Article <32818e96facd511685fa268cffeadc3b@www.novabbs.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<32818e96facd511685fa268cffeadc3b@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Did Dawkins really claim that god-did-it is a scientific
 =?UTF-8?B?aHlwb3RoZXNpcz8=?=
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:12:27 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <32818e96facd511685fa268cffeadc3b@www.novabbs.com>
References: <101as3j$409r$2@dont-email.me> <b2274542-41bf-4fcb-a73e-258ce8b3a016@gmail.com> <3426523d84d2f586db7358931b34f833@www.novabbs.com> <tnri3kliab61fje1ui1s21mogbg1jep2dh@4ax.com> <101c03k$e6m0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="24122"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 8608
Lines: 140

On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:08:51 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:

> On 30/05/2025 09:47, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:08:47 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
>> (LDagget) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2025 4:07:46 +0000, erik simpson wrote:
 ...

>>> Seems to me that the proper perspective is that just about anything
>>> could be a scientific hypothesis if the terms involved were
>>> defined with sufficient precision, and the asserted hypothesis
>>> was in some sense amenable to being objectively tested.
>>>
>>> That's a bit sneaky because defining __god__ has been historically
>>> problematic. Most definitions put limits on the thing being
>>> defined, some sense of where it begins and ends, how to distinguish
>>> what it is and isn't. This seems somehow connected with the odd
>>> categories like omnipresent and omnipotent that some would attempt
>>> to use. It has an air of resisting a definition but for a
>>> hypothesis to be usefully considered scientific that doesn't work.
>>>
>>> If asked to test the "god did it" hypothesis, it seems like we
>>> would need some clarity on the __it__ part and some of those
>>> how, when, and where type questions specified somewhat.
>>> Otherwise, how do you go about testing the hypothesis.
>>>
>>> If you can't test it, it simply can't be a scientific hypothesis.
>>> Philosophers can hedge over distinctions between "can in
>>> principle test" versus "can in practice test". I'd weigh in
>>> on the side of 'not scientific' until you can do it in practice
>>> with an added label of __potentially__ for the not in practice set.

>> Is that not moving closer to theory than hypothesis?

>  From wiktionary
>
> "(sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed
> facts or phenomena and correctly predicts new facts or phenomena not
> previously observed, or which sets out the laws and principles of
> something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation,
> experiment etc."
>
> or to make a stab at it myself
>
> a coherent model explaining diverse observations

There are 3 potential points of conflation here.
There is

Science(1) which is a body of knowledge obtained/confirmed by Science(2)

Science(2) a methodology which attempts rigorous steps of hypothesis
generation, and hypothesis testing with objective measures, often
recursively repeated towards refinement of the hypothesis, to gain
confidence in the truth or falsity of a hypothesis.

The distinction between the body of knowledge, and the methodology
can unfortunately become lost or muddled, and often is.

This becomes most problematic with the use of the adjective
__scientific__  where contextual clues as to whether it refers to
science(1) or science(2) are often lacking, and so it is easy to
talk at cross purposes when a speaker and listener (writer, reader)
have different intent. It is of course worse when one or both don't
process the conceptual distinction anyway.

I was intending scientific in scientific hypothesis in the
methodological
sense. I further failed to allude to a likely cause for discomfort in
those who dislike a conclusion that "god did it" usually isn't a
scientific hypothesis, namely that they are hearing that as the
body of knowledge version of __scientific__ and so think the claim
is being made that somehow science has disproved their god(s).

> There are exceptions in usage, such as String Theory - I think this is
> bleed through from mathematical usage. Note that there are people who
> argue that String Theory is not scientific.
>
> I think that the concept of a research program is helpful.
>
> String Theory is a research program which has failed to deliver (other
> than a body of mathematics).
>
> Evolutionary psychology is in principle a research program. That
> evolution has had an influence on human behaviour is a more than
> plausible hypothesis. But evolutionary psychologists in general lack a
> necessary scepticism about their supplementary hypothesis, and even the
> overriding hypothesis is questionable - could not evolution have handed
> over control of behaviour to the more labile (and therefore more
> adaptable) culture? The evolution of cultural control of behaviour would
> invalidate the underpinnings of the research programme. I'm ambivalent
> on the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology - I don't think that
> the hypothesis is inherently incapable of providing insights, but much
> of the practice seems to be in the cargo-cult science zone.
>
> Intelligent Design could have been a research program, albeit one I
> would have low expectations of (lower than evolutionary psychology). The
> movement might even have had expectations of being one, but if it did
> they failed to put in the work. Intelligent Design is instead a
> religiously motivated political movement with a strategy of attacking
> the theory of evolution.
>
> Some people would exclude the supernatural from the scope of science. I
> disagree on this point; all science requires is statistical regularity
> of behaviour, i.e. some degree of predictability.
>
> So God is not a priori excluded from science. On the other hand to bring
> God within the scope of science may require concessions that the
> religious may not wish to make. As a practical matter, as an ignostic I
> think that God as a concept does not give us enough purchase on which to
> base a scientific hypothesis.
>>
>>>
>>> Odd thing that some would consider not being a scientific
>>> hypothesis as a challenge to the ultimate truth of their hypothesis.
>>> But that is dubious thinking.
>>
>> Those who think that way are usually those who feel their religious
>> beliefs are challenged by science. That gives them 3 options:
>>
>> 1) Rethink their religious beliefs to accommodate the science.
>>
>> 2) Try to argue that their beliefs are actually just another
>> scientific hypothesis.
>>
>> 3) Dismiss the science
>>
>> ID'ers simply can't face up to option 1 so they go for a mixture of
>> options 2 and 3.
>>

I'd suggest that disentangles better if one indulges in the distinction
I pursued this time around. I had hoped the methodological context
would be clear enough, but alas, prior observations should have
informed me that it would slide back and forth with many readers.
That isn't me accusing anyone involved here of confusing things,
but experience does suggest that such things often happen with two
distinct concepts share a label, and especially with the label
__science__.