Re: Being falsifiable not required to be valid theory


topmind wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > While I think I.D. is likely false; not allegedly being falsifiable is
> > > not a reason to exclude it from textbooks IMO.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> For one, we don't know what is truly falsifiable with 100% certainty.
> Just because humans cannot currently think of ways to falsify something
> does not necessarily mean such a path does not exist.

>
> Similarly, just because nobody can think of an intermediate
> advantagious biochemical step to a Behe puzzle does not mean one does
> not exist.
>
> Limits of human thinking shouldn't be a reason to rule out what may or
> may not happen in the future.
>

This has nothing to do with it!
ID offers as what it considers to be its strongest argument
'irreducible complexity'. As I have pointed out, this is *not* a test
of the existence of an 'intelligent designer', but a test which could
falsify evolution by small incremental steps. Even if such an
hypothesis (i.e. evolution by small, incremental steps) were falsified,
this would not provide one iota of support for the proposition that an
'intelligent designer' was responsible.

This has nothing to do with the limits of human thinking, but is a
basic, fundamental flaw in ID. It is a propostion inherently incapable
of falsification.

> >
> > >
> > > The Anthropic Principle may not be falsifiable either because we may
> > > never be able to sample other universes, or at least all possible
> > > universes that contribute to "probility space". We can never know if
> > > there are yet other dimensions/realms that we have yet to
> > > explore/discover. However, it is still a valid theory most would agree.
> > >
> >
> > The Anthropic Principle is not a scientific theory. It's a metaphysical
> > proposition which cannot be tested by science.
>
>
> What is the difference between a "scientific theory" and "metaphysical
> proposition"? Also, would you raise an issue of AP being mentioned in a
> cosmology textbook?
>

A theory makes predictions which can be tested against the evidence.
A metaphysical proposition doesn't.

And although the anthropic principle is mentioned in some cosmology
text books, it is not offered as a theory, but as a metaphysical
proposition.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Explaining the precisely-tuned cosmic constants is tough without
> > > Anthropic Principle.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because most theorists agree that if they are changed just a little
> bit, the universe as we know will cease to exist.

No, it could never have arrisen. BIG difference.


> It may be possible
> for life to arise in the seamingly chaos that would result, but it
> appears that the consensus agree that the variations of "useful"
> universes created by changing the constants is probably very small. AP
> is one theory put forth to explain the appearent "fine tuning" of the
> constants. In other words, more "trials" before or outside of this
> universe can result in the eventual concurrence of life-producing
> constants.


It explains nothing!
The universe is as it is because it is as it is. There may be an
infinite number of alternative universes, in some of which life exists
more or less as it does in ours, and it is hypothetically possible that
we may be able to study some of these alternative universes (black
holes?). But to say that the universe is uniquely adapted to life as we
know it is no different from a puddle marvelling at the fact the hole
it occupies is exactly the same shape as the water in it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If ID is excluded from textbooks, then lack of sufficient supporting
> > > evidence should be the reason.
> >
> >
> > ID should be excluded from the textbooks (the science textbooks at
> > least) because it is not a scientific theory.
>
>
> I just want to find out a clear consensus definition of "scientific
> theory". If I don't ask, many in Kansas et al certainly will
> eventually. Fuzzy thinking just leaves wider doors for crackpots.
>
It is not a scientific theory because
1) it offers no test which could potentially falsify it
2) it is not supported by any evidence or observation and
3) (and more to the point) the 'Discovery Institute', its principal
backer, has tacitly admitted that it is not a scientific theory.

>
> > There is no theory of ID:
> > the hypothesis that there are irreducibly complex systems in biology is
> > a potential falsification of evolution by small incremental stages, not
> > a potential falsification of the proposition that "God did it".
>
> I agree the gaps don't necessarily point to a creator(s) by itself.

No! The 'gaps' don't point at a creator. Period. The proposition does
not test the existence of a creator. It tests the proposition that
evolution occurs in small incremental steps.

> The
> evidence for the creator(s) is generally based on the observation that
> most known complex things (outside of biology) were created by thinking
> beings.
>

This is not evidence! It is an assertion of faith.
Moreover, evolutionary principles applied to engineering are used on a
routine basis to develop better solutions than those of human
designers.

> Perhaps the ID movement would get more listen if they simply lobbied to
> have the alleged flaws of evolution in the textbooks, without mention
> of a "designer". However, if half the population will ask about
> creation, then why not include it?


They get far too much 'listen' as it is!
Moreover, they have not succeeded in pointing out any 'flaws in
evolution'. Their suposed test for an intelligent designer (which is,
as I have pointed out, nothing of the sort) has failed to produce any
evidence of flaws in evolutionary theory.

>
> Textbooks must *anticipate* common questions, even dumb ones, to be
> useful.

So why not include, astrology, tarot, crystal healing, and every other
trashy 'theory' which has a hold in the popular imagination? ID is no
different from any of these.


>
> Thanks for your replies, -T-

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
    ... It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside ... Natural selection, variation, adaptation have all been observed. ... That would not falsify it. ... primary elements of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... how does this falsify the claim that evolution can produce new ... If we were to discover a logical evolutionary pathway for something as ... "simple" as protein synthesis, that would falsify design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Random trash-talking thread title change
    ... possibility in order to falsify. ... IC doesn't falsify evolution, no ... descent (as Behe does, and Pagano doesn't), and thus trace the evolution ... is obvious that the big lie of atheism no longer allows him to see the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Snooze Busters: PBS Slammed For Error-Laden Nova Episode:
    ... refutes the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. ... and the fact that it falsified gradual and rapid evolution. ... Behe understands that IC does not falsify EVOLUTION; ... creationists claimed that Gould's PE ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... No we cannot detect other universes. ... then that too can falsify ID. ... > It would help if you learned some science and then some biology. ... > You merely have to provide evidence that it can't explain. ...
    (talk.origins)