Re: Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent

shepherdmoon@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>shepherdmoon@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>Here is a draft of something I began to think about while reading a
>>>chapter in a book on the philosophy of science. I think it is a good
>>>argument undermining the claim that ID is real science.
>>>
>>>Comments and criticisms are most welcome.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Shepherdmoon
>>>
>>>=======
>>>Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent
>>>
>>>The logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is explained as
>>>follows:
>>>
>>>---
>>>Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy in the form of a
>>>hypothetical proposition. The fallacy of affirming the consequent
>>>occurs when a hypothetical proposition comprising an antecedent and a
>>>consequent asserts that the truthhood of the consequent implies the
>>>truthhood of the antecedent. This is fallacious because it assumes a
>>>bidirectionality when it does not necessarily exist.
>>>
>>>This fallacy has the following argument form:
>>>
>>> If P, then Q.
>>> Q.
>>> Therefore, P.
>>>---
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
>>>
>>>Here is an example from a book on the philosophy of science:
>>>
>>>1. If a man takes arsenic (P), then he will die (Q).
>>>2. A man dies (Q).
>>>--------------------------------------------------
>>>Therefore the man took arsenic.
>>>
>>>Source:
>>>Peter Caws, The Philosophy of Science. New York: D. Van Nostrand
>>>Company Inc., 1965, p. 111.
>>>
>>>This example commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent because it
>>>takes a consequence -- a man dies -- and infers that consequence as
>>>evidence in favor of the hypothesis that arsenic was the cause of
>>>death. But not every man dies from arsenic poisoning, so the inference
>>>on the basis of the consequence alone is invalid.
>>>
>>>Intelligent Design proponents commit the fallacy of affirming the
>>>consequent each time they claim that their observations of the
>>>complexity of life justify the inference to intelligent design.
>>>
>>>The ID version of the fallacy is:
>>>
>>>If life is the product of intelligent design (P), then life will
>>>exhibit complexity (Q).
>>>Life exhibits complexity (Q).
>>>--------------------------------------------------
>>>Therefore life is the product of intelligent design (P).
>>>
>>>The problems with this reasoning are:
>>>1. It is logically fallacious, since it is of the same form as, for
>>>example, the arsenic fallacy illustrated above.
>>>2. It is trying to use an observation to verify the hypothesis of
>>>intelligent design by using only the consequence, a consequence for
>>>which other hypotheses (for example, naturalistic evolution) may be
>>>true.
>>>3. It gives no hypothesis for the cause of the complexity (the
>>>intelligent designer), and so would not be useful even if it were
>>>presented in correct logical form.
>>>
>>>Thus the ID argument has no logical truth or scientific value to it, at
>>>least as it is currently formed.
>>>
>>>It is very likely that ID proponents will immediately counter that a
>>>lot of scientific reasoning operates according to the fallacy of
>>>affirming the consequent. Indeed, in the book above, the author points
>>>out that "This [affirming the consequent] is in fact the argument we
>>>use most frequently in justifying scientific hypotheses..." (Caws, p.
>>>111).
>>>
>>>However, that is why scientists do not rely on verification alone, as
>>>the ID argument does. Caws points out that science uses *falsification*
>>>to change the above reasoning into a logically valid form (presented
>>>below based on Caws, p. 112).
>>>
>>>If P, then Q
>>>Not Q
>>>---------------
>>>Therefore not P
>>>
>>>In this form, the hypothesis "may be *falsified* conclusively if the
>>>consequences fail to occur" (Caws, p. 112). The point is not that
>>>science can conclusively establish the final truth forever, but rather,
>>>that employing falsification enables scientists to better eliminate
>>>hypotheses that don't work and thereby evaluate the confidence with
>>>which to accept a hypothesis (Caws, p. 112).
>>>
>>>Despite a lot of public relations resources spent by ID proponents to
>>>convince the public that ID is the same as real science, I think that
>>>ID is different in this crucial respect.
>>>
>>>Unlike real science, ID commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent
>>>and then sticks with it. Affirming the consequent makes up the bulk of
>>>the ID argument, since ID proponents specifically refuse to hypothesize
>>>about the designer they infer. But by that refusal, ID proponents also
>>>prevent the formation of a scientific ID hypothesis. To make a
>>>scientific hypothesis is to make a positive statement that can be
>>>subjected to scrutiny. Real science requires putting a proposed cause
>>>out there with the risk that it will be falsified.
>>>
>>>That is why evolutionary biology is real science. It proposes specific
>>>causes -- random mutations and natural selection, knowing that its
>>>propositions may be falsified -- but also knowing that with
>>>falsification comes further knowledge about how the world really works.
>>>
>>>
>>>IDers, by contrast, protectively shield the intelligent designer from
>>>falsification by trying to keep the designer out of the discussion. Yet
>>>by excluding the designer, IDers have nothing more to propose than the
>>>fallacious reasoning described above. And because it is highly unlikely
>>>that IDers will change their strategy of refusing details about the
>>>designer, that is a strong rational argument for keeping ID out of
>>>science classes. Without a falsifiable hypothesis about the designer,
>>>there is no science in ID to teach.
>>>
>>
>>Affirming the consequent is my favourite fallacy, for just this reason. It is
>>the fallacy of choice for all aspects of seeing intention in the natural
>>world. Teleology is an affirmation of the consequent. Well spotted.
>>
>
>
> Thank you for the kind words, although I am sure the presentation can
> be improved.
>
> I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of this point. In the right
> hands -- that is, the hands of a specialist in the philosophy of
> science -- I think it could make for a very strong essay picking apart
> ID's claim to be a science like any other.
>
> Regards,
> Shepherdmoon
>

Alas! I don't know any...

Seriously, I do intend one day to write a piece on fallacies in biology. I
have a few: reificationism, what I intend to call the Intentional Fallacy
(stealing from literacy criticism), which is a version of the FoAtC, and so
forth. But not now.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent
    ... >> argument undermining the claim that ID is real science. ... >> Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent ... >> The logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is explained as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent
    ... > argument undermining the claim that ID is real science. ... > Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent ... > The logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is explained as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent
    ... argument undermining the claim that ID is real science. ... Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent ... The logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is explained as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?
    ... For ACT, then, we have: ... Enter the fallacy of a self-referenced argument. ... circular reasoning error *because* it is self-referential. ... logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Five Logics to Learn.
    ... Science appears the issue. ... Struggle with fallacy appears the issue. ... All I can say is that five basic universals form five basic logical ... I have summaried the five basic logics to learn. ...
    (sci.logic)