Pim Van Meurs has a pretty good analysis of the demarcation problem as seen by Larry Laudan and Robert Pennock, and standard ID responses to those positions. They attempt to use Laudan's argument that there is no single set of criteria that are both necessary and sufficent to demarcate science from non-science to support their contention that ID is science. But this strikes me as being illogical, and this is an argument I think Pim missed. Even if Laudan is correct that there is no neat and tidy line between science and non-science, no single and simple list of criteria both necessary and sufficent to making an idea a scientific one rather than a non-scientific one, it still does not follow that we can't rule out some things as non-science. This is like arguing that because there is no single point where land ends and ocean starts because the tide shifts in and out, that therefore we cannot say that the prairies of Kansas are demarcated from the ocean. We may not be able to draw a neat and simple line between science and non-science, but we can at least know that a poem, for example, isn't science.
Some philosophers of science have argued for a more practical, working definition of science - an explanation is scientific if it has positive explanatory power, if it yields novel predictions, and most importantly, if it spurs actual research that is fruitful in forging more and more detailed explanations. By this criteria, too, ID is not science. It has spurred no research and no explanation beyond "evolution can't explain this, god must have done....well, something."
Update: Jason Rosenhouse makes a similar argument here.
- Log in to post comments
Philosophers tend to be concerned with the "grey" areas in these questions. While it is clear that Kansas is not the ocean, a philosopher would more likely be concerned with whether or not New Orleans is (sometimes more than others). ID proponents want us to believe that ID is at least New Orleans rather than be grouped with the scientific wasteland that is Kansas.
Part of the issue is that ID is not monolithic; some ID theories are not scientific theories because they're vacuous, whereas others are more like the Phlogiston theory; in another time and place they may have made it as "scientific", but they make too few true predictions and too many false predictions to compete with modern theories. Others still are outright crankery: plenty of predictions, but no coherence to the theory or correspondence to fact. ID may be pretty uniformly crap, but it is not all the same type of crap. In my opinion, most arguments against ID go amiss by assuming that it is.
Andrew: we consider ID a "monolithic" pile of crap because, while people within the scientific community review and question each other's work all the time, there are no such checks and balances within the ID community. Unless, of course, you count all the current "ID is not religion!" stuff. We also consider ID "monolithic" because it's supported by a political movement that is, at least, trying its best to be a monolithic force pushing a carefully-tailored message nationwide and ignoring or misrepresenting -- not encouraging -- controversy and peer criticism.
There is undoubtedly a great deal of truth to that. But there are two problems I see with it: that fact should not condemn ID theories, and IDers will cry "suppression" and "prejudice" if it does. (They will cry that anyway, so it is important to point out that their theories are rejected (or, rarely, accepted for publication!) on their merits.) Astrologers generally do not practice science either, but this does not condemn all theories of heavenly influence upon the earth as unscientific. The current theory of tides being a case in point.
And problem number 2: Just as ID theories should not be rejected based on the company they keep, they should not be accepted based on the company they keep either. IDers do publish papers in peer reviewed journals. On rare occasion they even publish papers vaguely related to ID. This does not make ID scientific. The DI would love to play bait & switch, and quite happily redefine ID to suit their needs. My response would be to get specific about what theories are under discussion.
Unfortunately, this latter strategy will probably not play well in the courts. Unfortunately it seems it is not enough for ID to be crap to keep it out of the science classrooms; it has to be religious as well. This is where treating ID as monolithic is advantages, but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.