House of Eratosthenes

I notice that the hot new Talking Point from the Democrats is that Intelligent Design (ID) should not be taught in our classrooms because it is “scientifically untestable”. I do not know if it is a focus-group tested phrase or not, but I’ve been picking up on it for awhile when I argue with liberals about it in the chat rooms, and I see lately it has apparently begun to trickle-up to the liberal-leaning Peter Schagg of the Sacramento Bee (link requires registration).

The argument that evolution should be taught in classrooms but ID shouldn’t because the latter is “scientifically untestable” is one that has sufficient merit to be discussed somewhat, although it doesn’t convince me. However, it hasn’t escaped my notice that there is a fundamental shift taking place in scientific thought & methodology here. Perhaps it is more accurate to say, the way liberals would like our classrooms to work, is fundamentally different from the way they worked when I had to attend them. Their monkey-ladder claim that “this is the way we’ve always done it” doesn’t square with my recollection at all.

I recall my science teacher(s) instructing us on how to differentiate fact from theory, how to prove something, and how to refute something. They were very specific about it, and none of them said anything to the effect of “you shouldn’t argue one way or another on a theory if it is ‘untestable’.” The reason should be obvious. What makes a theory untestable? Is it untestable by abstract concept, in which case it is guaranteed to be forever untestable? Or is it simply the limits of current technology? Should you decide one way or the other, how do you prove that?

No, the only rule that was ever handed to me about this was quite different. It was iron-clad, self-proving, and it was a singular rule, with a great reason for not being included with a bunch of other rules: You shouldn’t dismiss a theory until it has been definitively refuted. The reason for this, too, should be obvious. Dismissing theories that haven’t been proven to be false, contaminates your pursuit of the truth. It leaves you in a position where subsequently, you’ll be unable to distinguish between a bad data, and an enigma.

Let’s take the case of the geocentric universe. In centuries past, this could have been held to be proven, and was, because the notion of a heliocentric universe was “scientifically untestable”. Liberals today, then, by implication applaud this conclusion. Upon the invention of a suitably powerful telescope, you would then have to reconcile the apparent “zig zag” motion of the planets relative to each other throughout the year, with this other thing you “know”: They are moving around the earth, and thus around our vantage point. Planets like to dance the hokey pokey? And then there is parallax. Celestial Body A is fourteen angular seconds away from Celestial Body B in March, but eight seconds from it in October; since we “know” we live in a geocentric universe, why is this?

You would then be left to scramble around in search of some universal calendar which acts on all heavenly bodies depending on the seasons which are based on the earth. Furthermore, you’d be going down this bunny-trail until it was somehow proven that extraterrestrial bodies are insulated from & acting completely independently from earth-based seasons. Onward you would stumble, until ultimately forced to re-think this geocentric concept that you had previously “proven” to be true.

But to be consistent, you have to refute what was previously proven, while continuing to discard everything else that’s “untestable.” How long is that going to take?

So this new rule our liberals are trying to make for “science,” doesn’t quite work for me.

There is also the matter of consistency. Man-made global warming (MMGW), contrary to the rumors being promulgated through the editorial columns, currently qualifies in every sense I’m aware of as “scientifically untestable”. If MMGW doesn’t qualify for this, the idea that it can do our climate significant harm over the next several centuries, certainly does.

In fact, based on how I have seen the MMGW theory evolve just over the last couple of decades, I have the impression that it is defined and periodically re-defined based on what cannot be scientifically tested. Are the leftists willing to apply this new rule for science across the board, then? Because I would personally look forward to them leaving me alone for awhile on MMGW, and I expect some of the most powerful Democrats to soon offer President Bush their congratulations for refusing to approve the Kyoto Protocol. All in the spirit of disregarding whatever is scientifically untestable, after all.

Um no, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for them to do this.

This new dictum not only flies in the face of good science, it also contradicts basic common sense that us commoners use in our everyday lives. Why, anyone who’s sat down to play a game of poker, Mastermind or Clue understands it is far more important to separate what is proven from what is not, than it is to separate what’s “testable” from what is not. It reminds me of a timeless parable about a man leaving a bar late at night and encountering another man who was desperately looking in a ditch for something; it turned out the unfortunate soul had lost his watch, so the first man decided to help him.

After awhile of fruitless searching, the first man asked the second man where he was standing when he noticed his watch was gone — imagine his surprise when the second man pointed clear across the street! The first man was incredulous; “Why in the world are we looking here then?” The second man said “the light is much better over here than it is over there.”

Good science defines what is known & unknown based on what is learned, not based on what can be done by the tools at hand.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Intelligent DesignThursday, August 11th, 2005

Intelligent Design
Thursday, August 11th, 2005