What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington

August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Warning: This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis. If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside. Where does this leave us? No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed. In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments

"The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis." Actually, I think it's perfectly OK for the search for the truth of the matter to be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. For instance, consider the following hypothesis: A. The laws of nature are at base stochastic, and observed frequencies are typically quite far from the actual objective probabilities. Hypothesis A is, I guess, possible. (My hesitation is in wondering if God could allow it.) For instance, it is possible that coin tosses have objective probability 1/10 of heads and 9/10 of tails, and that our 50-50 observations are just a very unlikely chance event. But our methods of empirical investigation are structurally biased against A, just as they are structurally biased against many other sceptical-type hypotheses. There is nothing wrong with having structural biases against exceedingly unlikely hypotheses. I suspect there is also nothing wrong with having structural biases against sceptical hypotheses. If this is right, then the argument needs more than the possibility of ID being correct. It needs something like a somewhat serious possibility. I don't know what the probability cut-off for a "somewhat serious possibility" is. In some contexts at least, a hypothesis that has a probability of at least one in a million is somewhat serious. E.g., if I had a one in a million chance of having won the lottery, I would say: "I know I didn't win, but I should check just in case." So it's a somewhat serious possibility that I won the lottery. I think ID meets the "somewhat serous possibility" bound, but I suspect many of ID's opponents disagree.arpruss_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

I truly enjoyed this post. The idea expressed here is quite freeing to the mind. Thinking like this grants intellectual liberty, but not intellectual license. Here you could search for naturalitic explanations for anything, and yet be free to say the answer is "no" should it look, by the evidence, that there is none. Too, under this umbrella, and to the positive side, a free mind could ask, "is it designed" and persue a program along the line, "what do you see that makes you think so?" I don't think the mainstream grants that sort of liberty, but it seems more a philosophical issue than and scientific one.arkady967_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, The fossil record is referred to by many Darwinists as a major evidential factor for evolution. Without it, none of their other lines of argumentation would work. Yet it is problematic. It seems to me that if the base is faulty, the rest of the building should fall with it. Dawkins may think it's just "icing on the cake," but that doesn't seem to compute with many of the arguments for evolution. Darwin was more ingenuous with this. He clearly saw it as problematic, and a major stumbling block. I look at it like this: if Darwinian evolution is true, the fossil record would reflect that in abundance. It doesn't, so the fossil record should be interpreted from other angles other than Darwinian evolution. If it's truth you're truly seeking, you owe it to yourself to consider alternatives. You may believe that Darwin proponents have other evidence, and indeed they have; however, as I mentioned in earlier posts on other threads, evidence belongs to all of us, and taking their evidence and examining it from other perspectives leaves me with doubt about the entire Darwinian enterprise. I think the ID explanation is more parsimonious to the evidence at hand. Furthermore, Darwin proponents refuse to look at some of the evidence at hand. They will only look at evidence, which they can force to confirm their hypothesis. Have you ever thought that maybe this is why Dawkins downplays the fossil record?CannuckianYankee_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

One thing makes this endeavor of yours seem more fraudulent. It's that, if you have a reliable method of determining whether a claim is true that, currently, doesn't fit within the definition of the word "science", why can this method not have its own word? It seems to me that you would like your endeavor to invoke an air of credibility by simply calling it science, rather than doing the footwork to prove its worth. Science is a specific tool for a specific job, and isn't simply empiricism. It does require logical inference.vsakko_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

BA: Yes, I have asked myself that question. I have tried really hard to examine all my beliefs and the things that I have accepted. If my trust in the modern evolutionary synthesis merely rested on the fossil record then my . . . belief would be much more tenuous. But it's just one thread. And not a necessary one. Sorry if I am self contradictory; I blame my ability to express myself clearly in this forum and the lateness of the hour here in Britain.ellazimm_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the frosting on the cake is "problematic"? I suspect not. Otherwise you would not have written an internally contradictory sentence.Barry Arrington_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

I guess it comes down to what is the 'best' explanation. Who decides what is best? You can't repeat the fossil record, but you can repeatedly examine it with different models and see which is the most parsimonious. And the modern evolution synthesis draws on many lines of evidence, not just the fossil record. I tend to think of the fossil record as being supportive of evolutionary theory but not proof. And it has yet to contradict the basic tenets of evolution. Until they find a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian layers of course! :-) Remember too that Dawkins, for one, has said that the fossil record is now just icing on the cake. Even Darwin admitted that it was problematic and based his conclusions on that AND other lines of evidence. I remember the buzz about cold fusion in the early 90s. There were lots of reported findings and then counter findings. In the end, if we've come to the end, it's not just one paper or one hypothesis, it comes down to lots and lots of data and results. (Although Bob Parks points out that there was a fundamental violation of well established laws of physics.) Look, I completely agree that many aspects of human experience cannot be codified and defined based on a scientific, conservative approach. But surely it is worthwhile to reserve the term science to that which has been established based on multiple lines of evidence, repeated examination and with the least appeals to unproven forces and causes? Yeah? Inference to the best explanation is part of the process. But, as a fallible human being, i know that my own inferences are sometimes hideously wrong. Sometimes because I am not in possession of all the data, sometimes because there isn't enough data and sometimes because I have a preconceived notion that I am determined to uphold. I'm doing by best to examine my beliefs in light of new information. And to be prepared to accept that my own inferences can be completely off.ellazimm_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

No, we have “inference to the best explanation” which I believe should be the basis for all truth gathering activities.
How do you define "best" though? The problem with the design hypothesis is that it admits paranoia: The Designer designed the world to make it the way it is, just to confuse us. The problem is that the world may look the way it is even if there were no designer. So, how does one distinguish between the two?Heinrich_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

ellazimm asks what have we got unless we have “repeatable, observer independent, subject to verification criteria?” the implication being “we’ve got nothing.” No, we have “inference to the best explanation” which I believe should be the basis for all truth gathering activities. BTW, your formulation would exclude much of evolutionary biology from “science.” How do you “repeat” say, the fossil record. When they draw conclusions from the fossil record paleontologists are not performing “repeatable” experiments are they? No, they are attempting to draw an inference to the best explanation, which, of course, is the same thing an ID theorist is doing. So if you exclude the ID theorist’s inferences about the fossil record from science, why have you not also excluded the paleontologist’s?Barry Arrington_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Could the scientific method be used to produce repeatable, observable conclusions to verify the truthfulness of "non-scientfic" categories such as philosophy, religion? (I do not however mean to assume that there is no truth in philosophy or religion unless science can verify it. I believe there is. I belieev there is truth that science will never be able to verify.)wagenweg_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Barry: What if its True? Or asked differently, "What if it's not a hoax"? Science is often called upon to examine artifacts to determine their provenance and authenticity. Implicit in their study is that regardless of the possibility of hoax or forgery, science is ostenisibly capable and responsible to distinguish fact from fiction. Science does this with artwork, inscriptions, artifacts, etc, (even forensic crime evidence) purported to be authentic, and science does not shy away merely because of the possibility or even liklihood of hoax, forgery or manipulation. Rather, the entire raison d’être is to scientifically establish or reject any such hoax, forgery or manipulation. Surely science is equally capable of determining the authenticity of ID, regardless of perjorative and disparaging allegations that ID is not "scientific". Hoaxes and forgeries are definitely not scientific either and yet science has no qualms about investigating them, because science itself does not weigh in the balance. But if science determines that the design hypothesis ought be accorded a modicum of scientific veracity, that in fact the design hypothesis relies on forensic observations and not "just so stories" for its evidence, then the raison d’être of Darwinism would be called into question, and we can't have that.Charles_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Bevets, actually with respect to the argument I am making here, the more applicable quote froom your collection (which I have admired for some years BTW) is: Is the conclusion that the universe was designed -- and that the design extends deeply into life -- science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters. By far the most important question is not what category we place it in, but whether a conclusion is true. A true philosophical or religious conclusion is no less true than a true scientific one. Although universities might divide their faculty and courses into academic categories, reality is not obliged to respect such boundaries. BeheBarry Arrington_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

But what is the alternative? If you can't fall back on repeatable, observer independent, subject to verification criteria then what have you got? Remember too Michael Behe's Dover testimony when he admitted that his definition of science would include astrology. Be very careful. In support of your thoughts, there was a mathematical theorem/hypothesis that said it's not possible to discover everything that is true within mathematics only climbing the established framework. Godel?? I think that's who established that. And I'm leaving aside all the questions that could come up given the assumption that the design hypothesis is true. :-)ellazimm_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Of course the argument form If X were true, it would be inconvenient for science; therefore, X is false is at best moderately compelling. We aren’t just given that the Lord has arranged the universe for the comfort and convenience of the National Academy of Science. To think otherwise is to be like the drunk who insisted on looking for his lost car keys under the streetlight, on the grounds that the light was better there. (In fact it would go the drunk one better: it would be to insist that because the keys would be hard to find in the dark, they must be under the light.) ~ Alvin Plantingabevets_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply