RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 17, 2021 at 2:12 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2021 at 2:13 pm by Apollo.)
(March 17, 2021 at 1:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote: Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability.
Consciousness is as vague as design. And yet there are many theories (e.g. Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, etc.), which present sightly different definitions and perspectives on consciousness.
Falsification doesn't require agreement, only specificity and testability.
Specificity comes from common understanding or clear understanding (agreement that I was talking about). Consciousness in terms of neurological phenomenon is not as vague as "design". We do see brain activity as some indication of consciousness existing in a live person vs no activity as no consciousness. We do not have such "specifity" when it comes to design.
(March 17, 2021 at 1:41 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote: Not everything can neatly fit into falsiability criteria. Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability. Because you can always say something follows a design while others may disagree it does. Falsifiable criteria are applicable to binary result based evidence (black vs white swans.)
In practice, such critters don't exist. See Thomas Kuhn's writing on scientific revolutions and also the Duhem-Quine Thesis.
I think falsifiablity provides and important way to arrive at a scientific conclusion when method of induction is not sufficient.
