EvolutionBlog : New CSICOP Column

Search this blog

Profile

Jason Rosenhouse received his PhD in mathematics from Dartmouth College in 2000. He subsequently spent three years as a post-doc at Kansas State University. Observing the machinations of the Kansas Board of Education led to his unhealthy obsession with issues related to evolution and creationism. Currently he is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at James Madison University, in Harrisonburg, VA.

Science Periodicals

News Sites

Chess

Other Information

« Daeschler on Colbert | Main | Question of the Week »

New CSICOP Column

Category: Evolution
Posted on: May 19, 2006 5:03 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

I have a new essay up at CSICOP's Creation Watch site. The subject: What is Science? Figured it was high time to polish off that little question once and for all. Enjoy!

Send this entry to: Del.icio.us Spurl Ma.gnolia Digg Reddit A Friend

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-tb.cgi/6235

Focus Night And Day from Focus Night And Day
Get to know His presence this The Good Clooney day was when he accepted his SupportingHe will penetrate your cells and mind during the night seaso... Read More
Tracked on May 25, 2006 07:46 AM

Comments

In that essay you remarked

In defending some assertion about the natural world, what more can we say than, "It agrees with the data we have?" Even the most well tested scientific theory must face up to the possibility that it is effective only because it amuses some race of super beings to make it so. Indeed, knowing about such super beings would be an important part of any comprehensive understanding of nature. But since there is no practical difference between, "This theory is effective in predicting the outcomes of experiments," on the one hand and "This theory is effective because super beings wish it to be so," on the other, scientists are not being dogmatic in ignoring the possible reality of super beings.

The first sentence needs an addendum: "And, according to our theory/explanation, the data could not have come out some other way." That is, our assertions are not merely about the data observed, they are about other data which, had they been observed, would have invalidated our assertion. Scientific explanations ("theories") put contraints on potential observations: that's how we test them. Supernatural "theories" do not put constraints on potential observations because supernatural "theories" (at least in their contemporary Christian-based form) put no constraints whatsoever on the skill set of the supernatural entity alleged to be involved.

I'm aware that's a restatement of a sort of Popperian 'falsifiability' demarcation criterion, and I'm aware of the various critiques of that criterion. But it's a useful rule of thumb, which is all working scientists require: pragmatism is a strong guide.

Finally, with respect to philosophers' flailings about demarcation criteria, I will remark only that while I can rarely tell exactly when dusk ends and actual night begins, I can sure as hell tell the difference between night and day.

Posted by: RBH | May 19, 2006 06:22 PM

Two items:
1) I thought that Alvin Plantinga was dead. Yet you refer to him in the present tense. Am I confused?
2) You talk about "truth". I think that you say something like: science is not concerned with truth.
If I am close, here is an example: the heliocentric theory is accepted over the geocentric theory. But this is only for mathematical convenience. In "fact" neither theory is "really true". Isn't it more "true" that the sun and all of its satellites revolve around a common center of attraction?

If I am completely wrong on either of these, please correct me gently. I am not trying to be negative, just curious.

Posted by: Karl | May 19, 2006 06:53 PM

Karl-

As far as I know Plantinga is still alive. He's still listed as an active faculty member at the home page of the Notre Dame philosophy department, for example. But if there is anyone out there who can resolve this for certain I'd appreciate it.

Concerning truth, my point was that science isn't concerned with ultimate truth. When scientists refer to some theory as being true, they mean simply that it has been consistently successful at explaining the results of experiments. (Incedentally, the term “experiment” should be interpreted loosely here. I'm not just talking about activities in laboratories here. Rather, I mean any sort of situation where the predictions of theory can be tested against the facts of the natural world).

RBH-

Thanks for the comment, which I agree with completely. Your point about theories putting constarints on observations is what I had in mind in stressing predictability, both in this paragraph and elsewhere in the essay, but perhaps I should have spelled things out more carefully.

I also like your night/dusk/day example.

Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | May 19, 2006 07:45 PM

I was pretty sure that's what you meant by stressing predictability, and a few years ago that's how I'd have put it, too. But I'm coming to believe that making it very explicit that there are constraints on potential observations might be clearer to non-scientists, and I'm practicing my prose in that respect. :)

Posted by: RBH | May 20, 2006 12:17 AM

"I also like your night/dusk/day example."

Me too. I am keeping that one for future reference.

Thanks, RBH.

Posted by: Amphy | May 20, 2006 04:37 AM

Am I the only one who finds the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" unclear? What makes the umpteen dimensions of string theory natural, but a poltergeist supernatural? Neither can be observed directly and they both explain a lot phenomena. I suspect it is because the poltergeist is not observable AND has some of the characteristics of a mind ascribed to it.

I would reject ID because it does not provide any predictions and leave the natural/supernatural bit out of it. Put it another way: if ID were to hypothesise something about the designer's intentions and how the designer implements its designs then I would say it was a scientific hypothesis (it would also be observably wrong)but it would still be supernatural.

Posted by: Mark Frank | May 20, 2006 12:19 PM

Search All Blogs

Blogs in the Network

Top Five: Most Active

Creation Astronomy 05.21.2009 · PZ Myers
The latest NOM ad 05.19.2009 · PZ Myers
Ian Plimer lies about source of his figure 3 05.15.2009 · Tim Lambert
Plimer and Arctic warming 05.21.2009 · Tim Lambert
Shush! This is an Examining Room! 05.21.2009 · Zuska

First Name:	Last Name:
Address:
City:	State:	Zip Code:
Email:

EvolutionBlog