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)