tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7500621199489872076..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Is Richard Dawkins really that naive?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45432875158805451192009-05-13T22:40:00.000-04:002009-05-13T22:40:00.000-04:00Great post.
I don't know what is going on with D...Great post. <br /><br />I don't know what is going on with Dawkins, Coyne, Meyers, et al. They are doing nothing but making this whole thing much harder for the rest of us, as if it wasn't hard enough already. <br /><br />To me the beauty of evolution is it's power to explain biological diversity, what it was intended to do. Sometimes I think to Dawkins and Meyers the beauty of evolution is in it's density as a cudgel against religion, which is maybe the use they have for evolution?Herman Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173119664936272084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84395506623544158582009-05-12T15:00:00.000-04:002009-05-12T15:00:00.000-04:00It seems a fool's errand to aim for changing peopl...It seems a fool's errand to aim for changing people's minds, which essentially, is the neurotic ambition of getting them to believe in the same thing as we believe. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that anyone should be ridiculed for their beliefs.<br /><br />Rather we should rationally disagree, state firmly the reasoning behind the arguments, and also discuss the real consequences of the different viewpoints.<br /><br />I think one of the best written examples of this is Judge Jones verdict in the Dover, Pa. creationism trial. It not only shows how poorly the community was served by irrational leadership, but also how the false choice of science vs. religion leads to really destructive and dangerous religious beliefs.<br /><br />Finally, another much more productive approach would be to dissect religiously contorted arguments on their own merits. Why does God need to test our faith? Why are not all humans born with faith in God as an instinct? Would Jesus want us to kill all athiests?AgentGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06090859131997988665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50579287621092997052009-05-05T20:16:00.000-04:002009-05-05T20:16:00.000-04:00“Wanna try? “
I’d love to.
“But a staunch crea...“Wanna try? “<br /><br />I’d love to. <br /><br />“But a staunch creationist will argue (I know this from personal experience) that god simply orchestrated the whole appearance of fossils and intermediate forms to test our faith.”<br /><br />So, if god doctors the evidence such that we cannot trust rationality, do you make your argument from a position of being irrational?<br /><br />If you do, do you honestly believe that people should be irrational as a rule? Or do you support being a rational human being?<br /><br />If you say you should be rational, your premise fails.<br /><br />If you say you should be irrational, by what standard do you make your argument?<br /><br />I’ll firmly state (open refutation if you care to) that we should guide our behavior by rationality.<br /><br />How’s that?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37640794902473768942009-05-05T18:07:00.000-04:002009-05-05T18:07:00.000-04:00Owen,
Thanks for the tip on formatting (hope it ...Owen, <br /><br />Thanks for the tip on formatting (hope it works).<br /><br />---<I>(Owen)"I don't think "creationism is a scientific theory</I>."---<br /><br />Well, you got that right! Even though when I said it you quoted me and made these comments: <br /><br />---<I>(Luke)""creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory</I>."<br /><br />---<I>(Owen)"Well, "god created the universe to look exactly like it happened naturalistically" might not be falsifiable.<br /><br />But "god created the world 6000 years ago and destroyed most life on it in a world-wide flood soon after" -- *is*. In fact, it's been tested, and falsified.</I>"---<br /><br />From there we were off to the funny farm. I asked you straight out and you detoured.<br /><br /><I>(Luke) "So, I’ll ask you, what falsifiable scientific theory has any creationist proposed?</I><I>---(Owen)God created the world six thousand years ago over the course of 6 days, then destroyed it in a worldwide flood shortly after.<br /><br />Falsified some time ago. Any claiming it's a reasonable position today is a loon, but two hundred years ago it wasn't so mad</I>."---<br /><br /> Then later you react like the question is unreasonable when you say something like you do above to my statement and question. It just got worse, the same with this discussion about science and the supernatural. <br /><br />I said directly "scientific theory", in my follow up also. You of course now go back to the falsifiable claims about nature. How can I think that you understand the issue outside of you finally just stating the fact? They have not offered any falsifiable scientific theory, that's the point. You even attempt another hedge in your last comment. <br /><br />You end by showing once again you have not understood the problem with how you're responding to Massimo's very simple statement, in fact, you hedge. <br /><br />Yes, you've been unclear if you're still wondering. I don't know exactly why, but I think it is about the irrational defensiveness I discussed before.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41029577638684184602009-05-05T13:23:00.000-04:002009-05-05T13:23:00.000-04:00Ok, I give up.
For the record, one last statement...Ok, I give up.<br /><br />For the record, one last statement.<br /><br />I don't think "creationism is a scientific theory".<br /><br />My position that a small subset of claims could be considered scientific rests on the idea that they are falsifiable (following Popper). Right-or-wrong, that doesn't mean I claim "creationism is a scientific theory". (Granted, not requiring the explanation to be naturalistic could be considered contentious. Either way, I certainly couldn't and wouldn't extend the claim to creationism generally.)<br /><br />I'm also not making the metaphysical claim that "science refutes the supernatural". I'm saying removing peoples evidence-base can mean they no longer believe the supernatural. I don't think this is contentious.<br /><br />And that's it.<br /><br />Laters,<br /><br />OwenOwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44017206461620361432009-05-05T13:07:00.000-04:002009-05-05T13:07:00.000-04:00I should add, before throwing Theodore to the dogs...I should add, before throwing Theodore to the dogs, he does offer a unique, though fairly strange perspective. He also gets other areas of scientific theory correct. <br /><br />Of course, for Theordore to say creationism can be scientific he clarifies he is talking about <B>"Naturalistic Creationism"</B> and only gives one example and that is <I><B>Aliens</B></I>. He makes clear that theistic creationism is not scientific. <br /><br />He then goes on to discuss this Alien type creationism with natural selection. However, this type of "creationism" is actually a mislabeling. However, it's been pretty clear in this conversation we have been discussing the down to earth religious variety of creationism. Calling the Alien hypothesis "creationism" is a rhetorical device that is no more useful than calling panpermia creationism. As far as I can tell Theodore is the coiner of the term "Naturalistic Creationism". Not surprisingly, someone who use mentions "naturalistic creationism" is Michael Corey, the apologist, who claims in an argument for deistic creationism that science already accepts a "naturalistic creationism".Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73603831372633634622009-05-05T12:42:00.000-04:002009-05-05T12:42:00.000-04:00Owen,
I apologize, I misread you. But, as strang...Owen, <br /><br />I apologize, I misread you. But, as strange as it is, outside of the sentence immediately following the quote - nothing else changes. <br /><br />---<I>(Owen)"I have been addressing a narrow, specific, technical, point: it is possible for proponents of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design to make physical claims that can be tested physically, scientifically. I know you don't disagree with that."</I>----<br /><br />I read that the word "disagree" as "agree", obviously. I think reading it so many times and still thinking it read "agree" is a good lesson. <br /><br />It's also apparent that the main reason this sunk in the way it did when I went back to quote was because of the your following paragraph. <br /><br />There is no form of creationism that comports to being a scientific theory. <br /><br />Let me give you an example of the problem. <br /><br />This is a quote from Theodore M. Drange I found on the net. Theodore is a philosopher and also an atheist. It comes from his essay: "Can Creationism Be Scientific" (1998). It works pretty good to make a point. <br /><br /><I>----"Theories are sets of propositions put forward to explain facts or observations. They could come to be widely known to be true and thereby become facts (or sets of facts)."-----</I> <br /><br />You see, the above statement is actually false. Theories in the scientific sense do not become facts -- "And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."-- The theory that creationist use are NOT falsifiable. The ones that would agree with Theordore's old philosophical argument are the creationist themselves. Except it has been revived, and that is what I'm dealing with here to some degree with you.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89140957114221028192009-05-05T12:10:00.000-04:002009-05-05T12:10:00.000-04:00Wait -- are you sure you read this bit right:
(Ow...Wait -- are you sure you read this bit right:<br /><br />(Owen) <I>I know you <B>don't disagree</B> with that</I>.<br /><br />(Luke) <I>Are you actually claiming now [...] that I don't think physical claims about nature can be tested scientifically just because they are made by a creationist (ID too)</I>? <br /><br />Er, did the double-negative confuse you?<br /><br />(PS: put punctuation after the close-italics, it corrects the formatting)Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51275942279316098072009-05-05T12:05:00.000-04:002009-05-05T12:05:00.000-04:00Let me clarify a point in my last post before it's...Let me clarify a point in my last post before it's used against me somehow. :)<br /><br />In sentence I wrote: "..theories like quantum physics..."<br /><br />It should read more like quantum theory, or maybe quantum mechanics or, well you know what I mean.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12485075887043933872009-05-05T11:47:00.000-04:002009-05-05T11:47:00.000-04:00Owen,
Thanks again for the response. This has bee...Owen,<br /><br />Thanks again for the response. This has been equal parts enjoyable and frustrating and it appears you would agree with the frustrating part at least. :) <br /><br /><I>---(Owen)"I have been addressing a narrow, specific, technical, point: it is possible for proponents of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design to make physical claims that can be tested physically, scientifically. <B>I know you don't disagree with that</B>."----</I>I've read the above quote at least four times (now five) and I can hardly believe my eyes! <br /><br />Are you actually claiming now (or somehow believe) after all my explaining that I don't think physical claims about nature can be tested scientifically just because they are made by a creationist (ID too)? <br /><br />You still obviously haven't come to grips with the fact creationism is NOT a scientific theory, even though you are hedging even more now and saying I'm claiming you are saying it is a scientific theory. I have asked you several times if you thought creationism was a scientific theory, this only really came up because you quoted me saying it is not a scientific theory and you had an issue with that in you wanted to show that claims about nature could be tested scientifically (which I have been over half a dozen times). <br /><br />I am going to go through this one, only one more time. <br /><br /><I>---"It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"----</I><I>---(Owen)"I would now re-phrase that as: "I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *metaphysically*. If you are just trying to remove the empirical evidence-base, there is no issue and that is what Dawkins is doing". I'll withdraw the contentious use of the word "refute" if it helps get the underlying point accepted."----</I>I'll just repeat myself - you have NOT shown you understand the problem. <br /><br />See I think you are making a cognitive error that has been reinforced by others that should know better, but have non-the-less confused the discourse in order to have clever (though inaccurate) things to say in an ideological battle. <br /><br />This is what I mean by the "serious baggage" to some of this, because there's people that just don't know better and they are going around spreading false information like a virus. See, you have already said you understand that science can not refute the supernatural, but yet you keep hedging when faced with a very simple statement to that fact. You are (and this is what has been reinforced) confusing the claims that something in nature is explainable to some extent by supernaturalism (God was involved somehow) and the testing of the claim, the scientific testing only concerns itself with the natural phenomena (the theory doesn't even come close to being scientific - at least not yet :)). <br /><br /> Yes, refuting the claim concerning nature can (we hope) have a positive impact on the person who believes the natural phenomena is explained by some "supernatural force". However, we are not refuting the "supernatural force" because you don't do that with science. "Believers" are obviously making a mistake in latching on to scientific theories like quantum physics as evidence of a 'God' ('higher reality': call it God) because scientific theories can change or be falsified to the extent we no long accept them. They are obviously doing the same thing with nature (always have), but their "theory" about a natural phenomena being explained by a "supernatural force" (like a God) is not scientific because it is unfalsifiable, non-testable, holds no predictive power and on and on (it simply is NOT science). This is why ALL forms of creationism are NOT scientific theories. It also helps to understand why the creationist (and others) keep trying to create an illusion the science in evolution by natural selection is pseudo-science or why they down play the understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. We shuck our duties if we allow them to take away our clarifying what "scientific theory" means. <br /><br />A lot of this stuff goes back to the point that we need to start taking more advantage of the sciences of psychology and sociology to understand and 'deal' with the "true believers". Playing the same game as the creationist just isn't going to get it, all it has done so far in the past few years is pollute the discourse. It's great so many people want to talk about God and the evidence or lack of, but dragging science through the mud and pounding your chest is bullshit. <br /><br />I have seen it shown over and over again in conversations similar to this one in the past couple years. There's a level of responsibility by those that hold authority in the sciences which they have simply dismissed for the benefit of a "larger war". <br /><br />Any skeptic who's been reading this crap and doesn't think this isn't a bigger problem than just a comment page hasn't been paying attention (or is to busy trying to keep subscribers to actually defend and promote what you've offered your talents to do - not you Massimo :)). If you think I'm overstating the problem, then please share how that is so.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40072758881151007802009-05-05T09:35:00.000-04:002009-05-05T09:35:00.000-04:00(Luke) Creationism, (in all of its guises)is NOT a...(Luke) <I>Creationism, (in all of its guises)is NOT a scientific theory. That includes ideas in Intelligent Design, you have NOT shown me how I am wrong. I give up on this point</I>.<br /><br />I have not been claiming "Creationism is a scientific theory".<br />I have not been claiming "Intelligent Design is a scientific theory".<br />I am not a supporter, proponent, advocate for, or otherwise in favour of Creationism or Intelligent Design (or the Templeton Foundation, or any other attempt at integrating faith-based beliefs into mainstream science).<br /><br />I have been addressing a narrow, specific, technical, point: it is possible for proponents of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design to make physical claims that can be tested physically, scientifically. I know you don't disagree with that.<br /><br />I further contend that, following the well-known Popperian definition, something being testable is the defining feature of a scientific theory, and so it is possible to argue that certain, specific, narrow, claims of certain (not all) creationists (and ID proponents) could have been considered scientific (and that some of those claims would be called "creationism" by some supporters). I have NOT extended that to their larger claims. I have NOT claimed that Creationism in general is scientific. Nor have I for ID. I have NOT claimed that proponents of either are actually scientists (but scientists <I>can</I> test their empirical claims).<br /><br />Each time I make the narrow, technical, point above, you reply with some variation of "But Creationism is not a scientific theory". <B>I don't care</B>. I'm not making a claim that strong.<br /><br />You can disagree with my use of falsifiability as being the defining property of a scientific theory. But please don't respond as if I'm making any of the larger claims referred to above. I'm just not.<br /><br /><br />I also have not been making any metaphysical claims that science can refute "the supernatural".<br /><br />I made (at least) one significant mistake of terminology. I carried on using the term "philosophical" when I meant "metaphysical". Without thinking too deeply I assumed the meaning was obvious, but I see that wasn't the case. I also (arguably) didn't differentiate strongly enough between the two senses of "refute" that I used. So, to clarify:<br /><br />Formally, science can't "refute" (to mean: "prove the non-existence of") the supernatural. This would be a metaphysical claim.<br /><br />But people's beliefs in the supernatural <I>can</I> be changed by removing the basis for any empirical claims associated with those beliefs. (Again, I know you don't disagree with that.)<br /><br />The possibly contentious part is where I say that -- in loose, informal language -- the supernatural claims that give rise to the beliefs have been "refuted" (to mean: "had their evidence-base removed" or somesuch).<br /><br />Do you see the difference? It's the same word, yes, but in the different contexts it has a different meaning. Formal, philosophical language vs common, everyday informal language. You might argue that I can't or shouldn't re-use the word for different meanings in the same discussion. But don't argue that I'm making strong metaphysical claims about the nature of science. I'm just not.<br /><br /><br />(Luke) <I>I had a feeling you might bring up prayer studies at some point</I>.<br /><br />I'm curious: why? (Actually, out of everything in this comment, that's the thing I'd like addressed most.)<br /><br /><br />(Luke) <I>Now it's shorthand? It's not actually hedging then</I>?<br /><br />It's *<B>always</B>* been shorthand. I've not made any stronger claims that that.<br /><br /><br />(Luke) <I>I'll spare going back through the other statements you seem to have no problem with, like the one from Dawkins' site which makes a specific claim</I>.<br /><br />No, no, no. Don't assume you know anything about my opinion on that point (or any other I haven't written about explicitly). I've haven't addressed it because there's only so many things I can respond to at any one time.<br /><br /><br />(Luke) <I>Part of the problem there of course is that you still can't come to grips with the fact that creationism is not a scientific theory</I>.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that <I>you think</I> I'm claiming "creationism is a scientific theory". As above, I'm not making any such large claim.<br /><br />(Owen) <I>I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*</I>.<br />(Luke) <I>Even though you hedged on this by saying something like you do above, you have yet to show you understand the problem</I>.<br /><br />I would now re-phrase that as: "I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *metaphysically*. If you are just trying to remove the empirical evidence-base, there is no issue, and that is what Dawkins is doing". I'll withdraw the contentious use of the word "refute" if it helps get the underlying point accepted.<br /><br /><br />(Luke) <I>I went out of my way quoting you, and you seem to realize that. [...] you claim I have taken you out of context</I>.<br /><br />You did quote me well, but you still missed out some connecting parts that changed the context. I filled in one of those, in detail, as an example.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74444876855061027062009-05-04T21:53:00.000-04:002009-05-04T21:53:00.000-04:00Owen,
Thanks for taking the time in responding. ...Owen, <br /><br />Thanks for taking the time in responding. Its been interesting. <br /><br />In many instances I simply don't know what you're talking about any more. <br /><br />Creationism, (in all of its guises)is NOT a scientific theory. That includes ideas in Intelligent Design, you have NOT shown me how I am wrong. I give up on this point. <br /><br />I had a feeling you might bring up prayer studies at some point. I had gone through this in fairly specific detail using the example of my claim of ESP and in some other cases. I don't care what they call the study, Owen, that simply doesn't matter. I can hardly believe how you've worded that second to last paragraph. The rest I get in a vague way because I've become used to reading it, but are you kidding me!? <br /><br />If there is a way to test the claim, then why not? Most claims to nature by believers are thought to be "supernatural" in causation at some level. I have gone over this repeatedly with creationism. <br /><br /><br /><I>(Owen>I'm not claiming to have proof that "testing empirical claims about the supernatural" is "studying the supernatural".<br /><br />No, I'm defining it that way."</I>Now it's shorthand? It's not actually hedging then? The claims are about nature in the belief they are explained by something not purely explainable by naturalistic causation. That includes prayer studies, they are claim to nature, that is what is tested. <br /><br />Lets take another look at this - and I'll spare going back through the other statements you seem to have no problem with, like the one from Dawkins' site which makes a specific claim. Part of the problem there of course is that you still can't come to grips with the fact that creationism is not a scientific theory - all of them - and yes I've been extremely specific, even naming individuals ones and the best you can do is keep mentions the earth being 6,000 years old. But, lets go back to this exchange:<br /><br /><br /><I>"It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"</I>(Owen)<I>"I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*."</I>Even though you hedged on this by saying something like you do above, you have yet to show you understand the problem. But, for some reason I'm to believe that you're just using and supporting a short had in saying " <br /><br />I went out of my way quoting you, and you seem to realize that. I offered the time stamp for every quote, including for comments that I did not quote from but referred to. I read through your comments again today and was very careful in my comments, and even though you are basically repeating some of the same things, you claim I have taken you out of context.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46597154108581695542009-05-04T20:18:00.000-04:002009-05-04T20:18:00.000-04:00Luke
I'm not hedging. I'm just not making the cla...Luke<br /><br />I'm not hedging. I'm just not making the claims you think I'm making.<br /><br />You've done a good job going back through my previous comments, but in several cases you've missed out the connecting sentences that establish the context. This comment got too long by covering everything, so I've focused in detail on the main points (and it's still too long).<br /><br />(Luke) <I>Why do you jump to the conclusion it has to be a "supernatural occurrence"</I>?<br /><br />I haven't jumped to any conclusions. It doesn't have to be a supernatural occurrence. Since first realising my beliefs in the paranormal were unfounded (twenty years ago), I've seen no reason to re-assess that position. I'm just saying that, like Darwin, I can't rule out the possibility of something that <I>would</I> cause me to re-assess. I think the likelihood is vanishingly small, and I would treat any such claim with extreme scepticism, requiring significant[*] evidence, but I'm not so arrogant as to insist I currently have all the answers.<br /><br />[*] In practice, "significant" might mean "more than can actually ever be provided". I can't see what could possibly constitute such evidence in practice, and I'm not generally worried about having to significantly re-think my model of reality.<br /><br />(Luke) <I>I later asked if you thought creationism was a scientific theory. But, your first reply here [April 30, 2009 9:53 AM] was not really a response about it being a scientific theory</I>.<br /><br />You missed out the part where I differentiated between two versions of creationism. Saying "creationism", is too vague, and means nothing. I offered two different formulations, and claimed that one makes falsifiable predictions, and the other doesn't. I repeat this as it is quite central: asking "is creationism scientific" means nothing on its own, as different people mean different things by it. Some people think they can provide evidence for a 6000-year-old earth, and a worldwide flood. They would call this creationism. Some of those, even some fundies, can realise they are wrong when confronted with the physical evidence. In that respect, their version of creationism has been "refuted" in the sense that they no longer believe it. It doesn't destroy the metaphysical possibility, but I've never claimed it could. (Is that the sticking point here, you think I'm making a <I>metaphysical</I> claim about science, rather than a practical one about altering people's beliefs?)<br /><br />(Owen) <I>It's not that it wasn't ever scientific, it's that it's been discarded as it doesn't fit the empirical evidence.</I>In other words, the formulation of "creationism" which makes falsifiable claims has been tested (via naturalistic means), and has indeed been falsified. According to Popper, being falsifiable is the distinguishing hallmark of a scientific theory, so on that basis, yes, that formulation could have been considered scientific.<br /><br />I also stated that the other formulation I offered was *<B>not</B>* falsifiable (and by implication, certainly not scientific).<br /><br />Since you didn't specify what you meant by "creationism" I gave you an answer that covered two significant interpretations. There was no hedging.<br /><br />(Luke) <I>Yes, the claims to nature have been 'proven' false, but the theory was never scientific. The claims to nature were never really scientific (unless you are picking and choosing how to define science)</I>.<br /><br />According to Popper, the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. The claims to nature were therefore scientific in the sense that they were testable. While there are those who disagree with Popper, I don't think using his terminology could be considered "picking and choosing how to define science".<br /><br />Similarly for the question about irreducible complexity. It's testable. Doesn't mean the supporters of ID are doing what they do in good faith, or even that they could be considered to be "doing science". But it does mean an actual scientist could test their claims and possibly prove them false (as they have, in fact, done).<br /><br />(Luke) <I>In your next response to me you once again hint that you think creationist stories are scientific theories</I>.<br /><br />To be explicit: I think some formulations (at least one) are falsifiable, to whit: "6000-year-old earth, worldwide flood (etc)". If you follow Popper, you can make a case for this formulation being "scientific", yes. But either way, that one is certainly falsifiable. (I should add, it stops being scientific immediately once one ignores the evidence falsifying it. In much the same way someone promoting n-rays, or phlogiston, would be unscientific today, despite the fact the claims were originally scientific.)<br /><br />(Owen) <I>"I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal"</I>.<br /><br />(Luke) <I>You have no scientific justification to make that claim. You hedge this statement and others like it by mentioning semantics. It's not just semantics, it is about the nature of science and you don't get to decide on a whim what that will be.</I>Ah, now here we get to the real point of contention, as I see it.<br /><br />To be clear: I'm not claiming to have <I>proof</I> that "testing empirical claims about the supernatural" is "studying the supernatural".<br /><br />No, I'm <I>defining</I> it that way. You appreciate there's a difference there, right? Put another way, I'm saying "testing the supernatural" is a shorthand for "testing empirical claims about the supernatural". The scientists who investigate the paranormal and/or supernatural phenomena might say they are "testing the supernatural" for short, but they mean "testing empirical claims about the supernatural" (in the same way a mathematician might refer to "the limit at infinity" instead of talking about epsilons-and-deltas). Sure it's informal, but it can be made formal just by using more words.<br /><br />e.g. There have been a number of studies testing the healing effects of prayer. Were the scientists involved not doing science because those making the claims thought something outside of nature was responsible? Would the scientists be allowed to talk about "investigating prayer", or would they have to say "investigating the empirical effects of prayer to a supernatural figure"?<br /><br />And the fact that I'm defining a term in a way you don't like is precisely what makes this part about semantics.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91453729607509554372009-05-04T12:27:00.000-04:002009-05-04T12:27:00.000-04:00Ah crap! There's a few instances of the formatting...Ah crap! There's a few instances of the formatting getting screwed up (trust me I triple checked it). It's mainly in areas where my comments follow a quote, fortunately Owen's quotes are in italics and with quotation marks.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52427493035409814092009-05-04T12:24:00.000-04:002009-05-04T12:24:00.000-04:00Owen,
We are obviously agreeing on some basic fu...Owen, <br /><br />We are obviously agreeing on some basic fundamental points. Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to further explore the issue. <br /><br />However...<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"Am I really being this unclear?"</I>Yes, in fact you keep hedging. I will respond further to this later.<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"Help me out: quote a specific thing I say that you find objectionable."</I>Lets just go back to the beginning.<br /><br />In a response to Massimo's statement of: "1) It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"The first is that there is a difference between refuting supernaturalism, and testing it."</I>In the same paragraph you ended by saying:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"If it stands up to scrutiny, but in some way violates other known science (Darwin's "man [...] made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived", for example) then you'd be some way to "proving" a supernatural occurrence."</I> [April 29, 2009 12:30 PM]<br /><br />You then went on about claims correctly. But, you've only fallen into the trap above. Why do you jump to the conclusion it has to be a "supernatural occurrence"? Part of Coyne's argument (and by using the quote by Darwin, which I think you both should pay heed to the last line; "But, this is childish writing") is that this would convince a scientist of God or the supernatural. That's part of the problem, as I have outlined a few times now, it doesn't matter that it would convince a scientist (I'm being deliberately short here since I've been over this a few times). Science, as you seem to understand, does not deal in the supernatural (only perhaps in the beliefs in supernaturalism). <br /><br />Aren't you just doing what humans have always done, which is look at things that are not explainable at the time and claiming they are the acts of God (or supernaturalism in some way - even giving special powers to the unexplained, such as the sun)? <br /><br />In another response to Massimo's statement of (same); "It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"<br /><br /><I>(Owen)<B>"I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*."</B></I> [April 30, 2009 5:23 AM]<br /><br />In the middle of the next paragraph you wrote:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"As far as I'm concerned, science has refuted all examples of the supernatural I've examined in detail."</I>Again, I think you are confusing claims to nature of something having supernatural cause and the fact that science test for natural phenomena only. I agree the claims have failed to be convincing, it is to some extent why I am an "atheist" (in quotes because I'm beginning to deplore labels because of conversations like this). <br /><br />I think Massimo did a great job of answering to your response that I quote above (second to last) when he said; "No, I'm sorry but here you (and Dawkins) are missing the point. <B>The *philosophical* point is that *science* cannot, in principle, refute the supernatural."</B>However, your response to this was yet another hedge (actually you were doing this with regards to specific points Massimo had made).<br /><br />You follow by Massimo's comment by saying:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"Since I don't disagree with that, I must not be being clear.</I>And:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"I (and Dawkins, I presume) would agree that science can't refute the supernatural[*]."</I> <br />You go on to discuss claims fairly correctly and begin your last paragraph by saying:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"Aside. Science can't *prove* anything."</I> [April 30, 2009 9:45 AM]<br /><br />If you are putting this all together and still don't see that you have been unclear, then I can't help you. <br /><br />However, in a response to a straight forward statement I made and questions pertaining directly to the statement, you once again hedged. <br /><br />I stated: "I creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory"<br /><br />I later asked if you thought creationism was a scientific theory. <br /><br />But, your first reply here [April 30, 2009 9:53 AM] was not really a response about it being a scientific theory. In fact, you mention the claim of the age of earth being 6,000 years old and the flood, then state: <br /><br /><I>(Owen)"It's not that it wasn't ever scientific, it's that it's been discarded as it doesn't fit the empirical evidence."</I>Yes, the claims to nature have been 'proven' false, but the theory was never scientific. The claims to nature were never really scientific (unless you are picking and choosing how to define science). <br /><br />I also responded in pretty good detail right following your above comment [here: April 30, 2009 10:34 AM]. Where I asked by what mechanism is this a scientific theory. I was also allowing you a chance to respond without me appearing pretentious and lecturing on what a scientific theory means in science. In your next response to me you once again hint that you think creationist stories are scientific theories [here: May 03, 2009 4:28 PM]. However, you seem to understand the basics on empirical claims, as you keep referring to in comments. <br /><br />You then stated:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal".</I>You have no scientific justification to make that claim. You hedge this statement and others like it by mentioning semantics. It's not just semantics, it is about the <B>nature of science</B> and you don't get to decide on a whim what that will be. <br /><br />It makes sense that you want to remove the empirical support that creationist (and believers in general) use in their claims to nature - again many other do this in different ways, notably with quantum mechanics revealing a "higher reality" (read: God) as the recent Templeton prize winner, the physicist d’Espagnat has done. Science does a good job, we understand reality with greater clarity all the time (we hope), but there is a limit to science and we must accept faced primarily with belief systems (and untestable hypothesis'). It simply doesn't help to confuse what science can do with regards to supernaturalism, you are simply crossing the line to claim that science is testing the supernatural.<br /><br />Which leads in part to my bringing up that part from Dawkins' site again, which states directly that science can study the supernatural. They elevate creationism to being a falsifiable scientific theory to make the claim. The problem of course is that both ideas are wrong. It appears you are stumbling into this trap also, but then clawing at the walls on the way down. Much of this mirrors what religious people have tried countless times to do by in making their claims that supernaturalism (God)is amendable to science. Yet, they offer no scientific theory, only their religious beliefs and the hope for legitimacy through coupling their beliefs with science. <br /><br />You went on to ask me:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"Do you accept that my example of falsifiable claim is correct? That, once upon a time, people made predictions about the nature of the world based in their understanding of the way the world was created? Predictions that could be tested, like the existence of a world-wide flood?"</I>Which I had been over many times! I made very clear what science is testing and that creationism is not a scientific theory. But, you don't come out and say you understand it's not a scientific theory, ever! You keep going back to the claims on nature as if the creationist have a scientific theory, that it is actually science. <br /><br />You go on to say:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"But you disagree that this is "studying the supernatural". Fine, we disagree about how to label the process, not a big issue for me. But my central claim is that, whatever you think "studying the supernatural" is, Jerry Coyne uses the same labelling as me. So when he talks about studying the supernatural, he's really saying "testing empirical claims yadda yadda".</I> [May 03, 2009 8:03 PM]<br /><br />You have not shown how science studies the supernatural outside of just claiming it (as many creationist and certain believers attempt to do). You are simply saying that the claims to nature that are testable is studying the supernatural. But, that's the point, it's not studying the supernatual, there is no there there. Supernaturalims (God) is not reality. You can't make unreality into reality, the natural into the supernatural.<br /><br />I want to go back to your question:<br /><br /><I>(Owen)"Am I really being this unclear?"</I>I think the reason you are unclear is for the same reason you were in response to other points Massimo had made. In a fundamental way it goes back to your idea that when you read a criticism of Dawkins by Massimo you feel a disconnect. What's happening is an emotional response. Two points about this I want to get out of the way (1) I am not saying emotion in these types of discussions is <I>a priori</I> a bad thing and (2) it is not being dismissive in the way of disregarding an argument. I do think those that most often make these type arguments believe they are not being emotional and will often try to make that point. <br /><br />This leads to my final point, which I've made to varying degrees a few times. I think in the face of what is primarily an ideological war we are seeing higher levels of irrational defensiveness on the side of the what are supposed to be rationalist (a rather small group of atheist - not rationalist or atheist in general - I am obviously not saying they are wrong across the board, I tend to agree with most of them on many issues). The paradox is recognizable that a group of atheist would become dogmatic in their defensiveness and certain beliefs - especially when it pertains to certain individuals and positions they hold (including scientific - which is not saying this makes the scientific arguments wrong - and again this a little different than an appeal to authority - though it certainly does involve that). Of course how this is answered is to say things are the opposite. It wouldn't be the first time we've encountered this type of thing and certainly won't be the last. The problem as I see it is that it's coming with some serious baggage. <br /><br />Two areas raised by Massimo's blog post and in the comments speak directly to this - one is claims about the nature of science (and how it pertains to the supernatural) and the attitudes which are being forwarded in the guise of advocated approaches. It can in other words be "group think" that has the hallmarks of "saving the world" ideals mixed with direct attempts to stigmatize and increase levels of ridicule (the last point being done out of what appears to be three main areas (1) if ridicule works it works better in greater degree - which is attempting to find more legitimacy by saying different approaches are needed and this is only one - the "good cop" / "bad cop" scenario and (2) a direct claim of who it works best on and (3) frustration and resentment).<br /><br />Welcome to the age of the encroaching secular dogmatic "anti" approach in the fancy dress of a quasi-religious movement.<br /><br />A few points I've considered at length in making my charge. I'll just list them without giving detail - but I have eliminated them from counter arguments fairly clearly (1) secular humanism has been charged with being religious in nature (I don't believe this) (2) criticism can be interpreted as a negative and we need to criticize (this goes along with the "you want us to shut-up" claim - I'll just state that I support the humanist/atheist and skeptical movements and have for over 15 years) and (3) Religion is dangerous and I am an enabler by simply making the charge or criticizing (this is also tied with the idea we are threatened with a circular firing squad if we criticize "within the group" - problem is this is counter to a large degree what the group stands for - nothing I have said diminishes my view that religion can be very irrational and dangerous).Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70849707210387379392009-05-04T04:28:00.000-04:002009-05-04T04:28:00.000-04:00Luke
Am I really being this unclear? Where have I...Luke<br /><br />Am I really being this unclear? Where have I said that science should stop begin naturalistic?<br /><br />(Luke) <I>I'm really starting to resent this idea we are only discussing semantics. That somehow putting you in italics like that somehow allows for science to test the supernatural</I>.<br /><br />I'm saying "testing the supernatural" is *defined by* "testing the empirical claims". That's still methodologically naturalistic. (I think you disagree about my definition, which is what makes it a semantic argument.)<br /><br />If someone claims god is healing people in response to prayers, I can test that. In fact, it's been tested. It's been (imho) falsified. A positive result wouldn't on its own prove the existence of god, but a negative one would remove one piece of claimed empirical support (and has).<br /><br />(Luke) <I>If you want you can say the "supernatural" is real</I>,<br /><br />Seriously Luke, you seem to be arguing with someone else here. I haven't claimed, nor do I want to, that the supernatural is real.<br /><br />(Luke) <I>What is being said to some extent is that "supernaturalism" is amendable to science, which is confused with a claim of something being "supernatural"</I>.<br /><br />I am saying a very specific thing: we can test empirical claims. You are not disagreeing with that. Help me out: quote a specific thing I say that you find objectionable. Don't paraphrase, or interpret. Use my exact words so I can understand which part is the problem. I'm genuinely confused.<br /><br />(Luke) <I>Still not see the importance of the philosophy end of things?</I>Er, I don't know where this comes from. I'm quite aware of the philosophical issues.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71816019665140343542009-05-04T04:13:00.000-04:002009-05-04T04:13:00.000-04:00With greater clarity of thought, I realized that t...With greater clarity of thought, I realized that the hypothesis of God really didn't answer any of the issues (reason of existence or workings of the Universe). And that realization was the point I turned agnostic (still had thought of God's existence as a viable possibility)--at 17 years age. But when I came across ideas like <I>Russel's teapot</I>, I turned a negative atheist (age of 22). And, that's what I've been. I see the stages in evolution of my beliefs about God as typical for any person who thinks on these issues with an open mind. Some people enter the various stages at various points in life, some regress back, some remain suspended at some stage. The only next possible stage is positive atheism, but I see the difference between negative and positive atheism as more of semantic and how much importance one gives to the issue of existence v/s nonexistence in their day-to-day life. So, my being born to Hindu parents had no bearing on how my religious beliefs turned out.<br /><br />If <B>Massimo</B> permits, I'd like comments from other readers, too on the issue of "typical stages of beliefs about God", and of course his own beliefs, too.<br /><br />Take care.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27576632331608329952009-05-04T04:04:00.000-04:002009-05-04T04:04:00.000-04:00I gave you this account of conversions in India on...I gave you this account of conversions in India only to correct your mistaken belief that the converts in India have any great love for Christ or Christianity.<br /><br />Talking of my erstwhile theism, I want to point out that with spreading education and acceptance of more humanitarian terms of morality, all the educated and reasonable religious people have been forced to view their respective Gods as <I>supremely powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient) and all-loving (benevolent)</I>. I'd also started believing in this kind of God by the age of 10, and was referring to when speaking of my having been a believes. And this is the kind of God that most of the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews and Buddhists all over the world believe in. If I ask you how your "Holy Ghost" differs from the above description (I don't know the details of Christian beliefs, but have some idea), you're unlikely to point out any major differences. If you ask an educated Muslim the same question about the nature their "Allah", they will agree with the description. Same holds true for "Vishnu" or "Shiva"--the only two major Gods in contemporary Hindu religion, one of who people usually worship in exclusion of the other. So you see, most of the people believe in the same God, and only give different names, and associate different stories with him/her.<br /><br />As I grew up and saw all the problems afflicting humanity, I seriously started doubting, the benevolent nature of God, but still couldn't totally give up on that belief only because of instilled fear of "burning in hell" for "doubting" too much.<br /><br />I'd stopped believing in any kind of anthropomorphic God when I was 10. You could call my belief of that time some kind of panentheism. One of the days, I realized that the only reason I'd continued to believe in God was to account for the complexities of workings and existence of the Universe (Deism, of sorts). And also to think of a "purpose" behind its existence...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38065555267167489972009-05-04T03:59:00.000-04:002009-05-04T03:59:00.000-04:00Caliana,
I'm afraid you've generalized a lot in y...Caliana,<br /><br />I'm afraid you've generalized a lot in your previous post.<br /><br />India's a population of over 1 billion. Do you really think everyone must be exactly alike?<br />I assume, you're from Italy or of Italian origin, and one of the most well known modern Italians I can think of right now would be Benito Mussolini. Would I be correct in assuming you and he share the same political and religous views?<br /><br />Also, your sources of information seem to be not really tuned into the ground realities, or at least not bereft of some ulterior motives.<br /><br />The things that you've said about caste system, dalits, and preference for male child are indeed true. But what's not true is that they're the all-encompassing norms. My parents have 2 children, and my only sibling is a sister. She's had the same opportunities as me at academics. She'll go on to be a Bachelor of Pharmacy. What does that say about gender equality?<br /><br />The situation of India you've been presented with is seen in some pockets of the country, and NOT all the time. And these ill practices are coming down with spread of education. My only points: don't generalize, and sociopolitical situation in any community (much less, of a billion-strong one) can't be as simplistic as you've portrayed.<br /><br />I don't justify any kind of violence against any community, but feel you should've an accurate idea of what "motivates" the majority of dalits or whoever embraces Christianity in India.<br /><br />The Christian missionaries go to the economically backward regions, sponsor housing, children's education, gift farms, medical care to (dalit) people. Sounds very noble, right? But the missionaries have one condition--that the dalits must convert to Christianity!<br /><br />I'm not saying this would justify violence against dalits. But think of it, if someone offers you a billion dollars (or sufficiently large amount), would you convert to Hinduism? And if you convert, what what would you eventually say of your own "faith"?<br /><br />Most of the converts have no love for Christ, or for that matter, even the Hindu God as their lives have been riddled with so many uncertainties (they won't know where their next meal would come from--sic). I don't see these Christian missionaries as noble, either. If I find a road-accident victim, I'm not going to ask first about his religion to decide if I should take him to the hospital. That would be EXTREMELY immoral. Christian missionaries are not doing anything different...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28583788998045713452009-05-03T21:24:00.000-04:002009-05-03T21:24:00.000-04:00Owen,
Creationism, including "Intelligent Design...Owen, <br /><br />Creationism, including "Intelligent Design" theories, are <B>not</B> scientific theories. The way science is understood <B>today</B> makes this perfectly clear. They, the creationist, are trying to make it seem they have a scientific theory (though a couple are honest enough to admit they don't have one), but they don't! <br /><br />Science has <B>nothing</B> to do with the supernatural. Science can inform us on the belief in the supernatural. <br /><br />As I have said, science can test the claims to nature, such as the earth is 6,000 years old, but beyond that it says nothing about the underlying "theory" (in this case God). We are simply left with belief - which science may tell us something. The fact that the mind can embrace contradiction is fascinating, but the "theories" tell us nothing about reality (they don't even come close to telling us how the natural phenomena occurred - and again, most often they get the facts of nature wrong - both by purposeful and honest ignorance). Science deals in reality, supernaturalism is not physical reality. <br /><br />"Supernatural phenomena" are beyond the realm of science because to say otherwise makes <B>no</B> sense, it is self-contradictory. If you want you can say the "supernatural" is real, but good luck trying to provide evidence it is real. To believers it is a reality, but it is a reality only in their minds, it is why they rely on "faith". It is also why they keep attempting to downplay scientific evidences of reality that may contradict their beliefs (and they are not the only ones, in fact, its almost to easy just to point to the religionist - the problem is wide spread and takes on many forms).<br /><br />I'm really starting to resent this idea we are only discussing semantics. That somehow putting <I>you</I> in italics like that somehow allows for science to test the supernatural. <br /><br />Jerry Coyne, in making that statement was in reaction to noma. He followed it by stating; "All scientists can think of certain observations that would convince them of the existence of God or supernatural forces" (he then quotes Darwin). The first major problem with this of course is that just because the scientist is convinced does not make it a true reflection of reality (in fact, be very cautious of a scientist claiming to have found God in nature). However, whether it's a scientist or group of them, we are still left with the problem of offering a theory and why would we suddenly stop trying to make it naturalistic (there is only the natural and the mysteries of nature). Why now because Coyne says it (as a rhetorical device I hoped, though it is hard to tell, if he does believe it then he simply let his advocacy and disdain for noma to take over his science senses), that what is commonly understood as scientific today should change? <br /><br />What is being said to some extent is that "supernaturalism" is amendable to science, which is confused with a claim of something being "supernatural". Take my ESP example again. If I claim my ESP is supernatural and we test it, and it is verified scientifically that I have ESP, this is not scientific evidence for my claim of it being supernatural. It is possibly evidence of a naturalistic phenomena, because that is what science test for. The same works in reverse, if we found no evidence for my ESP to the extent where we offer our provisional conclusion that my claim to ESP is not valid, this has scientifically said nothing about supernaturalism. <br /><br />Still not see the importance of the philosophy end of things? <br /><br />It's like the quote I got from Dawkins' site. They obviously elevated creationism to the level of being scientific to make the claim that science can study the supernatural. What is falsifiable is the claims to nature. I mean, beyond some of this stuff we end up with the characteristics of a God, such as the problem of evil and Hume's summation, or in the worse case (which what appears to be happening) that science is being redefined in certain cases for the benefit of an ideological war.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58931713626818978712009-05-03T21:07:00.000-04:002009-05-03T21:07:00.000-04:00Most essential Athist non-negotiable:
No God No...Most essential Athist non-negotiable: <br /><br />No God No way No how. <br /><br />Leaves lots of room open for dialogue, doesn't it Richard Dawkins.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80082751669450043872009-05-03T20:52:00.000-04:002009-05-03T20:52:00.000-04:00Ketan: "I've been a theist in the past, and such a...Ketan: "I've been a theist in the past, and such a firm one that I used to "converse" with God. ..." <br /><br />(I lost track of this comment for awhile...thread is a bit long)<br /><br />What kind of "theist", Christian or some other religion? Jews and others are theists as well. <br /><br />I don't doubt that it would be hard to be a Christian in many parts of India, if that is what you were. My assessment of India from the last 25 years or so is that India has gone from worshiping a whole variety of "gods" to worshiping other things now - success, education, etc. The pursuit of these things may cause SOME superstitious practices to decline, but does it in fact change the heart of the nation? <br /><br />Boy babies are still strongly preferred. The cast system is still quite embedded in the culture. The Dalits have suffered incredibly for their apparent interest in things of God and the Bible. It doesn't sound particularly enlightened to me yet. <br /><br />And Atheism? Every belief including Atheism has its non-negotiables (atheism has a lot of those) and therefore it is anything but open-minded. In reality, it is far more close-minded than many beliefs.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73211117950960364272009-05-03T20:03:00.000-04:002009-05-03T20:03:00.000-04:00Luke,
Just thought of something else. You agree t...Luke,<br /><br />Just thought of something else. You agree that the empirical claims of supernatural proponents can be tested, right? That's not in contention here? But you disagree that this is "studying the supernatural". Fine, we disagree about how to label the process, not a big issue for me. But my central claim is that, whatever <I>you</I> think "studying the supernatural" is, <I>Jerry Coyne uses the same labelling as me</I>. So when he talks about studying the supernatural, he's really saying "testing empirical claims yadda yadda". But you're interpreting the statement as being whatever you defined it to mean (sorry, missed that one). So of course you disagree with him. But fundamentally, your disagreement is semantic.<br /><br />How's that sound?Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33024228898002865852009-05-03T20:02:00.000-04:002009-05-03T20:02:00.000-04:00Luke,
(yeah, I've had issues with the formatting ...Luke,<br /><br />(yeah, I've had issues with the formatting too)<br /><br />Before I answer your question, I've got one for you. Do you accept that my example of falsifiable claim is correct? That, once upon a time, people made predictions about the nature of the world based in their understanding of the way the world was created? Predictions that could be tested, like the existence of a world-wide flood?<br /><br />Actually, I've got a second one: are you trying to make a case for me being an ID supporter or something?<br /><br />Anyway, to your question: irreducible complexity. Yeah, I think, at a push, someone could make a case for the base claim of IC in a testable fashion. In fact, they have, haven't they? The human blood-clotting cascade, amongst others. The problem is, none of the examples they've so far provided have actually been irreducibly complex, so it's <I>at best</I> an <I>unsupported</I> theory, and probably fits <I>failed</I> theory too.<br /><br />(Like phlogiston, or n-rays. Anyone promoting those would be a crank today, too.)<br /><br />Granted those behind the "ID movement" are in practice deceptively packaging up their religious beliefs, rather than doing science in good faith. But that doesn't mean they can't make testable claims. It's just that when they do, it makes them look all the more silly, as each claim gets blown away.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84390573248290762072009-05-03T18:50:00.000-04:002009-05-03T18:50:00.000-04:00Ah crap! I don't know why my post ended up that wa...Ah crap! I don't know why my post ended up that way. It's a bit screwed up, Twice!Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.com