Definition of Falsifiability (Earth, contradiction, evolution, creation, recall)

[Fatmop]

Scientists make the claim that ID is not science, based on Popper's definition of falsifiability. ID proponents like to claim that evolution is also not science, based on the same definition (or their understanding of it).

Definition of falsifiability:
The Logical Requirement:
A necessary condition for a theory to be refutable is that it be logically possible to contradict it by a finite conjunction of sentences which describe particular instances.

The Empirical Requirement:
1) A testable theory is one which is inconsistent with at least one finite conjunction of observation sentences.
2) An observation sentence is one the truth or falsity of which can easily and reliably be agreed upon by any observers in the vicinity.

Definition taken from Professor Noretta Koertge, the instructor in my philosophy of science class.

The logical requirement is pretty simple to understand: a theory is falsifiable if you can come up with a set of sentences that say 'no, the theory doesn't apply here/ doesn't explain this.' "Everybody loves his mother" is a refutable theory: it takes only one instance of someone not loving his mother to refute it. "Everybody loves someone" is not a falsifiable theory: though in theory you could catalog every person on Earth's relationship with everyone else on Earth, it is in practice impossible to do so.

The empirical requirement takes the observation sentences a step further: simply because you come up with statements that would falsify your theory does not mean those statements can be tested, themselves. Take, as an example (my professor's), a part of Freudian theory: "All repressions are seated in the libido." This satisfies the logical requirement:

Observation statement: "All repressions are seated in the libido."
Refutation statement: "Here is one case of a repression not seated in the libido."

But how are we to tell exactly what a repression is? And how do we show that this repression is 'seated in the libido?' This statement does not fit the empirical requirement of a falsifiable theory.

Evolution
Evolution, as a theory, makes many testable predictions. These predictions are based on observations and the theory: among them are the predictions of descent with modification, geographic/reproductive isolation leading to speciation, and a whole heck of a lot more. Do they pass the test? Let's take a basic part of evolutionary theory and put it through:

"All organisms are descended from common ancestors."

Logical requirement:
To be falsifiable, there must be a 'finite conjunction of sentences' that would refute it. Example:
"Here is an organism for which no common ancestor exists. It did not appear to descend from any previous organism."
This example depends on our knowledge of the fossil record and genetics, but it clearly satisfies the logical requirement: there is a finite number of sentences that would falsify evolution. This leads us to the...

Empirical Requirement:
The refutation statements must be based on observable evidence that anyone in the vicinity could see.
"Here is an organism for which no common ancestor exists. It did not appear to descend from any previous organism."
This holds to the empirical requirement. It provides a simple test for evolutionary biologists and paleontologists: find common ancestors for every species you study. So far, no species have been found to be completely isolated from the genetic tree - all organisms, all phyla, can be linked, but it's possible to provide that refutation by finding a species that does not link to the genetic tree.

So it's easy to see why scientists accept evolution as a falsifiable theory: IT IS ONE.

Intelligent Design

How falsifiable is ID? Let's put a statement through our little test:

"The world is too complex to have been left up to natural processes; intelligent design was involved."

Does this fit the logical requirement? Let's find a 'finite conjunction of sentences' that would refute it:
"Natural processes can explain everything in the world. It is not too complex."
"There is no intelligent designer."

Yes, the theory fits the logical requirement. There is a set of sentences readily available to falsify ID theory. Buuut.... hold on:

Are those statements empirically testable?

1) How complex is 'too complex?' How do you prove that something is NOT 'too complex?' This is unverifiable unless scientists actually manage to account for EVERYTHING in the universe using natural means and a unified Theory of Everything - and even then, IDists can point to that theory and argue from incredulity: "Look how simple that theory is! How elegant and complex! It must have been... designed!" Clearly, that does not fit the empirical requirements to be considered 'falsifiable.'

2) Quite obviously, it is impossible to disprove the existence of the supernatural "Intelligent Designer." Again, not empirically refutable.

Conclusion
Evolution is falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Very long on convoluted argument augmented by c-r-a-p

And that is about as rude as I Get.


Terry___________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Very long on convoluted argument augmented by c-r-a-p

And that is about as rude as I Get.


Terry___________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Unfortunately, I can't get that rude.

[Fatmop]

Very long on convoluted argument augmented by c-r-a-p

And that is about as rude as I Get.

Interesting. I think it was very long because it required introductory information, but that information certainly was not 'convoluted.' Can you please identify where you think it is convoluted, so that I may clarify?

Augmented by c-r-a-p : I assume you think 'falsifiability' gives us a sense of 'truthfulness.' Just because something is not falsifiable does not mean it is untrue, and a falsifiable statement can be true. ID may, in fact, be true, but since it is not falsifiable, it does not fit the definition of a scientific theory, and so can not be included in biology courses. Anything wrong with that?

Unfortunately, I can't get that rude.

Do you also find fault with this definition of falsifiability?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Evolution is a theory based on discovered evidence. It is not yet an exact scientific fact.
Intelligent design is a faith based belief, trying to fit out a literal bible reading, as a pseudoscience.

Falsafiability is an unnecessary complication.

Terry_____________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

[Fatmop]

Evolution is a theory based on discovered evidence. It is not yet an exact scientific fact.
Intelligent design is a faith based belief, trying to fit out a literal bible reading, as a pseudoscience.

Falsafiability is an unnecessary complication.

I didn't say it was an exact scientific fact. You are attacking a strawman. What I said was that it is a falsifiable theory, one that has been extensively tested.

Falsifiability is a perfectly acceptable criterion. IDists, as I said earlier, love to call evolution 'unfalsifiable.' Just how good a scientific theory is depends quite in good part on its falsifiability, and only GOOD and FALSIFIABLE scientific theories should be allowed into science classes! I have no problem with someone believing in ID, but I do have a problem with the movement: they claim that evolution is unfalsifiable - which it isn't - then they proceed to try to legislate ID into the classroom!

[Nehustan]

I think the problem here is that faith, by its very nature is not provable. Epiphanies received are dependent on a whole life lived in a skin, in a mind. What appears to make complete sense to one person, will make absolutely no sense to another, the axiom 'you had to be there' springs to mind.

I find absolutley no contradiction in being a scientist and having a faith. I am an Athropologist and I recall a conversation with a fellow believer who did not believe in the study of evolution we were engaged in. I think it was a lesson on homonids/palaeoanthropology when we stood in a break discussing the creation of Adam. He said that the holy books said God had created Adam. I agreed. Well he said, how did I manage to believe that God created Adam and believe in Evolution. I'll recount my answer...

In my faith, the religious knowledge of which has itself evolved but I won't elucidate, The God says 'Be!' and it is. The thing is I don't tell The God what He means by his words to me, God Willing he guides me to truth. So first and I will posit this as a question, 'If science and religious knowledge are seen to be in contradiction, which is the truth?'
Well answer 1 is Science is true, answer 2 is Religion, and answer 3 is both but we understand neither.

I believe that The God does say 'Be!' and it is. I also believe that The God moulded Adam from Clay. I also believe that there is no god but The God, and I like to term him the universal architect. Let me qualify those three statements. God says be and it is, but for us within what appears to be infinite space (tho' it is very finite, every part of it is quantifiable even if we in our present paradigm lack the skills or tools) 'be' could be a awfully long time. The God existed before the creation of this solar/stellar system, the galaxy, the universe. For Him all of creation is known as a single 'moment'. Nothing has occured, is occuring, or will occurs within the creation other than He knew, knows, and will know at one moment. Thus when He moulded Adam from clay, it could have taken an Aeon, whereas for Him it would just 'Be'. In my faith nothing happens in the creation of the absolute and infinite beyond the creation without the will of that absolute and infinite, but surely the design uses means, and studying the fossil record, well that sure looks like means to me. I put this to my friend and he disagreed. So I said this building that is behind us...can you see it? Who built it? Who designed it? Did the person who designed it put each brick in place, or did he just lay the plans?

When something appears to be in contradiction between religion and science, its not that science is wrong nor religion, but our own understanding. I guess that at least good science requires that in its proposition that it admits to this, something very few religions or at least religious people manage. A scientist when positing his post hypothesis theory is expected to phrase it, post Karl Popper, in a way that leaves itself open to falsification. I believe this is proposed in the philosophy of science so with paradigm shifts, past science will still be valid, as it was left open to be proved false as new data becomes available. It will remain valid and scientists of the future will say, it was true under the knowledge of that paradigm, and the scientists of that era knew that and proposed their science knowing that the data able to be quantified would shift.

So I guess I do believe in Design, and I believe in science. I want my children to learn natural sciences in science lessons, and religious sciences in theology lessons, and should they find they present a dialectic (they don't for me), find a synthesis between the two.