The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[polymath257]

It would be more accurate to say that in science we go for the simplest (without any elements not required) explanation that accounts for all the observations. Saying God did it is functionally equivalent to saying 'magic did it' and doesn't actually explain anything.

I don't know how true that is of science. Yes, ideally you want a particular model to be as economic as possible. But you never choose between models based on simplicity. (At least that hasn't been the case in the cognitive sciences; our theories seem to get more complex over time.) Theories are tools for scientists, so perhaps in that sense they might opt for the lightest hammer. But simplicity isn't a replacement for experimentation. And I'd be interested to see an example where simplicity actually did what you say it does.

Edit: And if I may add: Given that you have no access to reality, except by your theories, you have no contrast by which to measure simplicity. In other words, you are unjustifiably deciding that a given level of simplicity is correct. But the more complex theory could be the simplest, and the one you've chosen an oversimplification. Simplicity is an unjustified preference, that reflects the limits of our brains, rather than the nature of reality.

---

But it isn't an explanation at all. Since it fits with any possible scenario, evidence cannot change the probability of it being correct. Which means it isn't dependent on evidence. Which means it is untestable nonsense.

You have to be more clear on what you want to argue. Either design has no observable differences with naturalism (meaning they both explain and predict the same thing). Or they do in fact have many differences (design doesn't explain anything, etc). So start substantiating your premises: Don't arbitrarily dictate what design does or doesn't do without showing it. It's clear that you're arguing against an idea of design that isn't one I presented.

Generally speaking, having a lot of parameters to adjust just means you are curve fitting and probably not getting the real picture. The goal is to have the necessary amount of *predictive* complexity but no more. otherwise your sample space is too large to be able to make any actual conclusion.

But yes, you want the model to be as simple as possible *but still make valid predictions that can be verified*.

As for design, either design has no observational differences with naturalism *in which case naturalism is preferred because of simplicity* OR they have observational differences and the observation should be done to determine which is the better explanation.

If design is to be a reasonable explanation at all, it *has* to give observational differences with naturalism. If that is being claimed, then those differences should be presented and the relevant observations made. As far as I can see, no actual differences have been proposed. That makes design a dis-favored position.