He further explained:
"He uses the words 'proof' and 'proven' rather loosely. When he uses 'proof' or 'proven' he actually means 'inferred from observed facts'. But no problem. I do get his drift. We're laymen so we can't all the time be expected to use words like 'proof' and 'theory' as a scientist would use them...I think he uses 'proof' to mean 'inference'."
Actually, in the context of the above exchange, and more importantly, on the basis the intent of those who believe and promote the idea of intelligent design, i would infer that proof is the more appropriate word to use. Let me explain.
Thomas Sowell, in his book Knowledge and Decisions, says that "Various ideas can be classified by their relationship to the authentication process". He then goes on the enumerate these different kinds of Ideas:
| Theories | "ideas systematically prepared for authentication" |
| Visions | "ideas not derived from any systematic process" |
| Illusions | "ideas which could not survive any reasonable authentication process" |
| Myth | "ideas which exempt themselves from any authentication process" |
| Facts | "ideas which have already passed the authentication process" |
| Falsehoods | "ideas known to have failed - or certain to fail - such processes"..."both mistakes and lies" |
From the point of view its proponents, Intelligent Design is a theory. Being a theory, it had to undergo an authentication process. What then is used to authenticate intelligent design? According to biochemist Michael Behe, it is something called irreducible complexity, which is none other than life itself (or to be less loose, the chemical processes that lead to life).
In summary, for someone who believes in this theory, the processes behind life, that are supposedly irreducably complex, serve to authenticate (and not merely infer) Intelligent Design. As far as i know, no other scientific means is used to authenticate this theory.
6 comments:
Professor Sowell uses 'Theory' quite differently from how a scientist would use them. What Sowell calls 'theory', a scientist would call 'hypothesis.' Yes, sometimes these 2 terms overlap since both require authentication by observed data. 'Theory' in historical or descriptive science could be interchanged with 'paradigm.' Hypotheses are proposed to be tested within a paradigm, and if the observations strain the boundaries of the paradigm, the paradigm is then replaced.
In historical or descriptive sciences like cosmology and evolutionary biology, you can't prove anything because you're studying something that is no longer observable, i.e., the past. You can only prove something in science when you can control the environment to eliminate superfluous or irrelevant variables. All you can do in descriptive sciences is infer things from what you observe. Logician Charles Sanders Pierce calls this abductive logic, not deductive logic:
If A then B
B is observed
therefore A may be true.
A is a possibility, but so is C, D, and E as long as these satisfy the observation B. You then choose the best explanation, and that would depend on the metaphysical framework youre operating on. Regarding the topic we were discussing, if you believe man has a monopoly on intelligence, then non-human intelligence is a priori eliminated from consideration.
But Im curious. You wrote: "...on the basis [of] the intent of those who believe and promote the idea of intelligent design..." What is the intent of those who believe and promote the idea of intelligent design?
I think Professor Sowell's use of the word ‘theory’ is consistent with its use in the physical sciences. 'Theory' and 'paradigms' may be used interchangeably but they refer to different things. They have a mutual cause and effect relationship in that a paradigm shift allows for the birth of a new theory or, alternatively, a new theory gives rise to a new paradigm.
Beyond matters of semantics, I think our contention lies in the following:
a. whether 'proof by induction' is possible. This has been a long-standing issue which i don't think we can settle between the two of us; and
b. whether what is not directly observable can be considered ‘proven’.
On the latter point, in the physical sciences, direct observation has long since ceased to be the way to 'prove' things for reasons of scale and time. Evolutionary biologists look at the fossil record and similarities between DNA of different species. Physicists & cosmologists look at mathematical equations and their implications within a given theoretical framework.
Regarding the topic we are discussing, the theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of other intelligences that have evolved (just like us). In fact, it provides a scientific explanation of how they can come into existence.
On your last paragraph, i believe the intent of most of those who believe and promote the idea of intelligent design is to prove that God exists and that the stories of the Bible, by extension, can be taken literally.
I think Professor Sowell's use of the word ‘theory’ is consistent with its use in the physical sciences.
In that case, he missed one. He missed 'hypothesis' unless he believes it is the same is 'theory'. Which it isnt. Else Einstein's General Hypothesis of Relativity will not raise a howl from scientists. :-)
On your last paragraph, i believe the intent of most of those who believe and promote the idea of intelligent design is to prove that God exists and that the stories of the Bible, by extension, can be taken literally.
I wouldnt know, cvj. I expect there would be those kinds of people among its adherents because it would support their belief in transcendent things. The Big Bang did the same thing by supporting creatio ex nihilo, and oh how the materialists come down hard on that one. And even if hypothetically every single one of those who believe in it had a dishonest intent, it wouldnt matter. In science, what matters is the evidence. If intent matters, then we can also cast our suspicions on Prof Dawkins et al. by accusing them of pushing their own philosophical/theological agenda, but fortunately facts have no religious belief.
Personally, I think intelligence best explains complex, specified information. Being a theist, I dont need proof of God's existence from science.
And if I may get personal, have you figured out where you are in the militant atheist/atheist/agnostic/deist/theist/fundamentalist spectrum?
Jego, i think Thomas Sowell knows the difference. Elsewhere in his book, he uses the word hypothesis. In any case, just like a hypothesis, an entire theory also needs validation (authentication). From the usage of the word, i understand the former to be more granular, i.e. expressed in terms of individual phenomena. An example is the hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old. This hypothesis, in turn, may be a component of the 'theory' of Intelligent Design. Another example is Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It was proven in part by its successful prediction of the phenomena of gravitational lensing which was used as a hypothesis to validate the aforementioned theory.
It is evident from reading the news that the issue of Evolution, particularly in the United States, has been politicized. It has been that way at least since Darwin wrote The Descent of Man. I know we disagree on this matter, but i consider Intelligent Design to be lacking in scientific basis. Instead of seeking evidence of a Designer, which it should be doing, it points to the (as yet) unknown and uses this very unknown as evidence that there had to be an intelligent designer.
On my position in the spectrum, I have been hardwired to believe in God, but (just like you and Resty) that has not stopped me from asking questions.
Fair enough.
The Jewish tradition is so different from Christianity in that they encourage questioning. Even questioning and debating with God. One of God's exhortations to the Israelites in the Old Testament was "Come, let us reason together." I guess when Christianity became a monolithic political power it thought it was in its best interests to shut the people up.
And with that, I think we can lay this issue to rest. I have enjoyed it immensely.
Jego, same here. Thanks for the visit!
Post a Comment