|
Welcome to
Brights.ca A Bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic. A Bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a Bright are based on a naturalistic worldview. The simple noun term, "bright" gathers up all persons who hold a naturalistic worldview (nonreligous-at large and those in the various communities of reason) under the same umbrella. Under the broad umbrella, as Brights, these people can gain social and political power in a society infused with supernaturalism. A web log for Brights engaged in being humane with people of Faith. |
|
- Why I Deny Religion, ..., By the Amzing James Randi
- The Brights Are Coming, ... By Richard Dawkins
- Ayn Rand's Objectivism
- The-Brights.com
- Being.ca
- NoBeliefs.com
- Edge.org - Inviews with leading edge thinkers.
- Meet some Free Thinkers and some Brights and some
more Brights.
by
Peter William Lount, peter@brights.ca
July 30th, 2003
A scientific theory must be testable to have the chance of being considered valid. One of the tests that all scientific theories must pass is the falsifiability criterion, which is essential if a theory is to be considered valid.
The falsifiability criterion requires that a scientific theory must have the possibility of being proven invalid. A theory is not a valid theory if there is no way to prove it wrong, invalid or inaccurate. Essentialy it must be possible to have a test or tests of a theory the proving of which would disprove the theory.
An unfalsifiable theory is one that can't be proven wrong by any evidence. That is, if it's impossible to prove the theory wrong then the theory is not a scientific theory. It's something else, but it's not a scientific theory.
For example:
The problem is that if God did a perfect job of creating the Universe to look like it's billions of years old there is no way for us to disprove the Seven Day Creation Theory (since God did a perfect job of not leaving any evidence).
On the one hand the theory says that it will present evidence of a "Young Earth" but takes refuge in the "you can't prove it wrong" since it's all an illusion anyway. This theory can't ever be disproven since they reject all contrary evidence such as radioactive dating methods and especially since their theory requires the existance of a magical super being that provides an illusion that the Earth (& Universe) is old. Thus Creationism isn't falsifiable which means that it doesn't satisify the key falsifiable test that all scientific theories must pass, therefore Creationism isn't a valid scientific theory.
Creationism relies on the assumption that there is a God and as such it is a religious view of creation of the Universe. Unfortunately for those who believe in God (or Gods) modern science, due to the rigerous tests for validity of a theory with the scientific method, has put the burden of proof squarely in laps of the advocates of a theory. If Creationists want to compare their Creation Theory side by side with a scientificly valid theory they must play by the rules of science. Since Creation Theory does not pass the falsifiability test Creation Theory must be adapted in such as way as to pass the falsifiability test. The only alternative for Creation Theory will be to stay relegated to the dust bin of the many discarded theories of realtiy.
One approach would be for Creationism to drop the "illusion of age" argument. However, they still have the problem that they reject the scientific basis of the radioactive dating methods. What they need is evidence of the "young earth" and that is what they are going after. From the fragments of that evidence I've heard presented not of it's credible. Yes there are mysteries and yes information is lost about the past.
One of the great many concerns that I have with their arguments is that the argue that we can't learn anything "reliable" or "proven" from earlier than the earliest human writing since before then there are no "witness accounts" by people who lived. They simply reject any usefullness of what can be said with radioactive dating methods, geological evidence and it's intrepretion, let alone archeology and the inferences that are possible. Certainly many scientists and researchers have made errors and some have been proven wrong later, but this is a part of the development of new theories or adjustments to old theories that is at the heart of human progress in the sciences.
A potent issue is that many people believe in the absolute truth of Creationism (and other religious creation myths) with it's fundamental assumption of the existance of God. This leads to serious social and global security problems as religious persons around the world attempt to come to grips with the harsh reality that their religion is no longer a valid explaination of reality. While this realization has been unfolding for thousands of years modern science has accelerated the "pressure". The challenge for people coming to terms with the implications of modern science on their religious lives is many fold. Some choose to reject science outright and perform extreme acts of violence in the name of their God. It's ironic that most religions teach peaceful co-existance with their fellow human beings yet so many have been killed in the name of God. Others take a more peaceful approach and this is good for us all.
May you live in peace and choose the path of peace whether you are a Bright person or a person of Faith.
All the best,
Peter William Lount
July 30th, 2003
A scientific theory must be testable to have the chance of being considered valid. One of the tests that all scientific theories must pass is the falsifiability criterion, which is essential if a theory is to be considered valid.
The falsifiability criterion requires that a scientific theory must have the possibility of being proven invalid. A theory is not a valid theory if there is no way to prove it wrong, invalid or inaccurate. Essentialy it must be possible to have a test or tests of a theory the proving of which would disprove the theory.
An unfalsifiable theory is one that can't be proven wrong by any evidence. That is, if it's impossible to prove the theory wrong then the theory is not a scientific theory. It's something else, but it's not a scientific theory.
For example:
In a lengthly and indepth conversation with someone, that I care about, recently the issue of whether or not Creationism is a valid theory or not was discussed. The point was put forward by this person that it's possible that God created the Universe in seven days and made it look like the Universe was really old to test us. I agreed that that is possible and asked how likely is it and how can this "Creation Theory" be tested? If there is evidence that this "created quickly but looks old universe" is the case this would, needless to say, rock the foundations of not just modern science but all of society since this would likely be enough proof that God exists. What would this evidence look like? None was presented."Your neighbor thinks Martians live in his head (very small Martians, you imagine). If you X-ray his head and show no Martians, he says they're invisible to X-rays. If you open his head up surgically and see no Martians, he says they disappear when exposed to oxygen. No matter what test you come up with, you never show any evidence of the Martians in his head, but that makes no difference. He always has an explanation. His idea about the Martians cannot be falsified and therefore is not scientific." - Physics Department, Henderson State University
The problem is that if God did a perfect job of creating the Universe to look like it's billions of years old there is no way for us to disprove the Seven Day Creation Theory (since God did a perfect job of not leaving any evidence).
On the one hand the theory says that it will present evidence of a "Young Earth" but takes refuge in the "you can't prove it wrong" since it's all an illusion anyway. This theory can't ever be disproven since they reject all contrary evidence such as radioactive dating methods and especially since their theory requires the existance of a magical super being that provides an illusion that the Earth (& Universe) is old. Thus Creationism isn't falsifiable which means that it doesn't satisify the key falsifiable test that all scientific theories must pass, therefore Creationism isn't a valid scientific theory.
Creationism relies on the assumption that there is a God and as such it is a religious view of creation of the Universe. Unfortunately for those who believe in God (or Gods) modern science, due to the rigerous tests for validity of a theory with the scientific method, has put the burden of proof squarely in laps of the advocates of a theory. If Creationists want to compare their Creation Theory side by side with a scientificly valid theory they must play by the rules of science. Since Creation Theory does not pass the falsifiability test Creation Theory must be adapted in such as way as to pass the falsifiability test. The only alternative for Creation Theory will be to stay relegated to the dust bin of the many discarded theories of realtiy.
One approach would be for Creationism to drop the "illusion of age" argument. However, they still have the problem that they reject the scientific basis of the radioactive dating methods. What they need is evidence of the "young earth" and that is what they are going after. From the fragments of that evidence I've heard presented not of it's credible. Yes there are mysteries and yes information is lost about the past.
One of the great many concerns that I have with their arguments is that the argue that we can't learn anything "reliable" or "proven" from earlier than the earliest human writing since before then there are no "witness accounts" by people who lived. They simply reject any usefullness of what can be said with radioactive dating methods, geological evidence and it's intrepretion, let alone archeology and the inferences that are possible. Certainly many scientists and researchers have made errors and some have been proven wrong later, but this is a part of the development of new theories or adjustments to old theories that is at the heart of human progress in the sciences.
A potent issue is that many people believe in the absolute truth of Creationism (and other religious creation myths) with it's fundamental assumption of the existance of God. This leads to serious social and global security problems as religious persons around the world attempt to come to grips with the harsh reality that their religion is no longer a valid explaination of reality. While this realization has been unfolding for thousands of years modern science has accelerated the "pressure". The challenge for people coming to terms with the implications of modern science on their religious lives is many fold. Some choose to reject science outright and perform extreme acts of violence in the name of their God. It's ironic that most religions teach peaceful co-existance with their fellow human beings yet so many have been killed in the name of God. Others take a more peaceful approach and this is good for us all.
May you live in peace and choose the path of peace whether you are a Bright person or a person of Faith.
All the best,
Peter William Lount
The Bright Light of Life Shines Upon
Us