Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole by Stephen Law
Authors: Stephen Law
Ads: Link
Devonian period. So the theory predicts that not even one fossil of a bird or mammal will ever show up in the lower pre-Devonian deposits (which constitute over half the history of multicellular organisms ). As one scientist puts it: “Even one incontrovertible find of any pre-Devonian mammal [or] bird … would shatter the theory of common descent.” 10
These are both clear and precise predictions. They are also surprising predictions; for example, say the theory of evolution not true, and the flood theory were true instead. There would be no particular reason not to expect to find, among the countless thousands of fossils dug up each year, at least one or two avian or mammalian fossils in the pre-Devonian layers (Young Earth Creationists would not be remotely surprised if they did). Nor would there be any reason to expect fossils to line up in precisely the way predicted by the theory of common descent. Indeed, that the fossils should happen to line up precisely that way would be a gob-smacking coincidence if the theory weren't true.
So, in predicting that no such fossils will be found, the theory of evolution takes a very significant risk—which is why the fact that no such fossil has ever shown up very strongly confirms the theory of evolution. (And of course, this is just one example of how the theory of evolution is strongly confirmed. There are numerous others.) 11
FALSIFICATION
Let's now turn from the notion of confirmation to that of falsification. What of the Young Earth Creationists' claim that their theory is not falsified by the fossil record? I am going to suggest that, not only is Young Earth Creationism not falsified by the fossil record—given the kind of immunizing strategies employed by its proponents—it cannot be falsified by the fossil record or indeed by anything else. It is, in effect, an unfalsifiable theory.
So far as the notion of falsification is concerned, a pivotal figure is the philosopher Karl Popper. Popper developed a philosophical theory called falsificationism , which describes how science progresses. Few philosophers now embrace falsificationism,and I certainly won't be relying on that theory here. Nevertheless, Popper did make a number of points relevant to our discussion.
We have already seen how scientific theories can be falsified—we can derive from them observational predictions that can then be checked. If the prediction turns out to be false, then the theory is falsified. However, Popper notes that various strategies can be employed by defenders of a theory to deal with an apparent falsification—to protect or immunize it against falsification. It is on such immunizing strategies that I am going to focus here. Let's begin with some examples.
Blame an Auxiliary Hypothesis
Here's one obvious way of protecting a theory from falsification. We have already seen that, in order to derive a prediction from a theory, it's often necessary to employ auxiliary hypothesis. We saw that Newton's theory of universal gravitation predicts a smooth, elliptical orbit for Uranus only if no other planet is exerting a gravitational effect on it. When Uranus turned out not to have a smooth, elliptical orbit—it wobbles slightly in and out of its predicted orbit—defenders of Newton's theory insisted that, rather than falsifying Newton's theory, this observation revealed only that there was another as-yet-unknown object in the vicinity of Uranus tugging it out of its elliptical orbit. In other words, the falsification was deflected away from the core theory and onto an auxiliary hypothesis. Scientists calculated where this mystery object would have to be in order to exert such a pull, looked for it, and discovered a new planet: Neptune.
Here's another example. When Galileo constructed his telescope, looked at the moon, and observed mountains and valleys, it seemed that Aristotle's theory that every heavenly body is perfectly spherical had been falsified. Instead of accepting this, some
These are both clear and precise predictions. They are also surprising predictions; for example, say the theory of evolution not true, and the flood theory were true instead. There would be no particular reason not to expect to find, among the countless thousands of fossils dug up each year, at least one or two avian or mammalian fossils in the pre-Devonian layers (Young Earth Creationists would not be remotely surprised if they did). Nor would there be any reason to expect fossils to line up in precisely the way predicted by the theory of common descent. Indeed, that the fossils should happen to line up precisely that way would be a gob-smacking coincidence if the theory weren't true.
So, in predicting that no such fossils will be found, the theory of evolution takes a very significant risk—which is why the fact that no such fossil has ever shown up very strongly confirms the theory of evolution. (And of course, this is just one example of how the theory of evolution is strongly confirmed. There are numerous others.) 11
FALSIFICATION
Let's now turn from the notion of confirmation to that of falsification. What of the Young Earth Creationists' claim that their theory is not falsified by the fossil record? I am going to suggest that, not only is Young Earth Creationism not falsified by the fossil record—given the kind of immunizing strategies employed by its proponents—it cannot be falsified by the fossil record or indeed by anything else. It is, in effect, an unfalsifiable theory.
So far as the notion of falsification is concerned, a pivotal figure is the philosopher Karl Popper. Popper developed a philosophical theory called falsificationism , which describes how science progresses. Few philosophers now embrace falsificationism,and I certainly won't be relying on that theory here. Nevertheless, Popper did make a number of points relevant to our discussion.
We have already seen how scientific theories can be falsified—we can derive from them observational predictions that can then be checked. If the prediction turns out to be false, then the theory is falsified. However, Popper notes that various strategies can be employed by defenders of a theory to deal with an apparent falsification—to protect or immunize it against falsification. It is on such immunizing strategies that I am going to focus here. Let's begin with some examples.
Blame an Auxiliary Hypothesis
Here's one obvious way of protecting a theory from falsification. We have already seen that, in order to derive a prediction from a theory, it's often necessary to employ auxiliary hypothesis. We saw that Newton's theory of universal gravitation predicts a smooth, elliptical orbit for Uranus only if no other planet is exerting a gravitational effect on it. When Uranus turned out not to have a smooth, elliptical orbit—it wobbles slightly in and out of its predicted orbit—defenders of Newton's theory insisted that, rather than falsifying Newton's theory, this observation revealed only that there was another as-yet-unknown object in the vicinity of Uranus tugging it out of its elliptical orbit. In other words, the falsification was deflected away from the core theory and onto an auxiliary hypothesis. Scientists calculated where this mystery object would have to be in order to exert such a pull, looked for it, and discovered a new planet: Neptune.
Here's another example. When Galileo constructed his telescope, looked at the moon, and observed mountains and valleys, it seemed that Aristotle's theory that every heavenly body is perfectly spherical had been falsified. Instead of accepting this, some
Similar Books
