| Subject: A strange admission... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/14/04 4:59pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "One quick reply" on 09/14/04 4:06pm
Wade:
I said:
>Qualities of a good theory are:
>
>1) explanatory power
>2) predictive power
>3) falsifiability
You said:
>The qualities of a good theory like those above fall
>into the realm of philosophy of science.
Indeed, they do.
>But for now
>let’s assume we’re talking about general principles of
>rationality. Quality #3 is not a very good one, as
>I'll come to later.
Ah - Non-overlapping magisteria... I'm not talking about a philisophical framework - only the philosophy of science.
>I was thinking more like the origins of the physical
>universe and its intricate mathematical order, the
>existence of objective moral values, the existence of
>souls among humankind etc.
Which are neat ideas.
>>How about predictive power? Well, I'm kind of at a
>>loss for this one... Exactly what phenomena should we
>>expect to see if we assume that God exists? Wade?
>>Anyone?
>
>The existence of souls for humanity, the existence of
>objective moral values, perhaps some markings
>indicating to us that God exists (e.g. imprinting a
>universe with sophisticated mathematical patterns,
>fine-tuning physical constants etc.).
Which is neat, too.
>>And finally, the real doozy - falsifiability. Damn.
>
>Falsifiability per se is not a good criterion
>to judge a theory.
I'll repeat this again just to be a jerk...
>>And finally, the real doozy - falsifiability. Damn.
>There's the Duhem-Quine problem
>for one thing. Scientific theories cannot be
>empirically falsified, even good ones. I'll give an
>example: macroevolution. While perhaps a good theory
>it is not falsifiable. Think I'm wrong? Give me one
>piece of data I wouldn't be able to explain away.
But that's the point - it's not about "explaining away" data. Which is the culture shock that occurs when Religious Philosophers and Scientists meet...
It's a "best current educated guess" based on facts. There probably isn't one "silver bullet" of fact (excluding the appearence of God, who says, "Now listen... You've got this all wrong") that could, in some unheard of upheaval, "falsify" the theory. Is it falsifiABLE? Sure, but it's also our best guess - got a better idea? Come up with an explanation that explains ALL (read: ALL) the same facts as biological evolution ("macroevolution" is a concession to creationists) in a better manner, and we'll probably buy it.
>There are other considerations that reveal the problem
>of "falsifiability." Take for instance necessary
>truths. Some believe that God has necessary
>existence. If so, it would not be falsifiable, so
>according to this criterion we should not believe in
>the existence of God (or at least consider it a “bad”
>belief) even if it were proven that he necessarily
>exists. But surely that is absurd.
Wait a minute... You just said, "Well, property X of "good theories" doesn't hold for the theory of God's existence. Because we assume that God exists, property X isn't a property of a good theory."
Seriously, Wade.
>Another thing. What about the claim that there has
>been, is, or will be a mass of silver that contains
>exactly 986 atoms. It is not falsifiable, but if
>discovered to be true (if we actually find such a mass
>of silver) should we pretend it's not true? Obviously
>not. In practice, falsifiability isn't a good
>criterion even though it sounds good on paper.
No, that's not the statement of a theory. It's a statement of either a fact, or it's a predictive statement from a theory. And it's a marvelous example of how statements from science can be misinterpreted by those who disagree with it...
The real statement might be, "We know that atoms bond together. We observe masses of atoms, oh, let's say, silver atoms that demonstrate this property of silver atoms.
According to these facts, we can predict that there could exist masses of silver containing anywhere from one atom, to as many atoms of silver as exist, including that one piece containing 986 atoms."
It's kind of reminiscent of the "transitional fossils" hulabaloo...
"Here's a piece of silver with 986 atoms. Satisfied?"
"Hmm... Nope! What about 987?"
".rrrrr...."
>>Theism just isn't falsifiable.
Once more...
>>And finally, the real doozy - falsifiability. Damn.
>Which is not inherently problematic. It certainly
>doesn't change the evidence for theism.
"evidence?" Surely you mean philisophical evidence. I'll accept that.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 