[extropy-chat] against ID

[Damien Broderick]

At 03:50 AM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote:

>Whereas science in Kansas once meant:
>
>"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us"
>
>It now means:
>
>"continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing,
>measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead
>to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
>
>The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable, perhaps
>even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement that
>science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* explanation for
>natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including for example
>astrology as an explanation for human personality.

But what is your objection to examining astrology as an explanation for 
human personality?

Theoretically, it seems incoherent with a current understanding of the size 
and dynamics of the cosmos, whereas it once appeared at least superficially 
possible, given the limited understanding of the size of the cosmos in 
cultures that originated and first supported astrology.

Empirically, current versions of astrology are inconsistent with each 
other, and usually lack empirical support when tested rigorously.

The first objection is grave, but hardly a knockdown argument, since our 
understanding of the cosmos is constantly modified precisely through the 
activity of science, and if anything we seem to learn more each year about 
unexpected connections between phenomena at various scales.

The second objection is not a reason for rejecting astrology apriori as 
unscientific, but rather for showing it to be testable but false. On the 
other hand, certain quasi astrological claims (those of the Gauquelins, for 
example, concerning the so-called "Mars effect") have proved to be 
unnervingly robust, even when tested by sceptics.

On the whole, I think I rather prefer the second formulation to the first. 
Giving priority to "natural" explanations might seem sensible, given the 
success of materialist reductionist explanatory schemata compared to the 
frailty and sterility of allegedly non-materialist "holist" models, but it 
risks premature theoretical foreclosure.

"Natural" is a word to be wary of. Don't forget the spurious moral 
objections to homosexuality, for example, on the grounds that such 
practices are allegedly "unnatural". Granted, this is not the same value 
for "natural" as the usage above, but does stem from the same logical 
problem, the "naturalistic fallacy".

More simply still: if empirical evidence, to the surprise of most 
scientists, turned out to link personality types with subtle annual 
regularities of the general kind advanced by astrologers, and gave rise to 
elegant theory consistent with the rest of physics and psychology, 
astrology would suddenly become "natural".

If it turned out that the emergence and development of primitive life on 
Earth, indeed throughout the cosmos, had been massively accelerated by 
Singularity Minds that emerged swiftly in the storm immediately following 
the big bang, this explanation would be no less "natural" than 
domestication by farmers and stock breeders, and certainly inconsistent 
with the witterings of the IDers, yet it doesn't seem to fall easily and 
intuitively into either current classification.

Damien Broderick