forces acting in the present that are known to be capable of leaving essentially similar traces. For the moment, such investigations may not tell us whodunit, or howdeydunit. Just as, investigations into say Stonehenge have not to date told us specifically whodunit, or howdeydunit. (The rafting theory has failed, and the overland transport theory seems incredible. Maybe they built bigger more seaworthy boats than we now imagine 2500 or 3500 or whatever BC.) Do we let what we don't know about Stonehenge block us from what we can learn using reasonable methods? Why then, do you -- and so many others -- want to use what current methods of investigating causal factors cannot tell us, to block us from considering what the methods we have and have confirmed as reasonably reliable, can and do tell us? Apart from, these methods are pointing to conclusions that the materialists who dominate science, education, media and policy institutions are uncomfortable with or have the sort of agendas against that the original post exposes through the 14 points of concern? What an investigation cannot tell us for the moment should not ever be allowed to distract us from what it can and does tell us, on reliable sign and in light of good procedure. So, when Design Theorists point out what their methods can soundly do, and where the methods do not go for now, that should be respected, not twisted into the sort of talking point objections you are making up. You are misleading yourself, and perhaps others. Then, when I look at your latest, I see no sign that you have even begun to attend to the serious methodological issues and related matters epistemological that have been put on the table. Much less, signs of regret that you have used quite improper dismissive rhetorical devices. You are still stuck on defective talking points that have passed sell-by date c. 1983 with Laudan's very soundly argued critical review. Let's excerpt Wiki on Laudan on the demarcation issue [hence also the THE Scientific Method issue . . . and I am not even calling up Feyerabend in support for the moment], as you seem to have failed to note it above:

He [Laudan, 1983] noted that many well-founded beliefs are not scientific and, conversely, many scientific conjectures are not well-founded. He also found that demarcation criteria were historically used as “machines de guerre” in polemical disputes between “scientists” and “pseudo-scientists.” . . . In his judgment, the demarcation between science and non-science was a pseudo-problem that would best be replaced by focusing on the distinction between reliable and unreliable knowledge, without bothering to ask whether that knowledge is scientific or not. He would consign hollow phrases like “pseudo-science” or “unscientific” to the rhetoric of politicians or sociologists.[11: Laudan, Larry (1983), "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", in Cohen, R.S.; Laudan, L., Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 76, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 111–127, ISBN 90-277-1533-5]

You need to stop, think and re-tool your mental tool-box, tossing out a lot of rhetorical tactics and talking points along the way. Start by acknowledging that the demarcation problem is dead (in light of the relevant grounds), and with the related challenge that the "Science" vs "Pseudoscience" talking point has turned out to be utterly misdirected and rhetorical. Please, focus for a few moments on the key principle, not whether we can attach prestigious labels such as "scientific," or derogatory ones such as "pseudoscience," but that we need to identify and use the best tools of investigation that offer the best warranting support to our explanations that we have. Which turns out to be inference to best explanation on empirical evidence and ability to accurately predict or retrodict. Please, think again. And, address the substantial context on the table, the 14 key concerns, as that exposes the real problem of our time: question-begging materialist a priorism that is crippling science from using sound and balanced investigations, and is eating out the heart of the integrity of science: objective, open-minded, open-ended progressive pursuit of the truth about our world in light of empirical evidence and correctly reasoned analysis. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 20, 2011

October

10

Oct

20

20

2011

12:18 AM

12

12

18

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Now think about the limits of ID. It can not tell us what or who is behind the design, nor how said design was implemented. This is not a problem created by a cadre of hostile scientists bent on protecting a Darwinist ideology, but upon ID theorists themselves who, voluntarily, constrain their work to the Scientific Method.

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? Regardless of your answer, ID theorists have already made their answer known. They chose to abide by the scientific method, hence ID theory has practical limits upon what it can discern - that is, conclusions are deliberately limited to a subset of potential answers for "ideological" reasons. Jerry was being very sloppy is his phrasing, so much so that he invited psuedoscience to the table. I strongly objected because it is scientific method - employed by Behe, Dembski, Meyer, et. al. - that allows ID theory to be a proper field of study.rhampton7

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

05:53 PM

5

05

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

RH7: You made a very clearly barbed dismissive remark, which I corrected. Beyond that, you seem to miss that the ability to detect design on tested, reliable signs, is sufficient to effect a restoration in science, given the problems addressed in the OP. Which is highly significant. As to issues over detecting design methods, the how tweredun issue is at best tangential to reliably detecting that tweredun in the material context. And, it serves rhetorically as a handy strawman to pummel. More could be said but already all of this is on a tangent to the primary issue. If you are really interested in the pseudoscience issue, there is sufficient above to focus the epistemological matter for sound work. It is now 30 years since the issue was laid to rest. Science vs pseudoscience is a pseudoproblem, and the demarcation approach is dead. The proper focal issue is warrant of empirically grounded claims, and warrant on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power is sufficient to address that which is loose [astrology etc] and that which is censorship [evolutionary materialism]. And, the schools level scientific method we all learned is over simplified. And if you seriously wanted specific steps of thought on inference to best explanation in an empirical context, the already linked pages provide that. (Suggestion: start here, work through here. Do, tell me now whether the actual case at the core of the sci rev traced from 300 BC to 1700 AD -- and complete with Newton's own remarks on methods -- is "vague" etc. for you. Is Peirce on abduction too "vague" also? And, did you read this and the onward linked on design inference as scientific methods?) GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

04:39 PM

4

04

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I'm not brushing it aside. You, however, seem to brush aside that my comment was directed to Jerry and his description of the scientific method. That's why you find my comment appended to his and not to the article itself. And I honestly don't see how your vague description of an alternative is any better. Note that ID does not claim that design is supernatural or that a material cause (for life on Earth) is impossible. The theory lacks the ability to make such a determination. Furthermore, ID uses the same scientific method as did Charles Darwin (Stephen Meyer has made this point on more than one occasion). But Jerry, and I suppose you as well, seem to think the scientific method is substantially lacking. Now think about the limits of ID. It can not tell us what or who is behind the design, nor how said design was implemented. This is not a problem created by a cadre of hostile scientists bent on protecting a Darwinist ideology, but upon ID theorists themselves who, voluntarily, constrain their work to the Scientific Method.rhampton7

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

03:18 PM

3

03

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

RH7: Sorry, it's not so easy to brush this aside. For, your comment above, in context, speaks -- all too plainly, for itself:

So Pseudoscience is really just a derogatory label for legitimate science conducted outside the arbitrary limits of a prejudicial, illogical, and ideologically-driven system?

The obvious intent and subtext -- in the context of Lewontin's article and exchanges above -- is to tag design theory with the opprobrium that attaches to astrology, palmistry or UFO cults. That is why I responded to it. And, it is evident that you have paid little attention to the utter discredit of the demarcation issue and the responsible view put forward nearly 30 years ago by Laudan et al in closing the books on the demarcation pseudoproblem. The real issue is warrant, not rhetorically loaded labels such as "pseudoscience." And, warrant is an epistemological issue. The answer to any legitimate concern about loosening standards of warrant is in the above: science is a general label for fields of study that investigate our experienced and observed world. So, accepting the limits on empirical warrant by inference to best explanation -- the underlying epistemological approach -- we seek provisional warrant for empirically reliable results. Which, automatically shuts out ideas that lack empirical warrant, and cuts off the a priori materialist intellectual gerrymandering and censorship exposed in the original post. Which is the serious problem. (BTW, it would help you to note that there is no THE scientific method that all and only scientists in good standing apply. There are only responsible methods of empirical investigation that are used in the various empirically focussed fields, some called sciences, some not. The schools "method" in particular is not confined to the conventional list of all sciences, nor are all sciences even able to do experiments or make direct observations of the focal subjects. Astronomy is an observational science, and sciences of origins cannot observe the remote actual past. [Wiki is particularly poor on this sort of topic, because of its deeply institutionalised materialist bias and typical want of philosophical balance.]) End of distraction. Now, please address the 14 points of concern on Lewontin et al and their views that based on not only testimony but acts of institutions like NAS and NSTA, are institutionally dominant. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

01:42 PM

1

01

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

You misunderstood my comment. Do you believe there is such a thing as Psuedoscience? If so, then there must be a meaningful difference between Science and Psuedosceince, yes? So what I objected to was this characterization, which seems to dismiss the necessity for the scientific methodology:

The ID proponent would say we must not be forced to constrict our conclusions to a limited subset of potential answers. What I have seen is that the materialist scientist forces a limited sub set of choices arbitrarily not because it is logical but for ideological reasons. That is not good philosophy let alone good science.

By the way its been framed, the Scientific method is capricious line in the sand. If so, then I would like to know how it could be changed so that it is more agreeable to ID without letting Psudeoscience in through the backdoor.rhampton7

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

01:24 PM

1

01

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BTW, the ridicule response is diagnostic about the source of the infection: Alinsky. Unsurprisingly, a darling of the fashionable leftish radicals.kairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

12:48 PM

12

12

48

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jerry: You are fundamentally right, the design approach -- the original approach to modern science -- in refined modern form allows us to explicitly address the full framework of causal factors on a case by case, aspect by aspect basis. The design restoration -- that's a better term than revolution -- allows us to focus on the issue of empirical signs and patterns, across causes and factors that trace to mechanical forces, chance circumstances and choice. I cannot speak for others, but the per aspect cumulative explanation on traced factors approach gives me a more coherent, comprehensive view of phenomena and objects. Indeed, it fills in a hole in the understanding of scientific methods that was always niggling at the back of my mind, so that I can see how one can be truly scientific in say a forensic or archaeological context. But you are right the name of the game is too often nasty rhetoric, and the trifecta pattern is the standard tactic: red herring distractions, led away to set up strawman posed in the fever swamps and duly soaked in ad hominems, then set alight. That distracts, poisons, intoxicates, polarsises and clouds the air, which then spreads out from the fever swamps to the culture at large. It has been going on a lot online, but it is now all over the place as the culture of civility disintegrates. It is as though those who are doing it revel in chaos and spewing venom, not caring on the damage they do. I guess, until they trouble the wrong party who will come for them, claws out and not verbally. Especially when they threaten innocents who such have a duty to protect. (Let's just say that those who recently tried to hold my wife and children hostage by playing outing games crossed a nuke tripwire. In case they have forgotten, UK law is quite stringent on making threats, and religious hostility is an aggravating factor in what you Americans call the penalty phase.) Bydand . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

12:45 PM

12

12

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus, I always marvel at how often the anti ID people will not address the substance of the discussion but instead bring in irrelevant ideas, equivocations or distortions. I haven't paid much attention to the discussions here in the last two years but see nothing has changed. A frequent tactic is to try to win by a "clever put down." This is the strategy in so many debates on the internet especially in political discussion but has always been a staple of the ID discussions. Substance is not the method of choice to win an argument but rather ridicule or disdain. I made a claim that ID subsumes all of regular science but adds a new dimension in interpretation and the response is to ridicule. It is one I have made frequently in the past. If there was a substantive argument against it, why do they not bring it up.jerry

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

11:50 AM

11

11

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N 2: Ironically, this is a case where confirmation on reliable signs of a designed object would DISCONFIRM the supernatural provenance of the aspect of the shroud that is of interest. Namely, the strange, negative image that appears to be a superficial scorch from a short burst of some sort of radiation. If we can find good signs that it is a painting of some sort, that would confirm design and thus fraud. Similarly, if it can be seen from a credible patch of its cloth that the body of the cloth is medieval, that would be disconfirmatory from another direction. At any rate what this plainly shows is that inference to design is NOT logically equivalent to inference to the supernatural, and it shows that it is in fact inference to art.kairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

06:45 AM

6

06

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: having noted that on the underlying issue, it is entirely possible that acts of supernatural intelligent agents may leave traces in our world that may be studied using scientific methods. E.g. is is entirely possible that our cosmos is the work of an extracosmic intelligence of awesome power, skill and knowledge, who would almost by literal definition be super-natural, but cosmological design theorists do not focus on whodunit but instead on signs and explanations of said signs that point out that tweredun, i.e. that the cosmos is credibly a result of intelligence. The scientific work would be on the inference that an act of intelligent agency has occurred. (By contrast ever since Thaxton et al in the very first technical design theory work, TMLO, design theorists have pointed out that evidence pointing to the design of cell based life on earth, does not in itself require onward inference to designers within or beyond the cosmos. Venter et al have shown that a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond where we now are, could do it.) The whodunit, why etc. questions to be settled on motive- means- opportunity, record, context etc we can leave to philosophical, forensic, archaeological and historical investigations; which are perfectly valid in their own right, cf. a case in point here on. Of course, in that process, scientific investigations may indeed play a part, e.g. as they do in the world of studies of the mysterious and just possibly supernaturally affected artifact [I here reflect my own conclusion on the balance of the evidence on dating, i.e the Medieval C-14 date seems to be less than conclusive], the Shroud of Turin. (Maybe I should be more explicit: the SoT is a possibly supernaturally affected object and is subject to and has in fact undergone extensive scientific investigation. So the notion that science could not study and draw relevant conclusions on the potentially or even possibly actually supernatural is falsified directly by a well-known material counterexample. And plainly, if the questionable C-14 date is subsequently confirmed as accurate by studies on less questionable bits of cloth, that would be a point of potential falsification, exploding yet another talking point.) kairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

05:57 AM

5

05

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: On passing back, I should add that there is here just above a consistent insistence on the rhetorically convenient dichotomising "natural vs supernatural." This, I must red flag. As has been repeatedly pointed out in and around UD, where design theory is concerned, ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, the proper contrast for investigations is the natural [i.e. that which traces to blind, stochastic chance and mechanical necessity] vs the ART-ificial, both of which leave reliable and testable empirical traces. (Cf here on in the UD weak argument correctives, here on at IOSE and here on below.) Beyond a certain point, when a misrepresentation is insisted on in the teeth of well-warranted correction, it becomes a willfully continued misrepresentation. This projection that ID purports to study the supernatural and intends to inject the study of the supernatural into science, is fast approaching that threshold. So, kindly, stop it. Now. Design theory is about the study of empirical signs of ART as may be observed in our common world. The NWE summary is apt:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things. ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans). ID [--> in the relevant aspect] may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution).

If you wish to discuss and even object to design theory, a reasonable minimal requirement, is that you stop willfully distorting it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

05:43 AM

5

05

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thank you, I will wait.kairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

04:20 AM

4

04

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf: I spent a couple of hours last night on a response to your 14 points, but did not complete my post. I will try to post it this evening. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

04:17 AM

4

04

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Yes. It is vital. Every time you find support for a hypothesis, you need to consider alternative hypotheses that could also account for your observations, and test them head-to-head. This happens all the time.Elizabeth Liddle

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

04:16 AM

4

04

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

5 --> In that context of undue and improper ideological captivity of science to a priori materialism -- often smuggled in the backdoor by redefining science and its methods, e.g. the 2001 redefinition imposed in Kansas: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.” -- it is indeed the case that legitimate science that does not toe the materialist partyline may be suppressed by politically correct censorship and career busting tactics. As, notoriously, is going on as we speak. 6 --> In the context of what has been going on "natural [naturalistic] explanations" really means a priori evolutionary materialism, turning science into in effect "the best naturalistic explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans." 7 --> But, science redefined as materialistic myth-making, is science taken captive to ideology and worldview level question-begging, not an open-minded, objective, empirically anchored search for the truth about our world based on observation, hypothesis, analysis and prediction leading to empirical testing and acceptance on a provisional basis of that which proves empirically reliable. 8 --> Some would dismiss the search for truth about our world as a legitimate aim of science. The problem with that is that if science stops prizing truth -- however hard it may be to actually catch that "flighty bird" -- it cuts out the heart of scientific integrity and the basis for the public's trust in findings and institutions of science and science education. Which, long-term, is a fatal error.

[And truth, BTW, here means that which says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not, as Aristotle so memorably put it in Metaphysics 1011b. A fact in this context is a claim that per empirical evidence, experience and/or reliable report of experience is warranted to be so beyond reasonable doubt. (The now common attempt to reclassify certain scientific explanations of traces from the remote past of origins as "facts" on the level of that a dropped heavy object near the earth's surface falls at 9.8 N/kg, is highly tendentious. The actual deep past is of course not just unobserved but unobservable; by contrast a falling ball-bearing is eminently observable in the present. Explanations are relative to facts and may be better or worse on criteria of factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance/power, but they are not facts.)]

9 --> I here offer the expanded, somewhat adjusted traditional school level definition of science that is in the IOSE as a way to return to a saner view of science (especially origins science) in light of its potential, strengths and limitations:

Part of the reason for the complexity of Origins Science studies lies in how it sits at the intersection of several distinct disciplines: science, forensics, historiography, education, philosophy, theology, and maybe more. That means that if one carries out a research or field investigation project, particular attention needs to be paid to methodology and related grounding/ warranting of knowledge [[epistemology] issues. So, let us give a working definition of science as it should be (recognising that we will often fall short):

science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, observational evidence-led pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on:

a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical -- real-world, on the ground -- observations and measurements, b: inference to best current -- thus, always provisional -- abductive explanation of the observed facts, c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein's favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments], d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and, e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, "the informed" is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.)

As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.

In addition, origins questions are freighted with major consequences for our worldviews, and are focused on matters that are inherently beyond our direct observation. So, since we simply were not here to see the deep past, we are compelled to reconstruct it on more or less plausible models driven by inference to best explanation. This means that our results and findings are even more provisional than are those of operational science, where we can directly cross check models against observation. That further means that origins science findings are inherently more prone to controversy and debate than more conventional theories in science.

10 --> One last thing. One of the nastier aspects of RH7's dismissal is the guilt by improper and invidious association trick of pushing design theory into the same boat as say astrology, or the more weird UFO cults. 11 --> This is also the underlying tactic in the "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo" talking point. Those who use it or the like here at UD -- especially after having been pointed to the UD Weak Argument Correctives (as was just done -- again) and/or the NWE Enc's excellent discussion of Intelligent Design -- thereby show themselves to be engaging in willfully continued misrepresentation and so for cause remove themselves from the pale of civil discussion. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

04:12 AM

4

04

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Notice, first, the trotting out of a turnabout false accusation as the newest talking point: "pseudoscience."

(NB: If you want the technical response right off, go here, here and here on the problem of demarcation arguments in phil and history of science. Boiling down: the issue is to warrant empirically based knowledge claims in light of abductive inference to best explanation, not to attach prestigious labels then add a derogatory prefix to what cuts across your materialistic ideological agenda a la Lewontin, Sagan etc. And -- cf. discussion here -- an expression like Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold as a criterion of CSI/FSCI that defines a given aspect of an object, phenomenon or process as credibly designed on reliable sign is eminently subject to empirical test and potential refutation. The problem for those who want to push science into a Lewontin- Sagan- Coyne- NAS- NSTA-NCSE- Jones of Dover evolutionary materialist straightjacket, is that it PASSES the tests consistently, and points to cell based life as not merely designoid but designed on an empirically reliable sign, per the FSCI in DNA, proteins etc. )

Then, observe, again the 14 points of concern in the Original Post. Notice how especially the first 10 are focussed on epistemological issues -- issues with fallacies and other problems that lead to a serious breakdown of warrant for knowledge claims, fallacies presented in the name of science. (Note too how since Sunday, there has been very little actual addressing of its points on the merits by the objectors who have been saying that we have misrepresented or misunderstood Lewontin et al.) In short, the Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialism that seems to be dominant among scientific elites is credibly replete with errors of warranting knowledge claims, and if anything would deserve the label "pseudoscientific," here meaning: flying the false colours of science while in fact presenting materialist ideology and indoctrination as unquestionably true and the sole credible source of contact with "reality." In that context -- linking notoriously ideologically materialist Wiki as source -- RH 7 asks/accuses:

So Pseudoscience is really just a derogatory label for legitimate science conducted outside the arbitrary limits of a prejudicial, illogical, and ideologically-driven system?

In steps of thought: 1 --> Let's start with Wiki's lead:

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories . . . . The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications as well as philosophical and scientific issues.[6] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[7] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[8] The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science.[9] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[9]

2 --> They need the faint praise of being commended for at least mentioning the demarcation problem. Unfortunately the onward link's lead [what is most likely to be read on a quick skim] is very weak in explaining that the demarcation problem has proved so intractable that the area has been red flagged in phil of sci. 3 --> From the above, you would not understand clearly that the real epistemological -- phil level definition and warrant of knowledge -- problem is not whether to attach prestigious labels like "science," or derogatory ones like "pseudoscience," but instead to provide good criteria for warranting, however provisionally, empirically based knowledge claims. Laudan (1983) is wise, as Wiki eventually gets around to acknowledging deep in its demarcation article:

Larry Laudan concluded, after examining various historical attempts to establish a demarcation criterion, that "philosophy has failed to deliver the goods" in its attempts to distinguish science from non-science, to distinguish science from pseudoscience. None of the past attempts would be accepted by a majority of philosophers nor, in his view, should they be accepted by them or by anyone else. He noted that many well-founded beliefs are not scientific and, conversely, many scientific conjectures are not well-founded. He also found that demarcation criteria were historically used as "machines de guerre" in polemical disputes between "scientists" and "pseudo-scientists." [--> As in, the label "scientific neither tells you something is sound, nor that all things that are not scientific must be therefore suspect. The decisive issue, then, is warrant, and warrant is a matter of epistemology -- a branch of philosophy (or, frankly, most times simple common good sense), not science. Cf discussion here by Craig.] Advancing a number of examples from everyday practice of football and carpentry and non-scientific scholarship such as literary criticism and philosophy, he saw the question of whether a belief is well-founded or not to be more practically and philosophically significant than whether it is scientific or not. In his judgment, the demarcation between science and non-science was a pseudo-problem that would best be replaced by focusing on the distinction between reliable and unreliable knowledge, without bothering to ask whether that knowledge is scientific or not. He would consign hollow phrases like "pseudo-science" or "unscientific" to the rhetoric of politicians or sociologists.[11: Laudan, Larry (1983), "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", in Cohen, R.S.; Laudan, L., Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 76, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 111–127, ISBN 90-277-1533-5]

4 --> And, with reference to the original post and the 14 points of concern, imposing a materialistic question-begging redefinition of science, similarly redefining science as that which delivers truth [and claiming that it is the ONLY thing that does so], locking out correction on seeing absurd consequences and the like precisely do not provide a good context of warrant. (Remember, Lewontin -- as the onward clips substantiate per NAS, NSTA etc] is not just speaking his particular views, but is here summarising a dominant view among the elites of science: To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus

October 19, 2011

October

10

Oct

19

19

2011

04:12 AM

4

04

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Elizabeth, You make some good points regarding how science deals with regularity, and miracles lie outside of anything we could call regular; but I think this is an important point that shows that they are indeed miracles if they fall outside our predictive ability. My contention is not with that understanding, but with the materialist notion that science only deals with what we call "natural phenomena." We really can't make that determination by science. Again, it stems not from the science itself but from the prior assumptions of the scientist. What is inexplicable through natural explanation is not necessarily a miracle, but we can't know that for certain. We don't jump to the conclusion that since we now cannot explain it, we will explain it eventually. We hope to explain it, but that hope is not maintained by anything we already know. We don't automatically jump to a conclusion of the miraculous, but neither do we jump to a conclusion that we will eventually know. We simply have to say that we don't know, and leave it at that. But there are indeed certain phenomena that we rightly attribute to miracles. I think the most obvious one is existence itself. I think unless you are prepared to say that you understand perfectly well by natural explanations why and how we exist, existence is rightly placed in the domain that is outside our ability to know by natural explanation. I see that Barry has started another post on miracles and science. Maybe we should continue this discussion there.CannuckianYankee

October 18, 2011

October

10

Oct

18

18

2011

04:05 PM

4

04

05

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"So Pseudoscience is really just a derogatory label for legitimate science conducted outside the arbitrary limits of a prejudicial, illogical, and ideologically-driven system?" No. Did anyone imply that?jerry

October 18, 2011

October

10

Oct

18

18

2011

03:01 PM

3

03

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

So Pseudoscience is really just a derogatory label for legitimate science conducted outside the arbitrary limits of a prejudicial, illogical, and ideologically-driven system?rhampton7

October 18, 2011

October

10

Oct

18

18

2011

01:15 PM

1

01

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Asking researchable questions is what separates scientists from non-scientists. Would it be possible to do some research to determine whether your conclusion is true or not?Proponentist

October 18, 2011

October

10

Oct

18

18

2011

11:55 AM

11

11

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle: Just saw this one:

if you want to change scientific methodology, then there needs to be a specific proposal.

That's a real switcheroo! Historically -- whatever the likes of Ms Forrest and judge Copycat Jones may pretend -- Science has never been based on a priori imposition of materialism. So, the pretence that this is the established position to only be overthrown by appeal tot he Magisterium in the Holy Lab coats that just made up the rule a few years back to impose their ideology, would be ludicrous -- if it did not have such nasty consequences for real people. Sorry, if you want to take over and decree that by fiat, then we have a perfect right to set up something else, SIENZE, that does not impose such a priori question-begging. And then challenge you that you have no right to monopolise funding -- especially taxpayer funding, or education -- especially in taxpayer-funded schools. (Of course, I am echoing Plantinga's rebuttal on this point.) The point is, that the real issue is what empirical investigatory methods are cogent and well warranted, not whether prestigious labels belong or do not belong. And, the subject for that is Philosophy, in particular Epistemology. A subject in which most of today's scientists do not know enough to fight their way out of a wet paper bag about. As, I pointed out in my concerns 1 - 10 in the OP, especially 4 - 6. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 18, 2011

October

10

Oct

18

18

2011

11:41 AM

11

11

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link