Posted by alexandra_k on September 8, 2005, at 20:00:50
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » messadivoce, posted by alexandra_k on September 7, 2005, at 0:47:30
i think it is good to teach that there are limits to science. while it is authoratative in a limited domain (with respect to natural processes) there is a whole other realm that is also of importance to people:
religion
spirituality
meaning
consciousness
art
ethicsthere is so much more to the world than natural processes!
philosophers are still trying to work out methods for studying those things...
and what i mean by saying that science is authoratitive with respect to natural processes is just to say that it is the BEST method that we have at present for learning about natural processes.
scientists start with observations of the natural world.
they want to explain this phenomena (that they observe to occur)
they come up with a theory (typically positing unobservable entities such as 'genes' and 'electrons' and 'gravity') that predicts that IF _______ happens THEN _________ will be observed.
IF _______ happens AND _______ is observed then this provides some support for the theory, and thus some support for the unobservable entities postulated by the theory. You can never PROVE a theory to be true - but you can find support for a theory in this manner.
IF _______ happens AND NOT______ is observed then this shows the theory to be false. Either the theory has to be revised, or it has to be tossed out.
In this way the observations that the scientists make are crucial.
A theory is supposed to unify what initially seem to be unrelated observations of the natural world. It takes a diversity of facts and provides one explanation that can account for them all.
Eventually... Anomalies arise for the theory. Observations that cannot be handled by the theory.
Eventually... A rival theory emerges.
Theories differ when the predictions that fall out of them are different. Usually... There is a 'crucial test' - an observation that will support one theory and falsify the other.
Once that happens then scientists tend to abandon the first theory in favour of the second.
As an example... The Michelson-Morley experiment was anomalous for Newtonian physics yet unsuprising given relativity. It is observations such as these that showed Newtonian physics wasn't perfect and this ultimately led to a new theorietical framework in physics (relativity).
observations...
science is all about making sense of observations...
and whether future observations are predicted by or ruled out by the theory are the criterion by which we decide whether the theory is correct or inadequate.the intelligent design hypothesis is not scientific because there are no possible observations that could serve to support or falsify the theory.
so... the intelligent design hypothesis is not a legitimate alternative to evolution by natural selection.
the intelligent design hypothesis can be true at the same time as evolution by natural selection (an intelligent designer caused the first event in the natural world AND natural selection is the natural process by which he/she did it)
they aren't really rivals.
here is another hypothesis:
THE BRAIN IN A VAT HYPOTHESIS
evil scientists have removed my brain from my body and they are keeping it alive in a vat of nutrients. they are stimulating my brain in such a way that they are causing the experiences that i am currently having. i have never come into contact with the external world. other people... actually don't exist at all (aside from the evil scientists).
(you have to consider this hypothesis from your first person perspective)
the point to this hypothesis is that there are no observations that i could make that would serve to support or falsify that hypothesis. my experiences would be the same whether the hypothesis was true or false.
there is no reason to believe that i am a brain in a vat...
there is no reason not to believe that i am a brain in a vat...observations are similarly irrelevant to the intelligent design hypothesis and to the brain in a vat hypothesis.
observations are the crucial test for scientific theories.
after a lot of thought...
i don't see the harm in teaching the intelligent design hypothesis... i don't think anything that is offered seriously should be ignored. if people disagree then they should say their reasons for why they disagree or whatever.
i do think it is important to teach about the limits of science...
about how messy real world observational data is and about how IRL it is never as neat and tidy as one theory being able to handle ALL phenomena (thats why statistical techniques and statistical significance was invented...)
and no scientific theory is perfect...
science is a process
and it is good to question
it is good:-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:551237
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050903/msgs/552436.html