|
Author
|
Topic: Design and the Null Hypothesis
|
Todd Field
Member
Member # 490
|
posted 12. October 2002 11:01
The moderator wrote:
> The point of this discussion board is to
> develop fruitful hypotheses
The following is respectfully submitted for your consideration, concerning the working hypothesis in the ID project:
In SETI's Argus project, the working hypothesis is the null, "There is no ET."
SETI scientist, John Marcus explains:
"SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences, encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific method.
[...]
"The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear, unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ..."
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Field
[ 12. October 2002, 18:02: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 12. October 2002 12:51
Is the blind watchmaker hypothesis tested against its null hypothesis? Mike Gene makes an interesting comment concerning this:
If there was a clear-cut way to distinguish design from non-design, ID theory would not be needed. That is, one simple unequivocal test that distinguishes design from non-design would be sufficient. But there is no such test and keep in mind that science has no such test when excluding design to explain the origin of biological features. Also keep in mind that when anti-ID'ers talk about distinguishing between design and non-design they are usually referring to two themes: prove the impossible (i.e. evolution couldn't have done it) and show me the designer. I think the search for a magic bullet way to distinguish designed things from things not designed is a waste of time. The reality investigated is too complicated and design in life is probably too subtle.
The point is simply this - I do not think we can directly detect the existence of either a teleological or non-teleological cause from ancient history. The best we can do is to infer such a cause indirectly to determine how well those inferences make sense of the data we have. In my opinion, there is simply no need for a magic bullet test of detection. Science itself has none, yet that has not stopped it from speculating and testing about non-teleological causes.
Consider this perspective. If we have no reliable empirical detector of intelligent design, then everyone (including science)is blind to the existence of intelligent design. Science has no evidence against ID. Neither can it say that its hypotheses and theories about origins are true or even approximate truth. All it can say is "given we are blinded to the existence of ID, here's what we can come up with." Thus, the lack of such a "reliable detector" has serious implication for the non-teleological viewpoint - it means the whole
non-teleological account cannot be tested against its null hypothesis and is thus a circular account.
[ 12. October 2002, 13:11: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Todd Field
Member
Member # 490
|
posted 12. October 2002 14:03
Jack wrote:
> ... Science has no evidence against ID. ...
That is what Dr. Dembski argues, and I asked, in another thread, isn't that logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantium_), the fallacy of arguing that there is no proof the theory is false? (The moderator ruled the quesion out of order. He says we need to be looking for fruitful hypotheses, which is, with all due respect, what I am in all humility trying to do in this new thread.)
Isn't the goal of "developing fruitful hypotheses" part of a scientific investigation of the theory that ID theory might be true?
The working hypothesis in SETI's Argus project is the null, "There is no ET." That is the working hypothesis which is to be falsified by finding evidence of any ET.
My question is, why not use the scientific method, like the SETI scientists, and take the null, "There is no intelligent design in nature" (or words to that effect) as that hypothesis which is to be falsified?
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 12. October 2002 17:18
In order to further our explorations in the ID hypothesis, we need to carefully define what is meant by the ID hypothesis and what is meant by ID is falsifiable.
Dembski's ID filter uses strict elimination to determine if something is intelligently designed. Since there will be false negatives that is ID is not infered when in fact ID happened, falsification of ID in this sense seems quite impossible. Even if we can show a chance hypothesis for the flagellum, nothing precludes the flagellum from being designed as well. Unless we consider ID that which cannot be explained by chance hypotheses strictly but then ID is a small subset of what more commonly is understood by intelligent design.
So when claims are made that ID is falsifiable we should be careful to explain what ID we are talking about. In Dembski's case ID refers to the hypothesis that there are no chance hypotheses that can explain the flagellum. Showing that there is such a hypothesis merely falsifies the claim but does it falsify ID? I doubt it.
Or the claim that IC systems cannot occur through chance. Or more properly phrased through Darwinian pathways. A failure to show such pathways merely shows that Darwinian theory is insufficient but does it give credibility to ID? Or more importantly showing that Darwinian pathways could exist falsify ID or just this restricted claim?
But that leaves us with the following problem, the ID that can be falsified is limited in extent and has little to do with the question of ID in nature since falsification of ID hypotheses does not eliminate the possibility of ID just the claim that ONLY ID can explain....
So what about CSI? The claim is that CSI can only be generated by ID. In this case it might be interesting to point to Oklo reactor which appears to be CSI. Would showing that Oklo is CSI falsify the claim about CSI and ID? Dembski does not seem to think so. So what would falsify the claim of CSI in this context? And would falsification of the CSI claim falsify ID? Or merely a claim that ONLY ID can generate CSI?
IP: Logged
|
|
michaelgoodrich
Member
Member # 393
|
posted 14. October 2002 10:36
Todd writes:
My question is, why not use the scientific method, like the SETI scientists, and take the null, "There is no intelligent design in nature" (or words to that effect) as that hypothesis which is to be falsified?
Alternatively, why not go along with intuition, precedence, and common observation and take the null "Instances of so called apparent design in nature are of course instances of real actual design; and highly improbable, strictly material based scenarios are unworthy as being given the status of scientific explanations" as that hypothesis which is to be falsified?
IP: Logged
|
|
Todd Field
Member
Member # 490
|
posted 14. October 2002 11:52
If that is the null of ID theory (the negation), then what is the theory?
Aren't you just suggesting that the theory be assumed to be true, unless proven false, as Dr. Dembski does in "Is Intelligent Design Testable?"
In the SETI Argus project, the theory is that there might in fact be ET. Under the scientific method, the working hypothesis, the working presumption, is the null (the negation) of that, "There is no ET."
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email MarcusJohn@aol.com
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences, encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear, unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic