Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

He said it: Good explanations are “the source of all progress”

arroba Email

Thumbnail for version as of 15:14, 23 February 2009 In “Why science is the source of all progress,” (New Scientist, 26 April 2011), Oxford quantum computation expert David Deutsch explains,

Solutions always reveal new problems. So one must also always seek a better hard-to-vary explanation. That, at its heart, is the scientific method. As Richard Feynman remarked: “Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.” Because it is prior to experimental testing, the practice of requiring good explanations can drive objective progress even in non-scientific fields. This is exactly what happened in the Enlightenment. Although the pioneers of that era did not put it that way, it was, and remains, the spirit of the age. It is the source of all progress. – (Registration wall)

So why do so few apply this to evolution?

How different is “Darwindunit” from “Goddunit” as an explanation? Isn’t that precisely why atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor thinks Darwinism has got to go?

I'll drink to that, Charles. And greetings to you, too, Nulla. Holy smokes, you've really risen in the ranks of UD and Telic Thoughts authors since last I logged on! Congratulations! Try not to spend all those big bucks you're making at once, okay? :-) Lutepisc
Lutepisc: I had you pegged as sarcastic. I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm directed against the author/article that had the hubris to presume all (or even most/much) progress is sourced in science, when science is not technology, and scientists are not inventors, engineers, businessmen, etc, to whom much (if the not the lion's share) of the credit for progress belongs, and I listed a handful of what are arguably the most transformative inventions. That you did not recognize this as sarcasm is really ok, and I took no offense. My sarcasm is often misconstrued. But then I think sarcasm, like a good martini, is best served very dry. Charles
Okay...sorry, Charles. I had you pegged as sarcastic. If you were shooting straight with your post, then I agree with you... Lutepisc
nullasalus: Instead the sources were varied: Engineers. Businessmen. Inventors. Highlighting the divide between science and technology. You have me pegged exactly right. Charles
Lutepisc, First of all, nice to see you around again. Second, while I can't be sure what Charles is thinking, perhaps his claim is that "science" was not directly responsible for the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane, the automobile, etc. Instead the sources were varied: Engineers. Businessmen. Inventors. Highlighting the divide between science and technology. But hey, Charles can speak for himself. I'm curious if I have him pegged right. nullasalus
Way to put up a straw man, Charles. No one's arguing that science isn't responsible for any progress at all. But to assert that science is the source for anything and everything that we label "progress" is indeed incompetent hubris. The straw man comes courtesy of David Deutsch in this case. Thanks, David! Lutepisc
Many thanks for the good wishes, Upright. I've had to resort to downloading the main posts via a news aggregator, which has cut waaay down on the time I spend following UD and other ID-related sites. I'm still as interested as ever, but needed (badly!) to rearrange my time. Every now and then I see an article that prompts me to log on to UD, and I've taken note many times of your well-crafted posts. I'm delighted that there are people like you who can keep up the good work in view of people like me who need to hang back a little. But thank you again for your kind words! Carry on! Lutepisc
Yeah. Because it was "scientists" who were the source for the telephone, lightbulb, airplane, automobile, PC.... Geeze Louise. The smug, incompetent hubris of some of these people. Charles
Hello Lutepisc, I haven't seen your posts in a while. Hope you'll stick around. Upright BiPed
Erm...excuse me? All progress? What about the accomplishments of the civil rights movement in the U.S. in the 60's? Was that progress? And was science the source of it? Why are all science writers blind to the limitations of science? Lutepisc

Leave a Reply