[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[jbellina at SAINTMARYS.EDU (jbellina)]

The language "extrapolated from observations" is interesting to me,
especially when later we read "I can't...see how that can be tested"
McDermott is making a distinction between these two ideas, as if the
first indicates the possibility and the second would nail it down.
Am I reading that correctly.

If so, I want to suggest that the second does not exist in the sense
I think he means it.  There is no way to prove something absolutely
true.  Look at Duhem-Quine or Hanson's Patterns of Discovery.  The
central idea is that any experiment built to test a theory has built
into it the assumptions of the theory, so the test is contaminated.
The best we can do is to design an experiment which will yield a
positive result if our ideas are valid.  If the experiment works out,
then it supports the validity of our idea but in no way proves it.
The more experimental results consistent with our ideas, the more
confidence we have, but proof never comes.

In this sense, observations consistent with big bang or evolution led
support to the ideas, but do not prove.  There is always the
possibility of some other mechanism explaining the same event.

I know this gives ammo to the ID folks...thats why its such a tough
problem, and so easily distorted by them.

cheers,

joe
On Aug 26, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Robert Cohen wrote:

> I agree with the main point of R. McDermott's posts (that the science
> education community could be doing a better job of presenting what
> science does and doesn't do).  However, I don't follow the assertion
> that macroevolution and the big bang are untestable.
>
>
> > For example, we have extrapolated from observations that
> > there was a "Big Bang".  However likely that
> > extrapolation is to be true, I can't for the life of me
> > see how that can be tested!?
>
> If the big bang was true, certain things should be observable in the
> current universe and other things should not.  If evolution was true,
> certain things should be observable in the current universe and other
> things should not.  Are you saying that this does not count as
> testable?
> Or, are you saying that the big bang and evolution make no predictions
> about what should be observable in the current universe?
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Robert Cohen; 570-422-3428; www.esu.edu/~bbq
> East Stroudsburg University; E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301