[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders (response Part I)

[hhaskell at MINDSPRING.COM (Hugh Haskell)]

At 16:46  -0600 8/26/05, Jim Green wrote:
> I find this very curious.  Why do you say that the ideas _you_ espouse are
> "not untestable 'in principle'" and ID ideas "have its untestability built
> into it"?  That has to be one of the most unscientific things -- of many --
> said in this thread.  I get the feeling if the creator -- whoever that
> might be -- were to come to your class room and declare how s/he/it did
> things, you would say go away.  You are not a scientist.
>
> I can't tell what is promoting all this apparent fear of open thinking on
> this list, but it is repulsive.
I am reminded of the old aphorism, "It's good to keep an open mind,
but not so open that your brains fall out." Nobody is opposed to open
thinking here--far from it. It is unanswerable questions that we see
no point in, and especially we see no point in making them part of
our science curricula. I think that they need to be addressed at
opportune moments, or when the questions arise naturally in class,
but mostly as example of bad science or non-science. And it is
important to remember what John Denker said not too long ago--that
the issue with the promoters of these ideas is not science but
political power. If they achieve the total political control they
seek then science will be essentially shut down, except in a few
areas where the resulting technology will enable them to consolidate
their control. What is repulsive is the apparent willingness of some
scientists to accept ID as a legitimate exercise in science, for it
is no such thing.

My comments had nothing to do with what I think of either ID or
string theory (in fact I don't think much of either one), but as far
as I can tell, what ID says is, "well, we don't know how this exactly
came about, so God must have done it." There is no way to falsify
such a hypothesis, because it is probably certain that we will never
have the answer to everything (I also don't think much of the "final
theory" ideas--they may be true but we can never know it), so someone
can always say that God did whatever it is that we don't presently
understand. Such a "theory" is an intellectual dead end, has no
predictive power whatever, and cannot be refuted since there is
always something we don't understand to which this idea can be
applied. It's known among philosophers as the "god of the gaps." And
its not held in very high repute,

On the other hand there are aspects of string theory that may well be
subject to testing at some future time. Either technology (and/or
bankrolls) will improve enough to permit it, or some clever young
physicist will discover a phenomenon or class of phenomena that will
enable one to test the hypothesis because experiments on these
phenomena will then be doable. It is also possible that when this
happens string theory will have explained so much that is puzzling
within "traditional" quantum theory that the reaction to experiments
that ultimately verify string theory (if that would be the result),
would be greeted with the reaction, "Ho hum. We've all known that for
a long time," much as was the reaction to the ultimate observation of
neutrinos, nearly 25 years after Fermi had used them to explain the
continuous spectrum of beta decay and a couple of minor conservation
laws that were not maintained under beta-decay theory before Pauli
put the idea forward.

As to the idea that scientists who defend the status quo are doing no
more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, I wonder just
how much the proponents of that idea really know about what drives
most scientists. Many of them would give almost anything to be the
one who overthrows the old order, so the image that the ID proponents
attempt to put forth of scientists resisting with their last breath
the "advancement" of science and the suppression of new ideas in
order to save the crumbling theory they defend is just nonsense. In
fact, it is the proponents of ID who will lie cheat and steal to get
their idea into the school curriculum, and they do, supporting their
pet theory with false and distorted evidence, scurrilous personal
attacks on the integrity of scientists who oppose them, and doing
everything they can to discredit the ideas they are trying to push
off the stage and those who support them.

No, it is the ones who would replace science with religion who are
the ones who have closed minds, and whose behavior is so repulsive.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
                        --Douglas Adams
******************************************************