Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 12, 6:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:18:12 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
<seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Dec 12, 4:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Many different claims have been shown to be false because the evidence
shows they are false. Few scientists see any point in further piling on
evidence to further show that a false claim is false. Adding absolutism
to your argument shows nothing but a grasp at any straw -- an attempt to
take a very practical, pragmatic approach to learning, and turn it into
some idealized perfection that, not so incidentally, destroys it.

Exactly! Now, try explaining that concept to Richard.

Where did Richard claim otherwise?

My Question:
"The same thing is true if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the
California Lottery 5 times in a row. Can the hypothesis of random
chance be completely falsified?"

Richard's response:
"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
hypothesis. . . You need to propose a potential observation or
measurement which could *NOT* be explained by 'luck'."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5dec4357a4652e72

Also, in the first post of this thread Richard wrote:

"The turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and
absolutely."

You see, according to Richard, *all* valid scientific hypotheses much
be subject to the potential of "absolute" falsification. He doesn't
seem to understand that many if not most scientific hypotheses and
theories that suggest a non-random cause for a particular phenomenon
could be wrong. Random chance could actually have been responsible.
It is just after a certain point of testing, the odds of random chance
truly being responsible are considered so remote as to be
statistically insignificant. This is where p-values and the like come
into play when evaluating the null vs. the alternate hypothesis. This
is why the hypothesis of deliberate design for the same person winning
the California Lottery 5 times in a row would be a valid scientific
hypothesis - even though it may not be absolutely falsifiable. It
carries with it a high degree of predictive value.

That is what science is all about - predictive value, not absolute
perfection of the prediction. If predictions could be made with
absolute perfection, science wouldn't be needed. Yet, Richard's
argument suggests that because random causes cannot be ruled out in to
an absolute degree, that no hypothesis of non-random origin can be
scientific - because a random origin could always be the true
answer. Richard extends this same thinking to hypotheses concerning
deliberate vs. non-deliberate production or manufacture. He argues:

"What observation or measurement could show that the object could not
have been made by an unknown "non-deliberate" process?"

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9e9c3118c46a9ac?hl=en&&q=kenneth+miller

He suggests here that because an unknown non-deliberate cause or
origin for a given phenomenon cannot be ruled out to any absolute
degree that a hypothesis suggesting this possibility to be so remote
as to be insignificant is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet,
this conclusion forms the basis of several sciences, to include
anthropology, forensic science, and SETI. Scientists have to have at
least some idea as to the potential and limits of what non-deliberate
natural processes are likely able to achieve before they can be
clearly distinguished this potentiality from certain activities of
intelligent and deliberately acting agents as they produce true
"artifacts". I mean really, if natural non-deliberate processes are
likely able to produce the same or a similar phenomenon as what could
have been produced by deliberate intelligent action, how can one tell
artifact from non-artifact? I suggest that it can be done by knowing,
to at least some useful if not perfect degree, the limitations of one
potentiality vs. the other that one can reasonably predict a non-
random vs. a random origin for a given phenomenon with better than
even odds of being right.

The same thing is true of Richard's oft-repeated claims that detecting
signs of manufacture is needed to detect artifacts. The same problem
applies, however. One can't detect signs of deliberate manufacture or
the use of deliberately handled "tools" if non-deliberate processes of
nature are capable of producing the same or similar effects. Again,
one is left with having to hypothesize concerning the limits of the
ability of something that can never be known to an absolute degree.
But, that's the nature of science. It isn't about perfection.

Bob C.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... Few scientists see any point in further piling on ... You still have not explained how one can falsify "luck". ... That is what science is all about - predictive value, not absolute ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The absolute of time
    ... It is a scientific delusion that the past could still exist in any form ... to exist, it must included the presence of a physical storage medium, ... That is a definite absolute ... by which all scientists should confidently challenge any deviation from ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The absolute of time
    ... It is a scientific delusion that the past could still exist in any form ... to exist, it must included the presence of a physical storage medium, ... That is a definite absolute ... by which all scientists should confidently challenge any deviation from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The absolute of time
    ... It is a scientific delusion that the past could still exist in any form ... to exist, it must included the presence of a physical storage medium, ... That is a definite absolute ... by which all scientists should confidently challenge any deviation from ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
    ... It's what scientists do. ... deliberate formation of crop circles before the obvious artifactual ... Some may involve natural processes, ... They were found *not* to be artifacts when experimental archaeologists ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading