Reg Prescott

Are we to take it that Tycho Brahe was using this fake logic too? Are you familiar with the "Tower Argument", John? Take a look and tell us what you think.

With respect, I'd dispute that last comment, MigL. The notion that Galileo vs the Church was a battle between scientific rationality on the one side, and irrational dogmatic religious dummies on the other, is something of a myth, I believe; a myth that indeed I was brought up with myself, but which later reading has caused me to reconsider. As we all know, the evidence supporting heliocentrism continued to accumulate with the passing of time until finally attaining almost universal acceptance; at the time of Galileo, however, I'd argue that that the weight of scientific evidence lay firmly on the side of the church. It wasn't just the Vatican that was unconvinced of the literal truth (as opposed to the instrumental value) of the Copernican model which Galileo was championing, perhaps the greatest astronomer of the age -- Tycho Brahe -- was also unpersuaded. The Vatican wanted what many of us want: that unjustifiable claims to knowledge be suppressed or at least refuted -- very much as modern day scientists balk at Creationism being taught in schools. And the suggestion that the Earth might be hurtling through space at an unimaginable speed, while rotating on its own axis faster than a Boeing747 (at the equator at least) was, circa 1600, quite frankly... preposterous.

Thanks for that. You ain't so bad. I'm perfectly willing to admit I could be quite wrong about the continental drift thing, Ophiolite; it just doesn't seem so important that I spending hours researching the case. I'll happily withdraw the disputed remark if you like, although it might be interesting and educational to hear what those members more knowledgable than myself -- yourself included -- have to say on the matter. To repeat what I said in an earlier post (#95): "Getting back to continental drift, I'm not a geologist, nor am I particularly inclined to spend hours in the library or on the Internet investigating the debacle. It might be easier if I simply delete the sentence in post 91 that Ophiolite finds problematic. Would you like me to do that, Ophiolite? Or leave it there, with your objection duly noted, and allow other members to decide for themselves?"

As is your right, sir.

Ha ha! Erm, Conures?

Hmm, with all due respect, I don't find that answer convincing, Moth. Isn't this the case with our attempts to describe and explain all puzzling empirical phenomena? We observe something that requires explaining (we're ignorant) -- in this case, the appearance of design in nature -- and then set about trying to demystify it. Natural selection serves precisely the same function, as far as I can see. In your own words: we don't know how this could happen so natural selection. Before Darwin came along, there was, I believe, only one serious contender: the appearance of design is explained by a Designer. And a perfectly good explanation it is, certainly good enough to persuade the greatest minds on the planet for untold millennia. It renders intelligible that which was previously unintelligible. It removes, or at least purports to remove, the ignorance. Just as the theory of natural selection does. These days there are two main contenders, and as I've said earlier, scientists, by and large, consider the Darwinian account to be a better explanation, and thus more likely to be true. I don't endorse ajb's contention that Creationism is incompatible or inconsistent with the evidence. The Creator theory can surely be made compatible with any evidence or observation, as anyone who has debated with the religious knows well. The theory can be tweaked to fit anything -- and I've expressed my own misgivings that evolutionists have a disturbing tendency to do the very same. I'd be more inclined to argue that both theories are supported by the evidence, but that the epistemic warrant for natural selection outweighs that of the Designer theory. It may simply be dogged adherence to the principle of methodological naturalism -- nothing can count as evidence for God -- that precludes scientists from saying so and, thus, giving such short shrift to the You-Know-Who theory. Though I must admit, there are times when I look at the pet cat and wonder : Could this really have come about through natural forces operating gradually over a period of a billion years or so? It may or may not be true, but it strains credulity almost to the breaking point. Don't you think? I'm guessing you'll say no . And that's what familiarity does to us.

Quite so, Moth. Ophiolite does raise an important point though; one that we haven't dealt with explicitly. In each case of ALOB allegations, does the objection lie with the observations themselves, or the conclusions drawn from the observations? With Bigfoot, for example, most scientists I think would find the observations themselves unacceptable (unreliable testimony). On the other hand, with the examples I adduced myself regarding the Design vs Natural Selection controversy, the observations (i.e. evidence or potential evidence) are presumably unobjectionable -- Exhibit A: the human eye; Exhibit B: the bird's wing; etc., etc. -- what is objected to, rather, is that the observations support the Designer theory. Which brings us full circle: in virtue of what can an observation be said to support a theory? And can only observations support a theory? (i.e. is there such a thing as non-empirical evidence? E.g. can factors such as simplicity, explanatory power, coherence with background beliefs, etc., also constitute scientific evidence?) Getting back to continental drift, I'm not a geologist, nor am I particularly inclined to spend hours in the library or on the Internet investigating the debacle. It might be easier if I simply delete the sentence in post 91 that Ophiolite finds problematic. Would you like me to do that, Ophiolite? Or leave it there, with your objection duly noted, and allow other members to decide for themselves?

Well, here's the first hit Google returned: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/?no-ist "What’s even more extraordinary, though, is that the prosecutors based their case on a scientific insight that was, not long ago, the object of open ridicule..." "Lingering anti-German sentiment no doubt intensified the attacks, but German geologists piled on, too, scorning what they called Wegener’s “delirious ravings” and other symptoms of “moving crust disease and wandering pole plague.” The British ridiculed him for distorting the continents to make them fit and, more damningly, for not describing a credible mechanism powerful enough to move continents." "But it was the Americans who came down hardest against continental drift. A paleontologist called it “Germanic pseudo­-science” and accused Wegener of toying with the evidence to spin himself into “a state of auto-intoxication.” etc... Members may come to their own conclusions. With regards "mechanism", it's quite clear, I think, that scientific theories are sometimes accepted even in the absence of a proposed mechanism. Newtonian physics leaps to mind immediately. And what exactly is gravity, Sir Isaac? How does this action-at-a-distance thing work? Ans: No idea, guv'nor. Quantum physics would seem to be another, but I'm no expert. Perhaps other members can provide some input.

@ ajb and StringJunky Well, that may or may not be the case (Creationism is a load of bollocks, hereafter ALOB), but there are two things I find disturbing: 1. In numerous threads on this site scientists continue to dismiss and ridicule -- in many cases rather viciously -- God, Creationism, Bigfoot, ET and a riot of other miscreants, as well as the putative evidence adduced by the ALOB aficionados which is supposed to support their respective theories. The refutations, though, generally consist of no more substance than "Your evidence is ALOB" or simply "You have no evidence". It behooves us all to recall that the theory of continental drift was subject to the same scorn until only a few decades ago. Evidence that was once ridiculed is now exalted. Personally, if some likely lad snickered and told me the gold ring I'm wearing is fake rubbish, I'd expect him to be able to distinguish ersatz from the real McCoy. And if I couldn't do so myself, I don't imagine I'd be going around sneering at other people's gullibility. 2. ajb seems content with the conclusion "If scientists say it's evidence then it's evidence. If scientists say it's not evidence then it's not evidence. And that's that!" I'm somewhat astounded this conclusion has not been greeted with howls of protest from the other scientists among us. Are we to take it, then, that the matter of scientific evidence is arbitrary and irrational; in other words mob rule? If not, presumably there are good reasons why scientists admit certain observations, and exclude others, as evidence. I happen to believe there are good reasons. I suspect you do too, however no one thus far has been able to articulate them. With a few exceptions, philosophers of science -- another maligned group who seem to inspire only contempt around here -- agree with me and attempt to identify these reasons, thereby vindicating the rationality of science. ajb has been trying valiantly to help out, but the criteria he's offered so far (repeatability of observation et al) amount to only necessary conditions for evidential acceptance, giving us some clues as to what might get kept out, but telling us nothing whatsoever about what gets let in. By analogy, ajb's criteria are like saying "If you're not clean shaven and don't dress nicely you won't get a job at NASA." Possibly so, but presumably it takes a lot more than sartorial eloquence and a smooth face to secure a position among the other rocketeers. Moth and I tried to make some headway in this regard with our discussion of ravens and instances, alas, arousing only more giggles in certain quarters. Meanwhile, yours truly was awarded yet another -1 rep point to my collection (post 60) for an analysis of logic. Will someone please explain that? In conclusion, then, granting ajb's criteria we can say what is not admissible as scientific evidence. We still haven't the foggiest idea what IS. On second thoughts, there are three things I find disturbing: the third is that the scientists here are apparently not disturbed by the first two things that disturb me.

@ ajb Just a little more... Over your last few posts you've been telling us, I think, or at least implying -- you've been a wee bit coy -- that the evidence (or candidate evidence or putative evidence or whatever we want to call it. Alas, not being a scientist, I'm apparently excluded from having any say in these matters) is incompatible (my word) or inconsistent (yours) with the God-Did-It theory (or hypothesis or whatever we want to call that). Is this an accurate characterization? Consider, for example, your reply to my post #68 in which I said... "Both theories are compatible with the evidence; why, then, do contemporary scientists choose natural selection over Design? It seems to me that considerations of explanation come into play here: Both theories are indeed compatible with the evidence but, on the orthodox scientific account, natural selection explains the evidence better than the Designer theory can, especially in cases where, unlike the eye and wing, the design appears to be less than exquisite. What do you think, ajm?" and you responded (post #73)... "In relation to evolution and creationism, the scientific community disagrees with you. There is no evidence that is of a scientific standard that supports creationism and intelligent design (as commonly understood). There is no way you can say that the evidence is consistent for both sets of ideas." If we take your remarks at face value, the evidence, we must conclude, is consistent with one set of ideas but inconsistent with the other. Granting that I haven't inadvertently distorted your comments (please acknowledge), and that inconsistency entails some kind of clash between theory and observation, then clearly the God-Did-It theory is falsifiable. Not only that but, on your account at least, it has been falsified. Why, then, do I keep hearing that it's unfalsifiable? I'm willing to bet the family fortune that if I were to squander my Saturday searching through these forums, I could come back armed with a gazillion and one quotes to the effect that "The God thing is not falsifiable and thus unscientific." Well, which is it: falsifiable or unfalsifiable? If it's unfalsifiable it surely cannot be inconsistent or incompatible with evidence. Do you agree?

Well, ajb, it's been a pleasure, as always, discussing these fascinating issues with you. Be safe.

I don't believe there is such a thing, friend. But that's a debate for another day.... ...and perhaps another 12 lashes

Clearly, I'm not in a very strong debating position here. We concluded earlier, I believe, that if scientists say it's evidence, then it's evidence. And if they say it's not evidence, it's not evidence. And that's that. You're a scientist; I'm not. Hmm, not much more I can say then. Sucks to be me,

Ajb, in response to my claiming that "Both theories [evolution and God] are compatible with the evidence..." you said this: I fail to see why you might think the God theory (or hypothesis or fairy tale or soap opera or whatever you want to call it) is not compatible, which is the term I used, or not consistent, the term you used, with the evidence. Now, these terms might need defining, of course, but no matter how they're defined, I don't see a problem. Are you suggesting that if the God thing is true -- the old codger really is up there -- it cannot account for the evidence? Surely the God theory is compatible/consistent with any evidence, which is very likely one reason why it's fallen from grace -- it's unfalsifiable, it rules out nothing, and thus is deemed by many (Dawkins excluded) to be unscientific. But being unscientific does not imply it cannot be true, nor that it is incompatible with the evidence. It was certainly deemed compatible with the evidence until Darwin threw a spanner in the works. I would suggest that whatever drove scientists to switch allegiance from Deity to Darwin was not incompatibility. And while we're on the subject, ajb, you didn't answer this (post 68): Second point to consider for now is this: it's often the case that exactly the same observations are taken as evidence for two or more rival hypotheses/theories (hereafter just theories). Evolution vs Design offers a prime example. We all know the standard stockpile of putative evidence -- the eye, the wing, and so forth -- taken by one group as evidence for the exquisite adaptation brought about by natural selection, and by the other as evidence for the exquisite workmanship of the designer. Given that the aforementioned observations (eye, wing, etc) are admissible as evidence for evolutionary theory, they presumably meet the required standards for scientific evidence (including your criterion of credibility!), and thus must also be admissible as evidence for the Designer theory; after all they are the very same observations. Is it not so? In this case how can it be maintained, on pain of double standard, that there is scientific evidence for one theory but no scientific evidence the other? If the eye, wing, et al can be legitimately adduced as evidence for evolutionary theory, why not for for the God-Did-It theory?. That Darwin himself regarded intelligent design as a rival scientific theory is attested to by his many references to "the theory of independent creation" in the Origin of Species. He clearly didn't consider the God thing to be unscientific or incompatible with the evidence; rather he felt he was offering a better theory. I said earlier that I believe it was explanatory goodness that turned the tables; the two rival theories may both be compatible with the evidence, but natural selection explains the evidence better. I might also add here - at risk of being publicly lynched -- that I harbor certain misgivings myself, speaking as a mere interested layman, over the seeming boundless capacity of evolutionary theory to accommodate any evidence. Mitigating circumstances (make it 12 lashes rather than 24) may come in the form of Stephen Jay Gould who is well known for voicing similar concerns. It seems to me that evolutionary theory -- like the God theory -- also comes precariously close to ruling out nothing, Dawkins and his dubious pre-Cambrian rabbit notwithstanding, which I would further suggest is something of a joke in itself; the very antithesis of what good science is meant to be (I'll explain if you like). Anyway, gentlemen, whether I'm right or wrong, I do find it worrying that it appears anyone with the temerity to express such misgivings is immediately viewed with byzantine suspicion, labelled "anti-science", and deemed insurgent, of questionable mental stability, and probably stoopid to boot!

Common ground at last. Lemme uncork the champagne.

Well, now we're back to where we started. The right people will adjudicate what does, and what does not, constitute evidence. I said the following to John Cuthber on page 1: Scientists often tell us "there is good evidence for X" and "there is no evidence for Y". I was wondering if there might be objective standards that all of us -- laymen, Creationists, and just ordinary riff-raff like myself -- could appeal to in order to determine these matters for ourselves without having to consult our local friendly scientific community. But now you're effectively telling us, ajb, that at the end of the day, if scientists call it evidence, then it's evidence. And that's that! The evidential standard JUST IS the scientific community. Once again, I hasten to emphasize I'm not necessarily suggesting there's anything wrong with this. Just let's not pretend otherwise.

Ok, Moth. Thanks. Now, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, more on credibility... Ajb, supposing you were asked : Why do you believe evidence E? And you answer : Because I have good reasons for believing E We now ask : And what are these reasons, ajb? You reply : Because E meets my criteria of repeatability, objectivity, and consistency. (A1) A1 is a perfectly respectable answer. Whether or not your criteria are the right criteria or the best criteria is something that might need to be hashed out, but I say your answer is respectable insofar as it is non-circular; it does not make appeal to itself. Now, let's add the dreaded criterion of credibility to the pot -- and stir (of course ) -- and see what happens... A2 : I believe E because it satisfies my aforementioned criteria, and it is credible. But what does "credible" mean except "believable"? A2 can thus be restated as: A3 : I believe E because it satisfies my aforementioned criteria, and it is believable. Compare, A4: I like Fluffy the cat because (among other things) she is likeable. Now, we might grant that an answer of the form "I like Fluffy because she is likeable" is true, but it's trivially true. In other words, it's vacuous and entirely unhelpful. I'm afraid your fourth criterion of credibility is in exactly the same position, ajb -- it's doing no work -- unless, as I described in my earlier post, you bite the bullet, break the chain of circularity, allow credibililty to mean credible to other people, thereby leaving yourself in the unenviable position of (possibly) having to accept (believe?) evidence that you don't believe! I say we dump it LOL. Whaddya say?

@ Moth I just added a little more to my response above to John while you were posting. I'd like to hear if you think my reasoning is sound.

Thanks to both Ajb and John Cuthber for your thoughtful replies. You've given me/us much to consider. Before proceeding any further, just a few words which I hope might help us understand each other better. As I've said before, I'm not religious, and have no particular inclination to further their respective causes, although you might hear me protest when I feel they're being unfairly dealt with, as I believe they often are by those of a more scientific persuasion. As for science, I simply enjoy reading about it, especially its philosophical analysis. If I have any agenda at all, it's simply learning, and a discussion such as this one can be enormously helpful, given I don't often get the chance, not only in consolidating my own understanding of these issues, but also in exposing any confusions on my own part. It's clear that questions of evidence are riddled with difficulty, so surely it's better that we rehearse these matters here, rather than wait till your next public lecture and have an audience member (one of these dreaded fundies perhaps) point out glaring contradictions in the definition of evidence you just advanced. Better that this asshole come crawling out the woodwork than one of those assholes. To business... Ajb first. Thanks again for sharing your professional insight. You're still defending your criterion of "credibility" but I really don't think this is going to work, or to be more precise, I think you'll find the consequences intolerable. Now, as I said earlier in the thread, if credibility is to mean credible to a certain group of people, and that group is simply people who find the evidence credible, then the circularity is obvious and vicious. So, in order to escape circularity we have to ask: which group? How about forming a committee of Moslem fundamentalists to arbitrate on potential evidence for evolutionary theory? Hmm, consider that a rhetorical question! Well, who then? How about a randomly selected cross section of the population? This might be a fitting time to reproduce a wonderful Winston Churchill quote that Ophiolite posted in another thread: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" Let us also remind ourselves of your own (and Swansont's) insistence on the conjunctive nature of your proposed criteria - A and B and C and D - if any one is not satisfied, the candidate evidence must be rejected. Correct? Now, supposing our democratic committee of distinguished evidence arbiters, after granting that your first three criteria are met, as well as the additional stipulations you added in your final paragraph directly above, decide for whatever reasons (they're religious, they're stupid, they're whatever), that the evidence is nonetheless incredible and must be rejected. Is this acceptable to you? If not, it seems we're back to the right kind of people determining what is, and what is not, credible, are we not? Second point to consider for now is this: it's often the case that exactly the same observations are taken as evidence for two or more rival hypotheses/theories (hereafter just theories). Evolution vs Design offers a prime example. We all know the standard stockpile of putative evidence -- the eye, the wing, and so forth -- taken by one group as evidence for the exquisite adaptation brought about by natural selection, and by the other as evidence for the exquisite workmanship of the designer. Given that the aforementioned observations (eye, wing, etc) are admissible as evidence for evolutionary theory, they presumably meet the required standards for scientific evidence (including your criterion of credibility!), and thus must also be admissible as evidence for the Designer theory; after all they are the very same observations. Is it not so? In this case how can it be maintained, on pain of double standard, that there is scientific evidence for one theory but no scientific evidence the other? It would then appear, given the standards for evidence thus far proposed, that there IS at least some scientific evidence for the God theory, vociferous denials by all present notwithstanding. Both theories are compatible with the evidence; why, then, do contemporary scientists choose natural selection over Design? It seems to me that considerations of explanation come into play here: Both theories are indeed compatible with the evidence but, on the orthodox scientific account, natural selection explains the evidence better than the Designer theory can, especially in cases where, unlike the eye and wing, the design appears to be less than exquisite. What do you think, ajm? It might also be appropriate to point out here that, contra your comments above on mathematical models, statistics, and quantitative agreement -- with respect to physics, we should duly note -- Darwinian evolution, if I'm not mistaken, was wholly bereft of any mathematical armature, at least in its incipient stages. Whatever caused it to gain favour with the scientific community was apparently non-mathematical qualitative appraisal. You said above : "To be truly scientific, the evidence should satisfy the criteria I stated." Evolutionary theory, at least when first proposed and indeed accepted, does not appear to meet your criteria. @ John Cuthber. I love your response, and will be thinking about it through the day. My first thought is that Carl Hempel was a master logician and I'm anything but, so I'd be hesitant of dismissing his logic without some very careful analysis. Clearly, though, as everyone recognizes, the simple model I presented earlier for illustrative purposes is inadequate as a general model of scientific evidence. It might account for the development of basic laws of the form "all Xs are Y" (e.g. all copper conducts electricity) but obviously it can't accommodate all forms of scientific evidence, where in many cases we're dealing with unobservable entities, and thus can scarcely go around gathering instances. Just one thing I'll say first though. No one is talking about proof here; we're discussing evidence, i.e., that which can confirm or support a theory without conclusively demonstrating its truth. Obviously a universal theory of the form all Xs are Y cannot be proven (in any logical sense at least) without examining all instances of X - surely an impossible task in the empirical domain of real science! I agree with your comment that the two hypotheses -- all crows are black and all crows are green -- are mutually exclusive, and thus cannot both be true. As you correctly note, "proof of one would be refutation of the other". But I see no problem whatsoever in having evidence (not proof) which is compatible with two mutually contradictory theories. Consider an urn with ten marbles inside. We have examined five marbles and all of them are black. This evidence is perfectly compatible with the mutually exclusive hypotheses H1: all the marbles in this urn are black and H2: not all the marbles in this urn are black. Right? Therefore, on Hempel's account at least, a pink car DOES constitute evidence -- albeit a teeny weeny bit -- for both hypotheses all crows are black and all crows are green. What do you think? More later...

I know why the above comment was deleted too. A claim about me was made which is demonstrably untrue. I was just gathering evidence to refute it when it disappeared. To staff: how long will this member be allowed to smear me with impunity?

Ok, because if said Caddy is black, it does not fulfill the condition of confirming the logically equivalent hypothesis that all non-black objects are non-ravens.

Moth, I'm wondering if there's a typo in your final sentence. Did you mean to say: "then maybe a pink [for example] cadillac is a tiny bit of evidence that all ravens are black."? If so, I believe Carl Hempel -- the paradox discoverer -- would agree with you. He, for one, was willing to bite the bullet, so to speak, and accept that a pink Cadillac (and green toothbrush, etc.) DOES constitute evidence, albeit a tiny bit, for the hypothesis all ravens are black, hugely counterintuitive though it might seem at first glance. It's a lot less counterintuitive if the number of objects under consideration is only ten, say. If it's not a typo then I'm confused. Can you explain please?

Well, here's the problem, Moth. If you accept... 1. Each instance of a black raven confirms (i.e. constitutes evidence for) H1, and 2. Any evidence which confirms a hypothesis which is logically equivalent to H1, also confirms H1 ... then trouble is brewing. H1 is logically equivalent to "all non-black objects are non-ravens" And if you accept the two seemingly unproblematic conditions above, then the conclusion is inescapable: the hypothesis "all ravens are black" is not only confirmed by each instance of a black raven, but also each observation of a brown shoe, a yellow canary, and a pink Cadillac. Evidence has never been so easy! And as one wit quipped: "This opens up unthought of possibilities for indoor ornithology"

You initially told us God is not a theory (post 42). If what you say above is true, and by theory you had scientific theory in mind, why would you feel the need to inform us that there is no scientific theory of God. Wouldn't our members be expected to know this already?

Well, this is a good start, Moth. Let's begin with the simplest hypothesis/theory/law imaginable -- H1 : all ravens are black Does each observed black raven constitute evidence for H1? Even this most fundamental scenario immediately confronts us with perplexing problems. Those familiar with Hempel's raven paradox will know what I'm alluding to.