|
Author
|
Topic: Argument _ad ignorantium_?
|
Todd Field
Member
Member # 490
|
posted 11. October 2002 16:20
(This is my first post here. Best regards to all.)
I do not mean to question the integrity of anyone, but I have a serious question.
I am taking a closer look at the paper, "Is Intelligent Design Testable?" by William A. Dembski
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html
<quote>
Is intelligent design falsifiable? ... Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do.
</quote>
Dr. Dembski's argument here, that there is no proof that ID theory is false, seems to border on argument _ad ignorantium_, wouldn't you agree?
---
Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.
(Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it
has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
---
If using the scientific method, isn't that which requires falsification the null hypothesis, "There is no intelligent designer" as in SETI's Argus project, where the presumption is "There is no ET"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 11. October 2002 17:48
Todd, please take a look at the "new user" policy that is listed at the top of the main Brainstorms page. New threads need to put forth positive, productive hypothesis.
Sorry to be so harsh, but ISCID is not the forum to come and beat up on your favorite (or least favorite) theory.
This thread is being closed.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic