Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!mcnc!unc!bts
From: bts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Compact Divine Intervention?
Message-ID: <6735@unc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Feb-84 23:19:58 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6735
Posted: Fri Feb 10 23:19:58 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 06:26:49 EST
References: <6703@unc.UUCP>, <2491@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 56

I'm not trying to defend creationism, but I really can't agree with some
comments on compact interventionism.  I'll take Andrew Koenig's (rabbit!ark)
recent article as an example of a particular position.

A  From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
N  Subject: Re: Compact Divine Intervention?
D  Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
R  
E  In order to qualify as a possible scientific theory, an
W  assertion must be falsifiable.  In other words, it must be
-  possible to imagine (and eventually construct) an experiment
K  that will disprove the assertion.
  
Scientific theories often apply to limited domains.  To give a common
example, college physics courses often begin with Newtonian mechanics.
Are you claiming that the students are not being taught science?  Rather
than thinking of a formal mathematical system, where any inconsistency
crashes the whole thing, maybe the following sort of model applies.
Suppose we have 100 phenomena we wish to describe.  A theory that does
a good job of describing 98 of them is somehow "better" than a theory that
describes only 90.  We can call the cases that are left out "miracles" or
anything we wish.  (What's the behavior of the universe the first fraction
of a second after the Big Bang but such a "miracle".) The important things
are

      i)  How much does it describe?
      ii) Can you recognize the phenomena which it does
	  not describe? (So as not to be lead to false
	  predictions.)

-  People who believe this are welcome to do so, but it does
A  not qualify for consideration as a scientific theory, because
N  it is not falsifiable.  To make the argument sharper, let me suggest
D  that the world was actually created ten minutes ago, together with
R  evidence of a non-existent past.  This evidence includes all YOUR
E  memories, for example.  While you THINK you woke up this morning,
W  you didn't even exist then.  So there!
- 
K  There is no argument or observation that could ever disprove this assertion.
-  For that reason, one is justified in rejecting it out of hand from
-  scientific discourse.

I'd reject the assertion that it was all created 10 minutes ago, too.  I'd
rather compare a creationist theory in terms of the number of "miracles" it
needs versus the number of "holes" in a mainstream scientific theory.  The
theory that it all began 10 minutes (um... 11 minutes, now) requires one real
*BIG* miracle.  The theory that it began in a somewhat simpler state long ago
and offers simple mechanisms whereby things became the way they are requires
a bit less.

Sorry for being so vague.  Maybe Jay Rosenberg (ecsvax!unbent) will see this
and unconfuse me.
   _____________________________________
   Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill
   decvax!mcnc!unc!bts     (USENET)
   bts.unc@CSnet-Relay (lesser NETworks)