On another board, I got into a debate with a creationist; it started the usual way; “evolution is, just a theory, not scientific at all etc…”. I countered this with a description of how the scientific method actually works (you know that sort of Pseud-code one), anyway, one of the replies was like this:
Hypothesis: God Exists and made things the way they are
Testable prediction: If true, things should be the way they are.
Observation: Things are the way they are.
Resultant Theory: God therefore exists.
Now it is clearly rather circular and neglects to investigate other reasons as to why things might be the way they are, but I feel sure that this is one of those ‘classics’ that has a formal description all of its own.
Hypothesis: Evolution Exists and made things the way they are.
Testable prediction: If true, there should be evidence of Evolution.
Observation: There is evidence of Evolution.
Resultant Theory: Evolution therefore exists.
Or:
Hypothesis: The parameters of local conditions (planetary temperature, atmosphere etc) dictate what lifeforms can exist.
Testable prediction: If true, life-forms should fit in with their local conditions.
Observation: So here we are, carbon-based life forms that need an oxygen atmoshere and thrive under one gravity etc.
Resultant Theory: Who’s a circular argument, then?.
Does it mean things are this way because God so intended, or does it mean things could be “A” and “not A” at the same time?
In either case, how could one test for it and in what sense is it a prediction?
Seems to be so full of holes, some of which have been mentioned.
“Testable prediction: If true, things should be the way they are.”
What? The recognition that things are as they are amounts to a testable prediction now? I don’t think so. More damningly it certainly isn’t falsifiable.
The Testable prediction could follow from diverse Hypotheses, consider:
Hypothesis: We were created by the process called evolution:
Testable prediction: If true, things should be the way they are.
Observation: Things are the way they are.
Resultant Theory: Therefore we accept the hypothesis
If anything, the Testable prediction as given does not unambiguously follow from the hypothesis – one of the oldest arguments against the existence of a benevolent deity is that it seems inconceivable that a benevolent deity would create a world so full of pain, suffering etc. – giving the recipe:
Hypothesis: God Exists and made things the way they are
Testable prediction: If true, the world would be a better place
Observation: It ain’t
Resultant Theory: God, therefore, does not exist
Hypothesis: Bob the Bartender exists and made a martini which is sitting on the bar:
Testable Prediction: If true, there should be a martini sitting on the bar.
Observation: There’s a martini on the bar.
Resultant Theory: ??
Upon investigation, we MIGHT find that Bob does not exist and Cheryl, the night manager, made that martini.
To recast the argument, the stated hypothesis consists of two statements:
a = God Exists
b = God made things the way they are
So we wish to assign a truth value to:
a^b
(that’s “a AND b”, not a raised to the bth power, Einsteins).
The next phrase is
(a^b)>b (“a AND b IMPLIES b”).
This is not testable question at all, but a logical tautology. The implication is always true, according to the rules of formal logic. If you can say for sure that the compound statement is true, you can say that both individual parts are individually true.
The next statement in this argument is:
c
(The truth value of c is T, where c is the statement “Things are the way they are”).
To conclude
a
(the truth value of a is T, or in other words, “God Exists”), you must not only assume that truth value of
a^b
(which you were supposedly trying to establish a truth value for in the first place) is T, but ALSO that the truth value of the unstated statement
c = b
(c IS EQUIVALENT TO b, or, “To say that things are the way they are is equivalent to saying that God made them the way they are”) is also T.
You then get b directly from c, and can then use a similar tautology to the “testable question” above,
(a^b)>a
to get
a
Which is fine as long as you already assume that God exists and made things the way they are and that the existence of things the way they are is the same as saying that God made them that way, but I daresay you will find more than a few people on this board willing to challenge you on those assumptions.
OOPS! ignore that last post. That will teach me not to preview!
a = God Exists
b = God made things the way they are
So we wish to assign a truth value to:
a^b
The next phrase is
(a^b)>c (“a AND b IMPLIES c”, where c is “Things ar the way they are”). This would all look mroe elgegant in predicate logic, but hell, it’s 8 in the morning.
The next statement in this argument is:
c
(The truth value of c is T).
To conclude
a
is to assume that
c>(a^b)
and therefore that
c = (a^b)
(“To say that things are the way they are is the same as saying that God exists and made them that way”). If c is T, then
