Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The Explanatory Filter (EF) in Action

EvoTARDs are so clueless they don't understand how archaeology, forensic science and SETI go about making a design inference. They don't seem to be able to grasp Newton's four rules of scientific investigation:

Sir Isaac Newton was a significant contributor to the Scientific Revolution. Newton believed that scientific theory should be coupled with rigorous experimentation, and he published four rules of scientific reasoning in Principia Mathematica (1686) that form part of modern approaches to science:
  1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
  2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
  3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
  4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.
Newton’s rules of scientific reasoning have proved remarkably enduring. His first rule is now commonly called the principle of parsimony, and states that the simplest explanation is generally the most likely. The second rule essentially means that special interpretations of data should not be used if a reasonable explanation already exists. The third rule suggests that explanations of phenomena determined through scientific investigation should apply to all instances of that phenomenon. Finally, the fourth rule lays the philosophical foundation of modern scientific theories, which are held to be true unless demonstrated otherwise. This is not to say that theories are accepted without evidence, nor that they can’t change – theories are built upon long lines of evidence, often from multiple pieces of research, and they are subject to change as that evidence grows.

That means if necessity and chance can account for something then we don't infer a designer was required as that would be admitting a cause that is not required.

What's the point? The point is all design inferences use the EF or some reasonable facsimile thereof. That means archaeology uses it. Forensic science uses it. SETI uses it. Insurance investigators use it. If they don't then they have a high risk of having their design inference overturned. That's because all someone else has to do is demonstrate that nature could do it and that design inference is shit.

So the next time someone sez that no one uses the EF just call that person an ignoramus and be thankful they are not an investigator.


Post a Comment

<< Home