[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[rmcder at PEOPLEPC.COM (R. McDermott)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbellina" <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders


> 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.

Not so much "nail it down" as that isn't something science can do.  Instead
I mean something along the lines of being able to increase the degree of
confidence.  Hugh gave a great example for the Big Bang when he wrote about
a prediction about background microwave radiation based on that explanation.
Detecting it was apparently accidental, but I consider that a test of the
idea itself.  I'm not sure if there is a conceiveable alternative
explanation that would account for the same observation, but it lends
further creedance to the idea itself.

> 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.

Thank you.  That is the essence of what I was trying to convey.

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