Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Yesterday, I burned my copy of Darwin's Black Box. Just so you know.

> I guess I could have just thrown it away. But I was worried that 
> somebody might, you know, read it...

  One of the most common tactics used by all kinds of denialists,
young-earth creationists and the like is to try to come up with
objections or exceptions to a well-established scientific theory,
and then from that claim that the theory is completely false.

  True valid objections or contradictions with the theory are usually
extremely rare. In most cases they have an explanation that is completely
in accordance with the theory and do not even require any special
exceptions to be made. (In most cases these seeming contradictions are
nothing more than misinterpretations of the described phenomenon, often
done deliberately even after they are fully explained.)

  Even in the extremely few cases where a truly valid objection is
made, that doesn't mean that the theory is automatically false. Usually
it simply means that the real reason for the apparent contradiction
(which might be very simple) has not been found yet or, even more
rarely, the theory needs some fine-tuning to account the new data.

  For example, the newtonian theory of gravity is not wrong *per se*.
It's just that it applies (and pretty accurately at that) only at
normal everyday scales and velocities. It's only when you go very
small, very dense or very fast that it starts to deviate noticeably.
Newtonian gravity was insufficient to explain *all* phenomena, but the
theory that replaced it (ie. general relativity) doesn't actually contradict
it in those circumstances (ie. low velocities, everyday scales), but in
fact it can be reduced to the newtonian formulas.

  Likewise there are some observations made that seem to contradict
general relativity (such as the pioneer anomaly, the flyby anomaly
and the orbital velocities of stars in galaxies). However, these
unexplained contradictions do not mean that general relativity is
automatically false. It just means that either we have not yet found
the reason for them (which at least in the two first cases might be
mundane), or general relativity requires more fine-tuning to account
for them (something which so far seems unlikely).

  Anyways, these denialists and creationists seem to think that even if
there are hundreds and thousands of experiments that confirm a certain
theory, if you present a few dozens that seem to contradict it, that
means that the theory is completely false.

  What's funny is that this kind of thinking does not go only against
the scientific method, it actually goes against common sense and
everyday human experience.

  For example, if you take a stone with your hand and let go of it,
it will fall down. Take a pencil, same thing. Take a thousand different
objects, and the same thing. They all fall down. Hence the conclusion is
that all objects fall down. Moreover, you can make experiments to see
how fast they fall down: Do they all fall down at the same speed? Can you
devise a formula that will predict how long it will take for the object
to hit the ground?

  Then someone comes and says: "Hey, look at that bird. It's in the air
and it's not falling down. Or how about that helicopter. It isn't falling
down either. Clearly all these experiments and formulas of yours are
bollocks. It's all a big lie."

  The scientific way of thinking about that claim is, of course: "Hmm,
what is it that makes the bird and the helicopter keep in the air and
not fall down? Let's find out. Let's observe and do some experiments."
Then you study the phenomenon and see that it doesn't actually contradict
your experience of objects falling down. It's just that there's another
explanation for them not falling down.

  The creationist way of thinking seems to be: "Hah. These two examples
clearly show that the theory of objects falling down is bollocks. That's
enough for me."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message