|
Author
|
Topic: What Counts as Evidence? -- Methodological Dispositions
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 01. October 2002 07:34
Dembski,
I think you just asked the right question. However, answering it may prove to be a problem since neither Palevitz nor Behe are available for us to inquire of them as to their “methodological dispositions.” In this case I think that you might do, since you also seem to feel there is ample evidence for ID.
I would disagree with you on this point, however I am allowing for the fact that perhaps the reason I don’t see any evidence is that I simply don’t understand the evidence that has been presented. Which I admit is always a possibility, as I have been told I’m not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. I’ve read that “design” is empirically detectable, I am unsure how this could be possible. The fact is that what I have read of your work (and others) has left many questions unanswered. So I do wonder: is Palevitz right, is there really no evidence for ID? Or perhaps the evidence is there, but Palevitz has yet to understand it.
So perhaps a discussion of your “methodological dispositions” is in order…
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 01. October 2002 11:11
mark: Also, can you give me some evidence that mystical states can't give reliable information at all.
I do not think that this is what AndyG was asking or implying. PJ seems to be claiming however that there are methods not accessible to science which may help us explain ICness or origins of life. AndyG seems to be asking for some examples.
Perhaps Andy was not as much setting up a demarcation criterium as much as PJ who placed them outside the realm of methods of science.?
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 01. October 2002 14:23
Quoth Frances and Mark:
quote:
mark: Also, can you give me some evidence that mystical states can't give reliable information at all.
I do not think that this is what AndyG was asking or implying. PJ seems to be claiming however that there are methods not accessible to science which may help us explain ICness or origins of life. AndyG seems to be asking for some examples.
You hit the nail on the head. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that there are a series of "methodological dispositions" that will allow us to examine origins. I want Phillip to give me some concrete examples. From his published work, he seems to imply that achieving mystical states or reading sacred books can do just that. I would like him to confirm or deny that.
I will reiterate my original point, namely that we are entitled to give different forms of evidence different weights, so long as we are careful to say why. I don't see this is different from a jury giving more weight to forensic evidence as opposed to hearsay, to give an extreme example. I would also be interested to know how common it is for lawyers to use alternative methodological dispositions in their court cases ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
AndyG
[ 01. October 2002, 16:46: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic