MemeStreams | On Intelligent Design (Long)

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 16:07 -0600, Tom Cross wrote:
] Jonathan S. Shapiro writes:
] Suppose the creationists had come to the school system(s) and said
] "Evolution is a theory. Creationism (or whatever the name) is also a
] theory. Neither theory has conclusively been shown, and therefore we
] feel strongly that the creationist theory deserves equal attention in
] the curriculum."
]
] Scientists would surely have gnashed their teeth at this position for
] quite some time, but after a certain amount of useless resistance they
] would have been forced to accept it. It is a proposition articulated
] using the values of science, and it would ultimately be hypocritical for
] science to reject this proposition framed in this form.

This proposition is certainly not articulated using the values of science. It is
a perfect example of the semantic slight of hand that is being performed by the
Intelligent Design crowd.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis.
There is a significant difference between these two things.

Theories have reproducible experimental evidence. Widely accepted theories have
a large body of such evidence that has been peer reviewed and withstood serious
criticism. A hypothesis is simply viable idea that has little or no experimental
evidence. Creationism is a hypothesis.

In everyday speech the word theory is used to refer to both theories and
hypotheses, and so to the uneducated reader it is easy to confuse the two
concepts and decide that Evolution and Intelligent Design are on equal footing
conceptually. They are not. However, the ID community is taking advantage of
this confusion to promote their adgenda in political circles, where it doesn't
really matter if people know what they are talking about so long as they agree
with you.

] So what we have is one side with an open (or at least potentially and
] reluctantly openable) view and another side that is determined to
] destroy that view.

This is exactly the arguement that the creationists are now making, through
intelligent design; that they simply want their point of view accepted along
side evolution but the scientific community views them as heretics and whats to
destroy them.

What is at stake is, in fact, the ability to teach critical thinking. If we put
Intelligent Design on equal footing in science class with Evolution, what we
are saying is that a hypothesis matures into a theory when it has a large body
of reproducible experimental evidence that has undergone significant peer
review, or when the idea is sufficiently politically popular that it must be
accepted even if there is no evidence to support it. This is exactly the wrong
message to be sending to the next generation.

Tom Cross

--------------------------------------------------
Second Email:

On Feb 22, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:

Tom:

Speaking personally, I agree with what you are saying. However, there is
a serious problem here.

Standing behind the (entirely valid) distinction you raise between
theory and hypothesis is a value judgment: that theories are "good" and
hypothesis are "bad" (or at least, less good). This is the definition of
science, and I personally accept it, but one must recognize that it is a
statement of doctrine. The value judgment that hypothesis is weaker than
theory is every bit as much a judgment of faith as the hypothesis of
God's existence (and alleged role in creation).

If we, as rationalists, accept Bartley's critique and extension of
Popper, we are forced to concede that the view that theory is better
than hypothesis is at best a theory that is subject to refutation.

Now, I don't think for a minute that the Intelligent Design crowd has a
theory for how to develop a world model that is any better than the
Popper/Bartley model (pan-critical rationalism). But precisely *because*
I believe strongly in pan-critical rationalism, I must admit into my
world view the possibility that a better world view may emerge.

Taken in this light, the difficulty with the Intelligent Design position
is exactly that there is no empirical means by which to evaluate it. On
the positive side, this means that I need not accept it. On the negative
side, this means that I cannot reject it conclusively. It may eventually
prove to be a now-nascent hypothesis that comes, in the presence of
future knowledge, to be viewed in hindsight as a viable theory.

Unlikely as hell, in my opinion, but a serious commitment to rationalism
demands that the intelligent design hypothesis must remain on the table
until it can be falsified.

Jonathan

---------------------------------------
Third Email:

Mr. Shapiro,

I'm not familiar with the Popper/Bartley analysis that you reference here. I'll seek it out and take a look at it. I agree that the Intelligent Design hypothesis must remain on the table until it can be refuted. Where I might differ from you here is my definition of what the table is. The context in question isn't whether or not Intelligent Design is correct. As it stands we cannot conclusively evaluate that question. The question is whether or not Intelligent Design should be included as a part of a basic science curriculum.

In order to evaluate that question we must first ask what scientific knowledge consists of. Often people define science as the pursuit of knowledge about the world. However, this view is a bit naive (an assertion I will justify). Science has a process for determining what knowledge is correct or incorrect or likely to be correct or incorrect. Science makes value judgments.

Its possible to philosophize around any value judgment that you might make when trying to determine how the world works. I'm sure you understand that, but if you want an example note the conversation on IP today about whether or not we're living in a virtual reality. If we're living in a virtual world then we cannot know if anything we experience is real, and so we cannot relate our experiences to an understanding of reality.

The value judgments that science makes are based on the scientific method. Science says that reproducible experimental results make a concept more likely to be true. The reason that science says this is not simply a matter of faith (and there I certainly differ with you). Reproducible experimental results are considered valuable in science because they can be used in a practical way by engineers.

You don't have to understand quantum physics to make quantum cryptography work. You can buy quantum cryptography systems off the shelf, and no one in the world is confident that they can explain why these things work. How can I apply knowledge if I don't understand it? The answer is that I have a reproducible experimental result. Even if my model is wrong, I know that it works within the confines of the experiment, and that is enough for me to do useful things within those parameters. The actual technological advances that our society has seen in the last few centuries are the direct product of collecting reproducible experimental results and then applying those results to solve problems. It doesn't matter if its all wrong. Its useful anyway.

So, going back to my assertion, science is not actually the pursuit of knowledge about the world. We hope it is, but we cannot know that it is. It doesn't matter. Science is the pursuit of knowledge as it is defined by the scientific method, which means knowledge that is shored up with reproducible experimental results; knowledge that can be applied in a practical way by engineers.

Science education has two goals. The first is to communicate the basic knowledge that science has collected thus far. The second is to teach students to understand and apply the scientific method to solving problems.

Teaching Intelligent Design undermines both of these goals. You only have so much time in a science class. You can't teach everything. You have to decide what to teach and what not to teach. You have to make judgments. As ID has no experimental results, it is not actually scientific knowledge, and it cannot be applied in a practical way by an engineer. So you have to go back and ask why you a choosing to teach it in a science class, when scientific knowledge is defined by experimental results? It is obviously out of place. Why have you chosen to value it above other interesting hypotheses (such as the hypotheses that we live in a video game)? Whatever the answer is, its going to stand in contrast to what science is really about and what science classes are supposed to teach.

In considering this, let me propose that this matter might be resolved in another way. We should not include ID in science curriculum. Instead, we should stop explaining that science is the pursuit of knowledge about the world. We might say that in elementary school, but at some point we should clearly explain that its possible that we actually live in a video game, and that we don't really know if any our scientific knowledge is correct as a matter of fact, but we know that it is reproducible, and we know that it is useful, and so it doesn't really matter whether or not its ultimately the "Truth."

I'd be a lot more comfortable with that then I would with teaching ID in science class. Unfortunately, I imagine that this solution would not really satisfy anyone. Students, teachers, politicians, and scientists alike would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth, even if they could wrap their minds around it. People like absolute truths. Especially religious people. They would never accept this concession, because it would turn school children into agnostics. Furthermore, an annoying percentage of the population would simply stop paying attention to science because they don't understand that useful is better then true. Ultimately, it would be completely counterproductive, I think. And so we must continue this silly political debate.

Tom