ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/08/84)
In order to qualify as a possible scientific theory, an assertion must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to imagine (and eventually construct) an experiment that will disprove the assertion. For example, some people believe that the Earth was created all at once in the relatively recent past (much more recent than what is commonly known as "geological" time intervals), including evidence of a past that never happened. People who believe this are welcome to do so, but it does not qualify for consideration as a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable. To make the argument sharper, let me suggest that the world was actually created ten minutes ago, together with evidence of a non-existent past. This evidence includes all YOUR memories, for example. While you THINK you woke up this morning, you didn't even exist then. So there! There is no argument or observation that could ever disprove this assertion. For that reason, one is justified in rejecting it out of hand from scientific discourse.
bts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith) (02/11/84)
I'm not trying to defend creationism, but I really can't agree with some
comments on compact interventionism. I'll take Andrew Koenig's (rabbit!ark)
recent article as an example of a particular position.
A From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
N Subject: Re: Compact Divine Intervention?
D Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
R
E In order to qualify as a possible scientific theory, an
W assertion must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be
- possible to imagine (and eventually construct) an experiment
K that will disprove the assertion.
Scientific theories often apply to limited domains. To give a common
example, college physics courses often begin with Newtonian mechanics.
Are you claiming that the students are not being taught science? Rather
than thinking of a formal mathematical system, where any inconsistency
crashes the whole thing, maybe the following sort of model applies.
Suppose we have 100 phenomena we wish to describe. A theory that does
a good job of describing 98 of them is somehow "better" than a theory that
describes only 90. We can call the cases that are left out "miracles" or
anything we wish. (What's the behavior of the universe the first fraction
of a second after the Big Bang but such a "miracle".) The important things
are
i) How much does it describe?
ii) Can you recognize the phenomena which it does
not describe? (So as not to be lead to false
predictions.)
- People who believe this are welcome to do so, but it does
A not qualify for consideration as a scientific theory, because
N it is not falsifiable. To make the argument sharper, let me suggest
D that the world was actually created ten minutes ago, together with
R evidence of a non-existent past. This evidence includes all YOUR
E memories, for example. While you THINK you woke up this morning,
W you didn't even exist then. So there!
-
K There is no argument or observation that could ever disprove this assertion.
- For that reason, one is justified in rejecting it out of hand from
- scientific discourse.
I'd reject the assertion that it was all created 10 minutes ago, too. I'd
rather compare a creationist theory in terms of the number of "miracles" it
needs versus the number of "holes" in a mainstream scientific theory. The
theory that it all began 10 minutes (um... 11 minutes, now) requires one real
*BIG* miracle. The theory that it began in a somewhat simpler state long ago
and offers simple mechanisms whereby things became the way they are requires
a bit less.
Sorry for being so vague. Maybe Jay Rosenberg (ecsvax!unbent) will see this
and unconfuse me.
_____________________________________
Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill
decvax!mcnc!unc!bts (USENET)
bts.unc@CSnet-Relay (lesser NETworks)bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/11/84)
Bruce's notion of evaluating a (scientific) theory by the number of "miracles" required to explain empirical data that do not fit the theory puts us in the rather interesting position of having to eval- uate the relative complexity of "miracles." He suggests that a miracle which created the entire universe some 2 hours ago is in some sense bigger than the one responsible for the Big Bang. While I agree with this on an emotional level there are those, like Larry Bickford, who contend that the creationist miracle is actually a lesser miracle (measured by ease of acceptance) than the many small miracles required to fill in the gaps in evolutionary theory. The point is that the relative measure of miracles isn't a thing which we humans can meaningfully judge. The Big Bang miracle, in which the precise concurrent alignment of many, many small things is required so that all those smaller processes will work correctly can't usefully be compared to the immediate creation miracle where everything is set in place as is. I suspect the argument really begs the question and doesn't get us any further than we are already. -- "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)
bts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith) (02/11/84)
Byron says - The point is that the relative measure of miracles isn't a thing which B we humans can meaningfully judge. The Big Bang miracle, in which the Y precise concurrent alignment of many, many small things is required so R that all those smaller processes will work correctly can't usefully be O compared to the immediate creation miracle where everything is set in N place as is. I suspect the argument really begs the question and - doesn't get us any further than we are already. I've got to agree that it's hard to measure miracles, but we don't need to assign numbers to things to compare them. I don't see that the Big Bang needed much "alignment" for things to "work". The scenario runs something like this: First: BANG!!! . Things run according to "laws" . of science for a few billion . years or so. Now: Well, things have got to be in some state, and it just happens they're the way they are. (Nothing miraculous, they *could* have gotten to be this way by "natural laws".) The comparison with the "everything created 45 minutes ago" story is like this way. Both postulate creation. Both agree pretty much on how things work right now-- mechanics, heat, electricity, etc. So far, they're even. Now, the special creation theory needs to call all that "evidence" of history a miracle, the other doesn't. Sounds like a fair comparison to me. _____________________________________ Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill decvax!mcnc!unc!bts (USENET) bts.unc@CSnet-Relay (lesser NETworks)