|
Author
|
Topic: Two Elegant Falsifications of RM&NS
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 30. June 2002 11:13
Most of the discussion on this topic has concerned what may be called the ‘rules of debate’ rather than the validity of the proposed falsification. This is not inappropriate, because the validity/falsification of RM&NS depends on the evaluation rules applied rather than on the technical soundness of the theory.
I have argued that RM&NS is easily falsified using ‘hard science’ rules and standards. Central to the issue of falsification are the following hard science rules:
1. A scientific theory to be valid must be explicitly formulated in a testable format. As far can be determined, there is no current explicitly formulated form of RM&NS.
2. A scientific theory to be valid must available for testing on a full range of relevant conditions and to the full range of potential testers. The validity of RM&NS, it appears, can only be maintained by severely limiting both the range of testing and the range of testers.
3. A scientific theory to be valid must be defended. If a proposed falsification is raised, then the falsification is valid until and/or unless it is demonstrated that 1)there is a valid alternative formulation of the theory being tested which, it can be demonstrated passes the test or 2) it can be demonstrated that the result of the falsification test are invalid. Since no such defense has been offered, RM&NS is, as of this point in time. falsified.
There is no reason to believe that the rules or standards outlined above are not a correct interpretation of ‘hard science’ rules or standards. No evidence or even arguments have been offered suggesting that the above rules are invalid.
Based on the evidence available, and based on the hard science rules/standards, there is currently no reason to deny that RM&NS has been falsified.
It is also very clear that assertions that ‘RM&NS is valid scientific theory’, and assertions that RM&NS has not been falsified are based on a departure from, a weakening in, or a corruption of the hard science standards. It is further clear that the validity of RM&NS is dependent on or requires the departure from rigorous hard science standards. Individuals
like Evan may find this claim objectionable, but in the absence evidence to the contrary, the claim seems well supported by the available facts.
SUMMARY
The debate between ID and evolution can be viewed as a debate between two opposing interpretations of the available evidence. It is, IMO, also important to recognize that ID versus evolution is also a debate between different scientific rules and standards for interpreting evidence.
It clear that the Darwinian interpretation of evidence has a longer history and a much wider acceptance than the ID interpretation. The same conclusion does not apply to the ‘rules and standards’ used to interpret/justify the Darwinian interpretation. It can be reasonably argued that the fundamental weakness in the Darwinian approach is that it is based on or supported by scientific rules and standards which represent a major departure from and a major weakening of traditional hard science standards.
To put the issue in somewhat different terms, Darwinian evolution will never be replaced by a better, improved scientific theory, until and/or unless the ‘current’ rules and standards used to evaluate and compare theories are questioned and replaced with rules and standards consistent with rigorous scientific standards and principles.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 30. June 2002 13:48
Warren,
You claim that quote:
Most of the discussion on this topic has concerned what may be called the ‘rules of debate’ rather than the validity of the proposed falsification. This is not inappropriate, because the validity/falsification of RM&NS depends on the evaluation rules applied rather than on the technical soundness of the theory.
In fact most of the discussion on this topic has concerned with exactly that, the validity of the proposed falsification. Since you 1) have admitted to have proposed a strawman 2) you have failed to support your premises that led you to claim falsification, I would say that much of your attempt to falsify a strawman has failed so far.
I have encouraged you to provide us with supporting evidence. You claim that a theory needs to be defended, I agree but there is no reason to defend it against strawman falsifications. I have shown you how natural selection has been defined in a non -tautological form by Endler. A good example in which RM&NS has been applied would be the peppered moth. Haldane had made the prediction that the selective advantage would be on the order of 50%, Kettlewell's experiments showed that this was indeed within the range supported by the actual data.
So based on the lack of an attempt to falsify the RM&NS beyond a strawman portrayal, one has but to conclude that RM&NS has NOT been falsified.
I find the statement by Watren that ID versus evolution is a debate between interpreting evidence an interesting one. First of all I presume that Warren means Darwinism or the theory of evolution versus ID? Secondly how does ID interpret the data? Since ID is inherently eliminative, what interpretations could it provide to science which would further our understanding?
What are the mechanisms of ID? What are the positive predictions? But lets move such a discussion to a seperate thread.
Summary:
Warren's strawman rebuttal of RM&NS has failed on three counts 1) it's admitted to be a strawman 2) it's premises have not been shown to be supported by references to actual science 3) it is based on a naive falsification idea.
If Warren claims that the debate about ID and evolution is about opposing interpretations of the evidence, then I suggest that he proposes which evidence is relevant and how it affects the theory of RM&NS/neo-darwinism? Perhaps he can also explain if ID is scientific according to his standards?
[ 30 June 2002, 13:48: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic