Joined: April 2006
|How far do you think you're going to get with the people on this website, many of whom are professional scientists?|
I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientisits, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.
This is from the Meyer article quoted previously ...
|Scientists rarely prove their theories deductively from empirical evidence. Indeed, no field of inquiry short of mathematics could progress if itlimited itself to the logic of entailment. Rather, most fields of inquiry employ|
alternate forms of inference known variously as the method of hypothesis,abduction, hypothetico-deductive method, or inference to the best explanation. (p.21)
|The natural and historical sciences employ such logic routinely. In the natural sciences, if we have reason to expect that some state of affairs will ensue given some hypothesis, and we find that such a state of affairs has ensued, then we say that our hypothesis has been confirmed. This method of confirmation of hypothesis functions to provide evidential support for many scientific hypotheses. Given Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system, astronomers in the seventeenth century had reason to expect that the planet Venus should exhibit phases. Galileo's discovery that it does exhibit phases, therefore, supported (though it did not prove) the heliocentric view. The discovery did not prove the heliocentric theory, since other theories might and in fact could explain the same fact (Gingerich 1982: 133-43) (p. 22 of Meyer's article).|
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.