Lou FCD
Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 21 2011,20:58) | Over at Martin Cothran's blog, he's going on again about Judge Jones and claimed contradictions concerning falsifiability.
After asking whether Martin was using falsifiability as Popper defined it, he basically punted, saying that what Judge Jones said had to be related to Popper by inference.
This was my response to that:
| Quote |
Martin, earlier you wrote:
"""
Jones argues that Intelligent Design does not meet this criterion because it is not falsifiable. He then turns right around and argues that it is false. If it's not false, then it is falsifiable, and if it is not falsifiable, then it cannot be false. But he just goes on hoping that no one will notice the blatant contradiction in his argument.
"""
If you are going to ding Jones for relying on Popper, something even you stipulate has to be inferred, then the statement above is simply wrong. A claim that is a "restricted existential statement" can be demonstrated to be false, even though modus tollens won't figure in how that is done. In other words, a claim can fail to be classed as falsifiable vis Popper, but still be demonstrably false.
On the other hand, it looks to me to be equivocation if you are using the "general" connotation of simply being testable in some way. Jones refers to particular claims made by IDC advocates as being shown to be false, but your forceful statement quoted above relies upon there being no such distinction between "intelligent design" as such and instances of claims made in furtherance of "intelligent design".
Is there a particular reason that you've chosen to infer things about Judge Jones' decision that put it in a maximally unfavorable light, when you do acknowledge that the inference thus made is not secure?
|
|
As I understand the situation (and IANAL), Jones didn't argue anything. He decided. The attorneys argued, and the creationists lost the argument.
They can continue pout and stomp and throw their little tantrums, but they got caught lying for Jesus. Again. Now they're just pissed off that no one bought their lies. Creationists are like little kids who get busted in a lie and then go spend hours with their friends justifying why it was unfair that they got in trouble for lying. It's always everyone else's fault.
--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
