Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?

I wanted to open this thread for a continuation of the fascinating (although off-topic) discussion between Joralex, Schraf and John from The Bible - 2003 edition thread in Biblical Accuracy. The thread is, of course, open to any participant.In that thread Joralex began laying a foundation (in response to other posters) for the claim that evolutionary science is in fact a metaphysic based on philosophical naturalism.For example, Later in the same post, Joralex writes: Further: To me, the first quoted section contradicts the latter two. In the first, Joralex is apparently taking science to task for an unbending, dogmatic, a priori unwillingness to accept new ideas, and in the latter, s/he is taking science to task for its tentativity - the ability to be modified in the light of new observations or ideas. It is this apparent contradiction that I would like to explore in this thread.I would like to begin by setting out the parameters of what methodological naturalism (science) IS, then invite Joralex to provide both a counterargument AND the equivalent parameters for creationism.For the science side, I have found few better explanations than that used by Michael Ruse (and quoted by Overton in McClean vs Arkansas):1. It is guided by natural law.
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
3. It is testable against the empirical world.
4. Its conclusions are tentative — that is, not necessarily the final word.
5. It is falsifiable.What is natural law (points one and 2)? In essence, these are regularities in nature that have been observed and tested. Regularity in this context means that someone can make an observation through use of a particular device (for example), and someone else in the same conditions using the same device will achieve the same observation. Your microscope won't arbitrarily show something completely different each time you use it. Point 3 requires that observational testing be able to be employed to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. This can be done either through direct observation, experimental control of variables, or through showing that the consequences or results that would be expected if a hypothesis were true do in fact obtain. Point number 5 (I'll come back to 4) deals with the falsifiability of empirical theory. It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the hypothesis false. Although the concept sounds counterintuitive, this rule guarantees that if a hypothesis is false, then the evidence will prove it false, and if the hypothesis is true, then the evidence will not DISPROVE it. Consider: if nothing could ever disprove an idea (the invulnerable claim), then whatever evidence DOES exist wouldn't matter - it would be pointless to even look at the evidence because the conclusion is already known. Nonfalsifiable hypotheses simply describe the holder’s values or the way s/he feels about the world.And finally, point 4. This seems to be one of the primary problems Joralex has with science (at least from his/her posts to date). Tentativity in science simply means that - based on current understanding - a particular explanation is the current best available. Since scientists are constantly trying to make new discoveries or to develop new concepts and theories, then the body of knowledge produced by science undergoes constant change. Such change is progress toward a better understanding of nature. It is achieved by constantly questioning whether our current ideas are correct.For an outstanding essay on this point, see Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong.Which brings me to the last bit: The gauntlet is down, Joralex. Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks for your reply. I thought it was obvious. Sorry for not being more clear. In essence the disagreement (as I see it) boils down to:Joralex: Evolution is dogmatic metaphysical naturalism. It is not science.Quetzal: Is not. Is too.So to move the conversation a bit further than that, I posted a definition of science that I feel represents the methodological naturalism employed by science and scientists - regardless of field - as a starting point. Starting from the back end, if you will. Let us agree on a common definition of science, THEN we can discuss whether evolution fits that definition.You are of course free to disagree with that definition, argue with any of the premises or conditions, postulate your own, etc. But until we can get past that, I'm not sure how we can argue whether or not evolution is science. Okay?As to the rest of your post: I should think my mindset (do you mean philosophy?) would be fairly obvious from the many posts I've made in this forum. However, I was not arguing for the irrefutable validity of my sources. Merely posting them as "additional" material for what I actually wrote. My OP should stand (or fall) on its own. The reality is I just grabbed the first sources that came to hand. Feel free to ignore them - they aren't critical to my points. Interesting career. However, I am unclear as to why you felt it necessary to post it? Do your arguments rest on the basis of your work or experience? Is your bio relevant to this discussion?As to relevance of MY bio, the only bit that pertains anywhere on this forum (IMO) is an undergrad degree in ecology, and four years experience working conservation biology/management and environmental consulting in Central America. Others who know more of my background can disagree (if they wish) as to the pertinence of other parts of a quite lengthy bio. I would imagine it would be tiresome. However, this has nothing to do with my OP, as I never made any reference to anyone's lack of knowledge/understanding, as I pointed out above. My posting of a working epistemology/ontology of science was to establish a framework for discussion, as noted. What does this have to do with anything other than your disagreement with Asimov? Again, you are free to ignore the references I provided, as they really aren't important. Alternatively, you can address (as part of your overall response to me) upon what you're basing your disagreement with him wrt his contention concerning the lack of absolute right and wrong, and how he's incorrect in his essay concerning the tentativity of science. His worldview shouldn't matter to this discussion. I am aware he's very much a secular humanist. What does that have to do with the tentative nature of scientific inquiry? Whether or not an atheist needs to agree that they are religious or not is utterly irrelevant to the central question of this thread - is evolution metaphysics or science?Please attempt to address the actual topic. Thanks.

Apologies, I don’t normally post on weekends — weekends are usually devoted to family. However, at the rate this thread is growing, I didn’t want to leave my principal interest in this thread to get too buried. I know that this is your take on it. However, I would refer you back to the post to which you were responding. I want to get ultimately to the basis for your take. This being a discussion board, discussion should theoretically be the reason people are here. To do so, we need to establish a common framework for the discussion.You propose that evolutionary theory as understood by the majority of evolutionary biologists contains both a science of evolution and a metaphysic of evolution. I understand that. However, to be able to effectively argue for or against this proposition, the basis for the differentiation between the science element and the metaphysical element needs to be determined. Others are already touching upon the metaphysics (although we’ll get there also, if you’ll bear with me.) My preference would be to begin as I did in the OP: establish a common definition of science. Otherwise, all we’re doing is talking past one another. Unless you are willing to stipulate that my definition of science as proposed in the OP is acceptable without comment, you need at this point to provide the description of science from which YOU derive your argument. We haven’t gotten to this point yet in the discussion. We need to first establish whether there IS such a dichotomy as you assert. To do so, we need to first explore the very nature of scientific inquiry (i.e., what science is). Then we can see if there are elements of evolutionary theory (or any other scientific hypothesis, for that matter) that are NOT science as we’ve defined. Then, and only then, can we discuss the basis of the metaphysic claims. Okay — get the drift of the topic, now? That is the question I’m trying to explore here. One step at a time, Joralex, is all I ask. I think I pointed out that I couldn’t care less what your bio is. Your argument should stand or fall on its own merits, as does mine. Since your background isn’t in evolutionary biology, you are unable to argue that you represent an authority of some kind to whom I should lend especial credence. Thus it was irrelevant to the topic. I didn’t consider that there was any sinister motive — simply irrelevancy. To be honest, I thought you posting your bio was merely a rather lame attempt at argument from I-am-not-an-idiot. Since that is not my position nor have I ever given you reason to believe that I don’t take you seriously, taking up so much space rather than addressing the actual topic seemed pointless. However, to close off this line of discussion, I accept as stipulated that you aren’t an idiot. Further, I accept as stipulated that you are interested in discussion and are able and willing to both support and credibly defend your position.Now, can we get back to the topic, please? Thanks.

Hi Joralex,It looks like the metaphysics discussion is taking off nicely. However, I would like you to address my post #33, wherein I asked you to help delimit what constitutes "science" in your lexicon. Again, I want to approach the question from the science, vice metaphysics side. Where are the limits to "science"? After that, we can see whether or not evolution is within the realm of science or strays into the realm of metaphysics.Thanks.

Hi Joralex,Thanks for your reply. On the contrary, that is precisely the point I’m attempting to arrive at. In order to substantiate your assertion, we need to establish exactly where the demarcation is located between the SE and ME. To do that, we need to define precisely what constitutes science — by default, anything left over ascribed to evolutionary theory is ME. Okay? Well, I may not correct you, but I would like to examine your criteria before accepting them.1. observability: I’ll accept this if you consider observability to mean that the event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation. I would say that detectability (whether trend, data point, or whatever), would be a more appropriate term than observability. We can detect electrons and the action of gravity, we can’t observe them directly. We can detect historical occurrences in a similar fashion.2. testability: This criteria would seem to be self explanatory, and is basically a restatement of my criteria #3 from the OP: It must be testable with reference to the empirical world. As I explained in that post, Similar to observation, however, this can NOT be taken to mean that the results of direct experimentation are the only acceptable form of science. The objection here goes for any historical science where the end state is known, but the initial conditions are not. In this case you test the hypothesis by predicting what will be found, based on known natural laws or processes. If examples are found, then the hypothesis is strengthened. If none are found, or disconfirming evidence is found, then the hypothesis is probably wrong.As a subset or corollary of testability, the test, whatever it is, must be replicable. An independent observer, under the same conditions and circumstances, must be able to achieve the same results. If I predict the next roll of a pair of dice, you need to demand that I repeat the feat before accepting that I can predict the future. Alternatively, if a phenomenon can be the product of a coincidence, the phenomenon must be replicated by someone else under the same conditions before coincidence can be rejected as an explanation. If coincidence IS the explanation, then the results will not be replicated.3. falsifiability: I am unclear as to why you find falsifiability to be elusive. I suppose in a strict Popplerian sense it might be, but in the sense I explained it in the OP the idea has merit as a way to differentiate science from not-science. If there is no possible way of falsifying a hypothesis, either because it is ambiguous or because it contains unstated assumptions (the multiple out), then the hypothesis is not scientific.Do you agree or disagree with my expansion of your criteria? Some Christians hold this, many (probably the majority) do not. I agree, however, that the role of science is to develop hypotheses and theories (models) of the observable world that seek to explain those observations. This is a foundationless assertion. It also presents a false dichotomy — you are presenting the case as though it were either/or. There are more than two positions contained here, just as there are more that two possible interpretations for the emergence of life, diversity and complexity. Finally, you have not provided any supporting argument for the assertion that evolution somehow replaces God. Really? What was this that helped you to get it? If you know or can describe the limits of science, then that would be particularly helpful in the context of this discussion.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-02-2003]