Things I'd consider -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wednesday, May 14, 12:01:17pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Things I'd consider

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10/ 9/04 8:12pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Why not a scientific theory?" on 10/ 9/04 6:46pm

>
>That depends on what philosophy of science you're
>using, but I'm interested in the details. Exactly why
>isn't ID a scientific theory?

My criteria is that theories should explain the data in such a way that predictions or postdictions of an empirical sort can justify or refute the theory in question. (an absence of evidence for a theory does neither here, except to notify us that the proposed answer is still very much open to further inquiry)

Another criteria I have is that the theory explains the existing data observable in such a way that the utility of the theory in terms of "explanatory scope" is unquestionably better or equal to other theories that have withstood the test of time. (Quantum theory such as the Copenhagen interpretation vs say the Multiple World interpretation, where neither theory possess any edge over the other one, but both explain the observed phenomenon with basically the same clarity)

Another pretty important criteria in most cases is that the theory be mathematically justifiable, or at least amenable to mathematical analysis which in turn leads to mathematical predictions.

And perhaps above all, that the theory is comprehensive as concerns specifics. (e.g. well defined operational definitions along with equally well defined predictions)

As far as I can tell, ID does nothing in the line of predicting "positive evidence" that is dealing with evidence that is observable/has been observed (i.e. not lack of evidence). That makes it not empirically subject to verfication or refutation, which fails my first criteria. (if anything, it'd have to remain in the "this theory might be true" category, although there is nothing to suggest it is at this moment. The limbo state I talked about earlier probably best fits it)

As far as explanatory scope of the observable evidence, ID does not explain such things as why creatures should share similarities; why some creatures seem to have parts that serve no function; why the building blocks should be the same; why some species exhibit extensive mating patterns; why altruistic types of behavior should exist in such systems; why some species have more offspring than others; why new viruses come to be; why that as we get closer to the beginning of life fossils seem to be simplistic; why some types seem to be more plentiful than others and on and on.

I have seen absolutely no effort in ID camps to mathematically attempt to justify their theories, or to make them specific enough so that there can be no question what they are predicting or postdicting. They lack the scientific rigor that theories in science must have, and that students have to receive special training in writing.

Therefore, I say ID is not a scientific theory.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Scientific theory or good scientific theory?	Wade A. Tisthammer	10/16/04 3:12pm
Comments -- Damoclese, 10/16/04 5:44pm My comments -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/31/04 2:44pm