Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The argument from incredulity vs. The argument from gullibility

William Dembski
May 27, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On another blog, the following quotes from Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement are listed approvingly:

“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.” –Daniel C. Dennett, Philosopher

“Not only is ID markedly inferior to Darwinism at explaining and understanding nature but in many ways it does not even fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory.” –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

“The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously declared, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” One might add that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of intelligent design.” –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

“The supernatural explanation fails to explain because it ducks the responsibility to explain itself.” —Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

“What counts as a controversy must be delineated with care, as we want students to distinguish between scientific challenges and sociopolitical ones.” —Marc D. Hauser, evolutionary psychologist

“Incredulity doesn’t count as an alternative position or critique.” —Marc D. Hauser, evolutionary psychologist

Leaving aside ID, the subtext of these quotes is, “We’ve got a theory that has vast gaping holes, we don’t have a clue how the theory might fill the holes, but we still believe the theory accounts for what actually happened.” To challenge this is to be guilty of “an argument from incredulity,” in other words, of refusing to believe despite overwhelming evidence. Isn’t it rather that to accept this is to be guilty of “an argument from gullibility,” of believing despite the overwhelming absence of evidence?

Comments
Isn’t it rather that to accept this is to be guilty of “an argument from gullibility,” of believing despite the overwhelming absence of evidence Yestribune7
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
The comments from Dennet, Dawkins, Hauser, Coyne are all assertion and no substantiation. Those are exactly the sorts of statements "designed" to appeal to "fundamentalists"--in this case Darwinian Fundamentalists--who seek reassurance in the face of threats to their worldview. Empty assertions convince only the convinced. All anyone has to do to overthrow ID is simply show how specified complexity arises by chance and/or neccessity. No rhetoric needed. That the volume of the repetitious rhetoric has gone up the last several years and keeps going up is evidence that we are in the "fight stage" described by Ghandi (in another recent post on this blog): the end of the fight is near, certainly less than 20 years, perhaps less than 10 years. They can keep repeating these worn out talking points only so long and only so loud. After that, they will have simply nothing else to say. Darwinian evolution can take its place then alongside Ptolemaic Astronomy in the anals of Wikepdia under the heading "History's Great Failed Ideas".glennj
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Somehow, the accusation that one is indulging one's personal incredulity is taken at face value, and is supposed to invalidate whatever point one was working on. It's used as a shaming device. It in the faith of Darwinism, it is some sort of cardinal sin. I consider my personal incredulity a natural asset, a fallible but important caution signal. I was told that most people do not really have a good natural grasp of very large numbers and therefore don't realize what a billion years really means. I'm not so sure about that, but in any case it cuts both ways. If we do not have a good natural grasp of what a billion years can do, then we may just as easily attribute to vast stretches of time MORE creative power than it contains, as less.avocationist
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
"So long as the total odds against a planet's evolving a life-form capable of anthropic reflection does not exceed the number of planets in the universe, we have an adequate and satisfying explanation for our existence." - Richard Dawkins
An argument from gullibility?Mung
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Let me offer yet another example from Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement: "So long as the total odds against a planet's evolving a life-form capable of anthropic reflection does not exceed the number of planets in the universe, we have an adequate and satisfying explanation for our existence." - Richard Dawkins Is this not an argument from gullibility? Can someone offer me some analogies from, perhaps, coin tossing, dice, or poker? e.g., Yes, this player held a royal flush 5 hands in a row, but there have been, are, and will be poker hands going on all the time, so that is a perfectly adequate and satisfying explanation for this instance of a royal flush 5 hands in a row. I mean, setriously, is all that is required for "an adequate and satisfying explanation for our existence" the possibility that there are a lot of other planets?Mung
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
I love it! I always wondered about the argument from credulity, but the argument from gullibility sounds so much better and is, I think, so much more accurate.Mung
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
The argument from incredulity objection, when pressed, usually turns into an argument from ignorance objection against ID (as is evident in the quotes above). This latter objection has never held up under scrutiny. I've addressed it briefly here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.logicalunderpinningsofID.pdf (pp. 21-23) http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf (pp. 27-28) I expect I'll be doing a full-scale treatment of this objection in the next few months.William Dembski
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
"I think the greatest weakness of ID is in the failure (so far) of ID theory to elucidate and explain the ways in which it can add fruitfully to the overall scientific enterprise." I may be naieve about how science works, but why should this be the test? Should scientists believe in a falsehood because belief in the falsehood is "fruitful to the overall scientific enterprise"? Or is it the fruitfulness that proves/disproves the theory?russ
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
I think the greatest weakness of ID is in the failure (so far) of ID theory to elucidate and explain the ways in which it can add fruitfully to the overall scientific enterprise. In other words, one could easily say "so what. lets all agree that what appears designed is designed. from now on, we will use the word designed. Now what?" Of course, I don't agree with this attitude, but I could easily see where it could be reached. Also, anti-ID people love to say "incredulity is not an argument". However, incredulity, like curiosity, and desire, and hope and reason are all starting points from which an argument certainly can be built. Likewise, a total lack of incredulity is no basis for believing the outrageous claims of Darwinism.tinabrewer
May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply