The Consensus of Scientists

_{Gil Dodgen

August 1, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some people have concluded that the hideously complex, functionally integrated information-processing machinery of the cell — with its error-detection-and-repair algorithms and much more — is best explained by an intelligent cause. But this idea is only held by superstitious religious fanatics who want to destroy science and establish a theocracy.

That’s the consensus of “scientists” in the academy.

The other consensus of “scientists” in the academy is that random errors screwing up computer code can account for everything in biology.

Who is thinking logically here?

I have no interest in arguing with people who can’t think and don’t want to follow the evidence where it leads, because it’s a lost cause from the outset.

Comments

re: Gil's opening post. I fully agree that it is entirely useless to argue with such believers for the purpose of changing their mind. They are devoted to an ideology - materialism - that has in fact been disproved by quantum physics experimentation over the last 75 years (as much as anything is "proved" or "disproved" by science). However, the point of such debate is not to change their mind, but rather to reveal it - over and over and over - so that those who are not yet fanatics for materialism might understand what is going on. Arguments about ID theory do change minds and hearts, even if you can't see it, and even if not those whom you are directly debating. Each well-made argument refines the points, polishes the delivery, softens resistances, develops new lines of reasoning, pushes the conceptual envelope, and shines a light on ideas not even thought of before.William J. Murray_{August 3, 2010
August
08
Aug
3
03
2010
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

@veilsofmaya, #8: Your analogy about the two is categorically erroneous. Your first engineer brings in the report that you have listed, but your second report is the same erroneous view of ID that has been refuted countless times here, and is refuted in the faq. The pattern and distribution of the air molecules is sufficiently explained by natural forces stochastically. What would be a better analogy of the 2nd report would be the engineer returning both the first report, and the additional information that the airplane was likely intelligently designed because of the amount of functionally specified complex information necessary to fabricate the system. The first engineer report indicates that the origin of the plane is billions of years of undirected, natrually interacting forces. So, the only thing different about the two reports is the explanation of what produced the airplane, not the explanation of how it can fly. The reason that is important is the research heuristic that is taken from that point forward; instead of spending time trying to figure out how natural forces generated the design of the plane, time is instead spent reverse-engineering the plane, analyzing design principles, techniques, and theorizing the purposes of various pieces of equipment in the plane. In other words, instead of spending time trying to figure out a natural, unguided path for the accumulation of all the cockpit gear, seating, instrumentation, placement, etc., and creating an entire, unsupported materialist myth about the magical ability of natural forces and chance to construct such marvels, we can pursue a more productive and scientific heuristic based on design theory. If the plane is best explained by ID, then the correct research heuristic is being ideologically rejected by "consensus" science. It's not that ID researchers fail to provide "how" explanations; they just provided them from a different underlying research methodology that doesn't discriminate according to ideology. If natural processes are the better eplanation, that is the ongoing research heuristic that should be used. If ID is the better explanation, then that is the better investigatory framework. After all, if someone murders your wife, you don't want the forensic investigator spending years of time an thousdands of dollars of taxpayer money trying to explain that bullet through her head via natural causation, do you?William J. Murray_{August 3, 2010
August
08
Aug
3
03
2010
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Gil: You dont seem to like materialism. But what has the spiritual/supernatural given us ? Could you cite something ? I mean, real knowledge that is applied in the real world to achieve real results, that we rely on (you know, just like materialistic Science gives us). No more theology, no word games, just a real example that makes a practical difference to our life.Graham_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

The default logical position should be design in biology, based on what is now known, not Darwin's warm pond hypothesis and the assumption that cells are no more complex than Jell-O. I actually suffered through Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity (in the original French). This is a curse I would not wish on my worst enemy. Monod was a Nobel Laureate in biology, but he was an idiot. His book is less about molecular biology than 20th-century French existential philosophy (Camus, Sartre, and the rest of that pitifully arrogant and hopelessly lost crowd of atheistic philosophers, all of whom wallowed in their personal misery and nihilism, and tried to convince the rest of us that we should follow in their footsteps). Monod's "biological" thesis is best represented by his comment: ...man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance... THIS is what happened to biological "science" in the 20th century, as a result of the blind and unthinking acceptance of Darwin's chance and necessity hypothesis, which conveniently coincided with the materialistic, secular, and nihilistic urge of the age. Real science -- the search for the truth, in both cosmology and biology -- has been corrupted for a century, especially by the academic elite.GilDodgen_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

mikev6: The problem with scientific consensus, as you've defined it, is that not all scientists will agree on everything. I agree that findings should be repeatable in the lab (depending on the field of science being studied) but, again, that's evidence and not consensus. Also consider that a lot of great scientists were disbelieved by their peers at first. I agree that 'mutually supportive evidence' is necessary for scientific inquiry, but too often human nature stifles the creative thinking process. That is why I'd place evidence well above consensus in determining whether or not I believe in something.Barb_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Barb:
Scientific theories live or die by the evidence, not by whether or not a lot of people like the idea.
If you're talking about social consensus, fully agree. Scientific consensus implies (to me) a broader process where other scientists not only agree with your results (i.e. it matches their own) but tie them to their own efforts to form a web of citations and chains of mutually supportive evidence. Without this broader process, a theory is a dead end and doesn't advance our understanding. I'm hard pressed to think of an example of a 'successful' scientific theory that doesn't lead to additional research, but that could just be ignorance on my part.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Evolutionary materialism is on a fatal collision course with the emerging information age, and the roaring evolutionary materialist dinosaurs of today will in 20 years be simply forgotten. The reductios will increasingly be apparent, and the system will collapse under the weight of its obvious censorship and straining to address more and more anomalies.
Sure - I'm not even arguing against this. What happens after this process you describe? Does biology stop? Nobody does research? We stop digging up fossils? Nope - you presumably have a reasonably large group of scientists who accept ID and use it in their research. In other words, you've built consensus; just not with the current crop of scientists. Your current problem is not with consensus in general - it's the difficulty with building consensus with the current group of scientists. Ultimately, you want science to embrace ID.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Mikev6: "Nevertheless, if ID is science it wants and needs consensus. Without consensus, no scientific idea has any power or influence. Gil’s complaint is that he has trouble getting people to agree with him – that’s a search for consensus." Scientific theories live or die by the evidence, not by whether or not a lot of people like the idea.Barb_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Borne: EZ has a point, please go easy on tone. Gkairosfocus_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

ME6: Nope, not even close. Evolutionary materialism is on a fatal collision course with the emerging information age, and the roaring evolutionary materialist dinosaurs of today will in 20 years be simply forgotten. The reductios will increasingly be apparent, and the system will collapse under the weight of its obvious censorship and straining to address more and more anomalies. As the controlling power of the a priori materialism that is driving it becomes more and more evident to the public [and yes, the issue is not science but a crucial mass of public support that keeps the tax subsidies coming for research for college departments and for school level education], support will dry up and at some tipping point it will be over. Most likely there will be one scandal too many, that cannot be covered up, and a big aha moment will sweep the culture. (Similar to the evident impact of Climategate.) That is how dominant and manipulative paradigms die. Just as happened to the Marxists over the past 30 years. Don't forget, Design theory is an information, info age theory. Its strongest supporters are those familiar with the dynamics of information and information systems, who immediately recognise the info system in biology, and that what is in the cell is like a 8.0 or 9.0 to our halting little 0.2 level beta test versions. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

PS: A far closer challenge to getting to DNA in Darwin's still, warm little pond, would be this thought experiment, getting to a flyable microjet by diffusional forces. Ask yourself why we do not routinely have formation of novel life in cans of soup in your friendly local supermarket.kairosfocus_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

VOM: You leave me shaking my head at how much deeper you are digging into the hole. Indeed, we can only study the stochastic properties of the states of the molecules of he air, but we are able to study averages,and those thermodynamic averages include bulk motion and pressure, including the circulation around the wing that is responsible for lift. The function here rests on the fact that the number of near-average distributions of motions etc is so overwhelmingly dominant that it is empirically reliable to rely on the averages, so wings fly and we can use continuum approximations safely, e.g. pressure, volume, temperature, slipstream speed, etc. But DNA's behaviour as an information store is not like that at all. It is the specific configurations in accord with particular rules of meaning that store information. Almost by definition, these are deeply isolated in the relevant config spaces of all possible strings of the same length. [And we are not even looking at the issue of what would overwhelmingly happen in a still warm pond, before you can get to DNA and other life relevant molecules, much less getting them into a functional organisation.] That is why Mr Gates does not write software by hiring troops of monkeys and having hem pound away at keyboards at random -- whatever rumours may have it. And no, trainloads of bananas and peanuts are NOT on his supply lists. You are simply underscoring the vast difference between bulk average related molecular properties and he very special organisation that stores and uses information in digital form. The reductio is getting tighter and tighter. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Carl:
So you’re no longer going to post because scientists reject arguments from incredulity?
Incredulity seems to be all those rejecting scientists have. ID is an argument based on observations and experience. And all those rejecting scientists have is "any explanation but design!"Joseph_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

@kairosfocus (#20) You wrote:
Do you not see a reductio ad absurdum argument, inductive form; and in the specific context of the origin of DNA, its code and its associated molecular nanomachines?
Do you not see a reductio ad absurdum argument, inductive form; and specific context of our inability to track predict, compute and control individual air molecules around the surface of an aircraft to result in fight? Surely, this is quite impossible given any intellect agent we observe, is it not? Yet there is a natural process which is quite capable of performing just this very feat on our behalf.veilsofmaya_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Borne, Your comments are precisely what Mikev6 (I think it was him) was warning against. You are not going to get anywhere insulting the people you need to think. The "children in adult bodies" expressing "flagrant stupidity" that you refer to are the vast majority (pretty much 100%)of biologists, highly qualified, working in the area and performing experiments, conducting field work, thinking, theorising, teaching. Describing them as you do will not work. And whoever referred up-post to the "explosion in interest around the world" in ID. Nope. Not in the parts of the world I spend time in. That is simply wishful thinking.zeroseven_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

DATCG: "Question to ellazimm: Could it be that the slicing of large areas of conserved information from the mouse genome do not appear to harm the reproduction of healthy mice due to the fact that as regulators and suppressors, lincRNA(thousands of them) are not called upon by celluar code messengers, unless a particular damange to cells is invoked by the surrounding environmental input?" I don't know! But it's a very good question and I'd be very interested in finding out the answer. If no work has been done in that direction it sounds like an excellent ID research emphasis. I keep hoping to hear about things like this from the Biologic Institute. Let's hope they make an effort to pursue it.ellazimm_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

"Here we go again, the same old cloddish nonsense rooted comment we’ve seen and dealt with a gazillion times here. Ask yourself Carl, why is no one here surprised at this persistence in flagrant stupidity by yet another Darwinian fundamentalist prig? Yours Carl, is precisely the kind of anserine, gormless BS that Gil is referring to! It does get very tiring dealing with children in adult bodies that have never learned to think beyond the official propaganda they regal in so ravenously." I assume such tirades are against the posting policy here?ellazimm_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Carl:
"So you’re no longer going to post because scientists reject arguments from incredulity?"
Sheesh! Here we go again, the same old cloddish nonsense rooted comment we've seen and dealt with a gazillion times here. Ask yourself Carl, why is no one here surprised at this persistence in flagrant stupidity by yet another Darwinian fundamentalist prig? Yours Carl, is precisely the kind of anserine, gormless BS that Gil is referring to! It does get very tiring dealing with children in adult bodies that have never learned to think beyond the official propaganda they regal in so ravenously.Borne_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Oops - sorry about the open bold tag in the last post. Makes it look more aggressive than it really is.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Nope, Gil is — admittedly in a way I would not — pointing to a serious question of a countervailing fact to the existing consensus, and how it is being responded to on a priori materialism, with particular reference to the origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information in the context of the living cell:...
I think you're missing my point. Ask yourself - "what would I like ID to look like in 100 years?" Your likely choices are: a) a small group of struggling enthusiasts trying to promote an idea that is not accepted in the main stream, or b) a fundamental theory that is widely accepted and used as the defining structure for all other research. You currently have choice 'a'. The difference between 'a' and 'b' is that you've managed to convince a whole bunch of other people to agree with your theory and start to do their own research on it. This is called consensus. You can rail against it and complain about materialist bias and groupthink, etc. etc., but none of that matters. If you want option 'b' above, you need scientific agreement. ergo, "consensus". Now, you can either work with the scientists you've got, or follow the darker path of replacing the existing set of scientists with a 'better' sort that will agree with you. Maybe you just have to wait until the current set die off. Who knows. Either way, unless you're happy with the way ID is now, you need consensus.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

ilion:
To show that necessity (*) is logically insufficient to account for (at least some of) the observed features of organisms is precisely to “produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet.”
My point here is that this isn't "incontrovertible" - there are many (most?) who will argue your point here. ID proposes something that will re-define everything we know about the Universe. Find something that almost everyone can get behind.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

DATCG:
I understand your caution. But, do you demand the same “rock-solid” evidence of the Blind Theorist hucksters, bullies and worshippers?
I demand more - the stakes are higher. If the ToE is right or wrong, it generally only affects parts of biology. If ID is correct, it means a re-structuring of scientific assumptions that could affect all other disciplines too, not to mention social and religious implications.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

ME6: Nope, Gil is -- admittedly in a way I would not -- pointing to a serious question of a countervailing fact to the existing consensus, and how it is being responded to on a priori materialism, with particular reference to the origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information in the context of the living cell:
Some people have concluded that the hideously complex, functionally integrated information-processing machinery of the cell — with its error-detection-and-repair algorithms and much more — is best explained by an intelligent cause. But this idea is only held by superstitious religious fanatics who want to destroy science and establish a theocracy. [plain sarcasm] That’s the consensus of “scientists” in the academy. [certainly that is how design thinkers are routinely portrayed by scientific spokesmen operating on Darwinist premises; cf. Weak Argument Correctives. This is a plain out demonising caricature, sustained now for years int eh face of correction on the merits. In short it is willful slander.] The other consensus of “scientists” in the academy is that random errors screwing up computer code can account for everything in biology. [mutations, filtered through culling out of inferior performing sub-populations accounts for body plan level bio-diversity, and a move from 100 - 1,000 or so k bits of bio-info in DNA to 10's, 100"s and 1,000's of millions.] Who is thinking logically here? . . .
Do you not see a reductio ad absurdum argument, inductive form; and in the specific context of the origin of DNA, its code and its associated molecular nanomachines? When last did you see serious software created by uncontrolled random noise generation? Why is that? Gkairosfocus_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

@Ilion (#13) You wrote:
OR, we could just laugh at the DarwinDefenders for their implicit act of counseling, via this particular talking-point, that we all ought to be credulous.
Ilion, That's not what I'm suggesting. In fact, I'm suggesting the opposite. ID might be true. But the theory that ID presents clearly stops short in its theory for reason that are obvious and transparent. As such, it's a bad explanation. Should ID decide to provide such an explanation in the future, it could become a good explanation. However, given the implied designers nature, it's unlikely such a explanation will be forth coming. This is by definition. Note: I am suggesting there is such a thing as a bad explanation, and that ID exhibits these traits. I've elaborated on this with my first comment on this thread and elsewhere.
Yet, must not a *real* explanation be true? How can the merely plausible be truly called an explanation?
Imagine you ask me why the sky is appears blue and I reply, "Because 70% of the earth is covered by water, which is blue, and that color is reflected by the atmosphere." Just because my explanation happens to be wrong doesn't mean that it is disqualified from being an "explanation." it's just a bad explanation. I could have not responded at all or claimed that the sky is blue because that's the color a designer wanted it to be. That a designer wanted the sky to be blue in no way explains why we observe the sky as being the specific color blue, rather than some other possible color, such a green. Instead, It merely accounts for the sky being one color rather than another color via the fact that we observe agents choosing some things over other others. Just because there is some "True" state of affairs in reality does not necessarily mean we can actually have knowledge of it. Welcome to the problem of induction and the incompleteness of empiricism. While you personally may believe there is another way around this problem, this falls outside of science and is also absent from the theory of ID. The only reason why I tenably accept darwinism because it actually tries to explain the specific things we observe, which is something ID takes no interest in at all. It might be wrong, but wrong for all the right reasons. ID might be true. But I'm unwilling to assume this is the case with great readiness. In fact, if your a theist, it's likely you are satisfied with sort of "account" in other areas as well. Things are the way they are because that's how God wanted them to be. And since God is all knowing and his nature is the very definition of "good," this sort of account is sufficient for you. However, these things are absent from the formal theory of ID. Nor are they "implied" science. You may implicitly insert this belief into your definition of science, but not everyone shares this view. As such, the fact that ID is the "best explanation" is not conveyed by the theory itself.
veilsofmaya_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
...various stuff about consensus...
Nevertheless, if ID is science it wants and needs consensus. Without consensus, no scientific idea has any power or influence. Gil's complaint is that he has trouble getting people to agree with him - that's a search for consensus. It is certainly permissible to claim that consensus isn't worth anything scientifically, and that ID is blazing new standards for how science is done, etc. etc. Even if you're 100% correct in these statements, you need to get people to agree with you to get things done. On the other hand, if you're satisfied with ID remaining (per Gil) a bunch of "superstitious religious fanatics who want to destroy science and establish a theocracy" then perhaps consensus isn't for you. Small hint, however. If you are trying to build scientific consensus, telling your potential audience that their opinions aren't worth anything and that they're 'doing it wrong' isn't normally the best tactic. But then, there is much to suggest scientists aren't the target audience anyway.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

mikev6, check out the recent paper. It bolsters Design Theory. Yet note that in overturning a unguided prediction of evolution, these scientist throw in evolution terms, as in "evolutionary conserved" regions of the genome. Truth is, they have no way of knowing if "evolutionary conserved" is true. They're simply repeating a mantra now of inferences based upon many biased opinions for the last 150 years. It is possible, these genomic regions(predicted by blind evolutionist to be junk) were commonly designed to remain conserved for the purpose of survival by an intentionally Guided Evolutionary Algorithm. There is no way at this time, either side knows. Yet, only one side is allowed acceptance into the once hallowed halls of "peer-reviewed" science journals. Well, we see how well that worked with "peer-reviewed" global warming science. Where scientist intentionally forced out opponent papers, hid faulty data; indeed, manipulated data and threatened scientific journals not to publish if they allowed their opponents acces to the same journals. That is not consensus science. It is nothing more than being dishonest, deceptive, outright lies, and bullying others into concessions and oppressing of others rights to a respectful dialogue. While it does not suppress the free speech rights of others, it deceptively does so in formerly respected journals of importance. I understand your caution. But, do you demand the same "rock-solid" evidence of the Blind Theorist hucksters, bullies and worshippers? They have major failures now in vestigial organs and "junk" DNA. Randomness, far from being a creator of increasing order, is turning into a large argument against their Blind Theory.DATCG_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

"If ID can produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet, that could easily be the most important addition to human knowledge to date. It will have impacts far beyond biology, and would represent a more important development than Darwin’s original publication of OOS or the ToE itself." To show that necessity (*) is logically insufficient to account for (at least some of) the observed features of organisms is precisely to “produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet.” (*) One may notice that I have not written the formulation “chance plus necessity” … this is because chance has no causative powers.Ilion_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

ME6: Consensus? Oh, yes, this . . . ____________ >> the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes 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. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997] >> _________________ A priori question-begging imposition of evolutionary materialism in fact undermines the integrity of science as an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about the world based on observation, experiment, analysis and discussion among the informed. "Consensus" is another word for appeal to collective authority, and that has no greater strength than the unde3rlying facts, reasoning and assumptions. And that is precisely what the ID thinkers have exposed. And that pseudoconsensus based on question begging and appeal to question-begging authority is rpecisely what keeps on cropping up at UD from Darwinist advocates. Time and more than time to fix the mess. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Gil: It is naturally frustrating to hold an opinion at odds with consensus. My only comment is to keep in mind the import of what ID is proposing. If ID can produce incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved in the development of life on this planet, that could easily be the most important addition to human knowledge to date. It will have impacts far beyond biology, and would represent a more important development than Darwin's original publication of OOS or the ToE itself. So if commenters like myself are cautious, it's because the ramifications are huge. Your evidence has to be rock solid before people will even begin to consider your position.mikev6_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

VeilsofMaya: “This is clearly absent from the theory, which makes it an account, not an explanation.” Groovamos: “Even as a young guy in my twenties, I began to laugh at the self appointed role of science in “explaining” the universe to the rest of humanity. …” Ekstasis: “I am wondering whether science does both things: “accounts” and “explains”…” It seems to me that when people use the word ‘explain,’ they almost always mean “an accounting that *I* hold to be plausible.” … And, frequently (and most especially with DarwinDefenders) there is a subtext of “and if you don’t agree, they you’re stupid, or ignorant, or wicked.” But, notice that plausibility does not establish truth; and, in truth, it is a well known fact that the plausible may be false, whereas that the implausible may be true. Yet, must not a *real* explanation be true? How can the merely plausible be truly called an explanation?Ilion_{August 2, 2010
August
08
Aug
2
02
2010
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply