[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[Gary Turner <turner@MORNINGSIDE.EDU>]

> I disagree.  IMO science is exactly NOT "faith-based."  It is
> "evidence-based."  Relying on evidence is precisely the opposite of
> relying on faith.  Yes, the strength of the available evidence varies
> in different areas.  Theories have our confidence in some direct
> proportion to the degree that they are supported by evidence.  In
> contrast they earn and deserve our suspicion in direct proportion to
> the degree that they are based on faith.
While science itself is evidence-based, the explanations that come out of
science are often faith-based.  I agree absolutely that our suspicion should
be in proportion to the degree that they are based on faith, but the
teachers often don't know that, and present the "facts" only.  Then, when
some alternative is presented *with explanation* (however erroneous that
explanation may be), it looks very appealing.  And therein lies the problem,
we don't prepare the students to question this information as scientists do.

And much of what we do in science *is* based on faith.  We always have to
*believe* that the data is correct; we build theory upon theory, *believing*
that the previous theory is correct (e.g. distance to stars, spectroscopic
parallax is built upon observed parallax, and the data presented as fact;
distances to galaxies are measured assuming that the light curves of
Cepheids and supernovae are consistent, and the data presented as fact - it
is all based on faith!)  As scientists, we are somewhat aware of these
assumptions, but that does not translate into the classroom.



> > The idea that the "the natural world is so complex and well-ordered
> > that an  intelligent cause is the best way to explain  it" is also
> > refutable opinion
>
> No, it isn't.  (And that is not merely my opinion.)

I don't follow.  Refute -to deny the truth or accuracy of (Merriam Webster).
 A refutable opinion is therefore one that has equally viable alternatives.
 "the natural world is so lacking in intelligence that no intelligent being
could possibly have been involved" has roughly equal logical support (that
being approximately zero).  The concept is refutable.




> Excuse me?  In what way does it "tend to get invoked"?  Who is it
> precisely that does this invoking of the supernatural "whenever the
> data is inconclusive"?  I genuinely have no idea what you are talking
> about here.

Several members of this list for a start.  The virgin birth has been
described as supernatural because we have no explanation, given our current
understanding of the natural world, that can account for it otherwise.

> > Attempting to put a "natural" explanation on such data is no more
> > scientific than a "supernatural" explanation.
>
> I simply can't understand what you are referring to.  Can you give us
> a single example of a case where 1) "the data is inconclusive," 2) a
> natural explanation has been proffered, and 3) there is a
> supernatural explanation that is at least equally "scientific" as the
> natural explanation.

OK, let me give an example.  Suppose I want to figure out why the wind
blows, and develop a model in which some enormous bird just over the horizon
causes the wind by flapping its wings.  That is a natural explanation, but
is no more scientific than having a supernatural being blowing the air around.
I'm trying to point out that "natural" and "scientific" are not synonymous,
hoping to raise the question of whether natural explanations should
automatically receive more credibility than supernatural explanations, i.e.
is the "natural" flag evidence when considering the validity of a model?  Is
it sufficient evidence to rule out a "supernatural" explanation?



> Science makes no claims about the "truth" of its conclusions.  "Doing
> science" to a large extent MEANS trying to find evidence that will
> strenuously test current theories.  We wouldn't test them if we
> thought they were "true."  An experimentalist's fondest hope is to be
> the first to perform a conclusive test that will overturn an accepted
> theory.  History offers many examples.

I agree, but there is a significant fraction of the population that does
not.  IMO, we spend way too much time presenting the conclusions and not
nearly enough discussing the process by which those conclusions were reached.



> Similarly, I can't tell you that an intelligent designer didn't just
> make it all this way, but in this case I can go a little further.  I
> can tell you not only that it is not a VIABLE scientific theory, but
> that it isn't even a SCIENTIFIC theory.  This is because it rules out
> nothing and, therefore, is invulnerable to evidence.

Let's compare three statements -

1. Creatures evolve by survival of the fittest, allowing them to adapt to
their surroundings.  Small changes occur randomly, with the large changes
between species being the result of an accumulation of small changes.

2. Creatures evolve by survival of the fittest, allowing them to adapt to
their surroundings.  Small changes are directed by an intelligent being,
with the large changes between species being the result of an accumulation
of small changes.

3. Creatures evolve according to their suroundings following a
pre-determined path layed out by a divine creator.  Small changes are
directed by this divine creator, with the large changes between species
being the result of an accumulation of small changes.

Clearly, #1 and #3 are very different, but where is the difference?  Is it
in the nature of the pre-determined path (whether there is or is not such a
path is not scientifically testable without the ability to reverse time -
and even that could be a part of the path)?  Is it in the nature of the
cause being either random or guided (again, not scientifically testable,
there is no test that can be devised to distinguish these)?  Is it that one
is based on "natural" and one on "supernatural"?

Now, the question again, is the "natural" flag sufficient evidence to rule
out "supernatural" explanations?

The evidence for evolutionary processes is very strong, and I have been
playing devil's advocate a little bit here.  Interestingly, when I made very
similar comments to a religious group, several members were advised to pull
their children from our summer programs because we were obviously trying to
corrupt them from the path of righteousness - or something like that).

However, believing in the driving mechanism as being random chance is no
more scientific, IMO, than believing in a divine creator.  Neither one is
scientific because neither one can be systematically studied.  Yet, one is
presented as science without question and one is creating a lot of really
interesting discussion.  One is "natural" and one is not, and so the debate
now shifts to whether "natural" explanations should be described as scientific.

Personally, I would hate to see "natural" count as overwhelming evidence,
because I believe it sends the wrong message.
Do we send the message "we have evidence, here it is ..., which leads us to
believe that ... because ... ", or the message "scientists have decided that
... because they don't believe in supernatural events"?
Right now, whether we intend to or not, I think that we are sending the
latter.  We are seeing an consequential response from a public that does
believe in supernatural events.
If we don't know, we don't know, let's be honest about that.



Gary Turner
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l