Basic Skepticism
John Edser
>>> JE:- For those interested, I will be formally debating Mr Simon
>>> Gunkel on the Dawkins Net debating forum on the following question:
>>> "While Darwinism stands proudly empirically falsifiable but not
>>> falsified, Neo Darwinism remains unfalsifiable"
>>> Mr Gunkel has confirmed that he will take the position that
>>> neodarwinism is falsifiable, whereas Darwinism as a model of
>>> evolution that does not include mendelian genetics has been
>>> falsified.
>>> At the moment I have no second. If anybody is interested as acting as
>>> second for the affirmative please let me know.
> Dear John Edser,
>
> On that basis, that I will not support your own affirmative position,
> only the negative about neodarwinism, I will accept nomination as a
> second.
>
> John Hewitt
Hi John,
Science withers and dies when everybody simply agrees with everybody
else. Take note of today's disheartening global warming debate where to
be a skeptic has been falsely reduced to a bad thing when it is always,
without exception, a good thing. Why has this happened? Simply because
falsifiability has been thrown out.
Without falsifiability any debate becomes reduced to just politics. The
scientific method isn't ambiguous on any of this. For example, the
principle of prudence allows us to assume that CO2 production via
increasing human industrial activity causes global warming, if and only
if, we actively work to provide a falsification for this. To my
knowledge, providing an empirical falsification for the most popular
theory for global warming is simply evaded within this singularly
important debate.
What is required for a successful scientific debate is a suspension of
belief _either way_. Foe the proposed debate on Dawkins Net, what
advocates personally believe must not interfere with the 2nd for the
affirmative acting for a bona fide affirmative view. IOW, like any
reputable lawyer, scientists are absolutely required (using just basic
scientific skepticism) to effectively argue for and against any theory.
Theories, like the accused in a court case, require people of
intelligence and integrity as advocates within ongoing debate,
_irrespective of the beliefs of the advocates_. What the law and science
hold in common is falsifiability. If a case cannot possibly be tested to
falsification, e.g. an accusation of witchcraft, then the hapless
accused cannot possibly provide an effective defense against the charge.
The big difference between contesting lawyers in a court case and
contesting theories within science is that lawyers are only required to
satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt. This means most court cases,
while they are required to remain falsifiable, need only be tested to
non verification and not to refutation. Non verification mostly requires
sharpened persuasive skills whereas a falsification requires honed,
rational skills. One is mostly politics while the other is science. If
the case brought against an accused stands falsified by the evidence
then the judge remains duty bound to simply throw it out as a waste of
the courts time.
While it may sometimes be useful to just "weigh the evidence", science
always requires testing to falsification and not just to non
verification. This is because _contradictory theories always remain 100%
incompatible_. One of them has to be falsified. Any suspension of
falsifiability for any reason inevitably allows a hidden contradiction
into a theory reducing it to the epistemological status of invalid.
I am happy to accept anybody to act as 2nd for the affirmative but only
if they agree to suspend their personal beliefs and _honestly_ advocate
for the affirmative _within this debate_.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher