pudge's Journal: Philosophy of Science

It is not tenable to claim that ID is not science because of some criteria that it doesn't fit.

Philosophers of Science have soundly rejected such "demarcation." It doesn't work. It excludes things that are science, and includes things that are not.

This is an interesting article about the subject. It's written by someone who believes in both the evolution of species, and Intelligent Design. He is in no way seeking to advance Creationism, a "young Earth," or anything of the like.

Regardless of whether you accept his claims that ID is legitimate science, it should be pretty clear that you cannot say it is not science by merely pointing at largely discredited theories such as logical positivism and falsifiability.

Now Playing: George Winston - Carol Of The Bells

Clarification

[StalinsNotDead]

It excludes things that are not science, and includes things that are not.

Do you mean "It excludes things that are science, and includes things that are not."?

Re:Clarification

[pudge]

Uh ... yes. :)

WRT: Now Playing

[Sheetrock]

I'm not going to touch the intelligent design issue with a ten foot pole. Instead I have to say that George Winston won me over with the CD "Linus & Lucy - The Music of Vince Guaraldi".

The Christmas music started way too early this year for my sanity, but thanks to the Charlie Brown Christmas special this album is just as nostalgic while being quite mellow to code to.

Discredited by whom?

[sulli]

Surely not the vast majority of the scientific community, cited by Judge Jones [washingtonpost.com] in his ruling against the Dover school district.

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory.

Re:Discredited by whom?

[pudge]

Surely not the vast majority of the scientific community

The majority of philosophers of science consider logical positivism and falsifiability discredited. But most scientists, who don't understand such things, don't know that. That's part of the problem: many scientists say ridiculous things like "ID is not science because it is not falsifiable" and people believe them because they think scientists are experts on such things, when in fact, they are no more experts on that than a scientific layman is, bec