Let us examine the "Best Explanation Move." The Best Explanation Move is a scientific move. It is founded on having a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations. This is known as the scientific method or the "Hypothetico-Deductive" method. We pose a series of hypotheses and then see if the predicted consequences actually follow. If they do, we conclude that a hypothesis is confirmed. Two conditions must be met for the best explanation move: 1. The first condition to be met is that you must have a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations, and 2. The second condition is that a hypothesis has to do a better job than any of its existing rivals. I will use two examples to illustrate:
For example, we now think that infectious diseases are the result of microorganisms. In the past, people used to think that disease was the result of bad air, usually the night air--or the result of being inhabited by evil spirits. A simplified discussion of this is revealed in the following argument, with:
h = germ theory of disease
O1 = when we examine the blood and lungs of those who have an infectious disease (such as tuberculosis) we find a microorganism ( in the case of tuberculosis, the mycobacterium tubuerculosis)
O2 = the observation that when this microorganism is injected into animals who can contract the disease, and they do contract
O3= those who have never been exposed to the disease do not have the microorganism
h' = infectious disease is caused either by bad night air or by evil spirits.
P1. If h, then O1, O2, O3
P2. O1, O2, O3
P3. h does a better job in explaining the disease phenomena than h'.
P4. h fits in with other related h's that are themselves confirmed.
C. Therefore, h.
These premises are ones we have greater confidence in because the battle between the germ theory and its major rivals is one that is over. Now, there may be some groups, for example, Christian Scientists, who still think that diseases are a result of not being in the proper relation to God, and there will always be disagreements among people. Nevertheless, the fact of disagreement does not show that we are not justified in asserting with great confidence that we are correct. However, we must be prepared to look at new evidence and admit, however unlikely we now think this is, that our theory was mistaken.
The requirement of P3-- that a hypothesis has to do a better job than its existing rivals--is the key to what makes an acceptable hypothesis. The germ theory accounts for such phenomena as transmission of disease, and gives a theoretical foundation for vaccination.
Let us look at another example; human reproduction. One hypothesis is that sperm contains a complete human being--a homunculus--and that the egg contains the nutrients for the growth of this homunculus. The hypothesis we think is correct is that half of a newborn's genetic material is supplied by the sperm, and half by the egg, and there is no homonculus. While both explain human reproduction, the contemporary genetic account is better, as it explains heredity as well as the fact of reproduction. It fits with other biological findings, and allows us to develop crops and animals suitable for certain environments. This is generally true of competing hypotheses: We choose the one that does a better job in explaining the phenomena, not the one that simply does a job in explaining the phenomena.
Now, let us cut to the chase.
In the following video, Craig argues in a manner that I will demonstrate undermines his best explanation move for the existence of God:
According to Craig, some atheist's arguments have the following form:
P1. If God existed, then we would expect to see _________________.
P2. But we do not find ______________.
C. Therefore, one concludes that God does not exist.
Craig goes on to make two general claims about this "style" of argumentation. his first claim is that it is enormously presumptuous because:
"Who's to say God has to fulfill our expectations? How can we predict with any confidence what God will do if he existed?"
"Who's to say God has to fulfill our expectations? How can we predict with any confidence what God will do if he existed?"
Note, that P1 and P2 of this "style" of argumentation is exactly what is required to make the "BEST EXPLANATION MOVE" as I pointed out above. The "BEST EXPLANATION MOVE" requires a hypothesis which makes predictions which are confirmed by observations. Craig is implying that this cannot be done with any confidence. This means that Craig's best explanation move for the existence of God is IMPOTENT.
Craig goes on to say that:
"If we find our expectations aren't met, then isn't it the better part of discretion or humility to reexamine and revise those expectations? We're simply not in a position to dictate to God that He has to act in accordance with our expectations." Craig can be seen doing this in the video.
The implication of Craig's reasoning is that no hypotheses, and no predictions from those hypotheses, and no observations can be made which dis-confirm the existence of God. For as Craig says, " it is the better part of discretion or humility to reexamine and revise those expectations," when those expectations are not confirmed. This commits the Ad hoc hypothesis fallacy, the use of an unsubstantiated hypothesis to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory. In some instances, the ad hoc maneuver is permissible and advantageous. But when it is merely used to immunize ones' hypothesis from criticism and empirical refutation, it is despicable. According to Boudry & Braeckman an immunizing strategy is:
"... as an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic ‘defense mechanism’ is defined as an internal structural feature of a belief system, which has the same effect of deflecting rational arguments and empirical refutations."*
If asked, "What is the best explanation for God?"--what predictions can be confirmed for the existence of God?--using Craig's reasoning, all and none. For if the observations dis-confirm the existence of God, just revise your hypothesis!! The God explanation predicts everything, and whatever predicts everything---predicts nothing. Que Sera Sera--Whatever will be, will be. Craig's best explanation move for the existence of God fails to meet the first condition of a best explanation move; you must have a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations.
Therefore, Craig's "Best Explanation Move" for the Existence of God is IMPOTENT!
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Craig's Best Explanation Move for the Existence of God had met condition one.--which it did not. Does it meet the second condition that a hypothesis has to do a better job than any of its existing rivals?
On numerous occasions, Craig uses the "best explanation" move. According to Craig, the best explanation for the existence of the universe is God, and the best explanation for the existence of God is the existence of the universe. Craig commits the common fallacy of circular reasoning. Craig's reasoning here is viciously circular.
Therefore, Craig's "Best Explanation Move" for the Existence of God based on the best explanation of the existence of the universe, is IMPOTENT!
In my upcoming post, "William Lane Craig Defeated Part 3, The Existence of Contingent Beings," I will provide further support for the plausibility of the explanation of the existence of the universe being in "its own nature," as being THE BEST EXPLANATION for the existence of the universe. This will be posted shortly.
*Boudry, M. and J. Braeckman (2010). Immunizing strategies & epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia. doi:10.1007/s11406-010-9254-9
*Boudry, M. and J. Braeckman (2010). Immunizing strategies & epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia. doi:10.1007/s11406-010-9254-9
11 comments:
You are amazing ! Love it ! wow ! Thanks love your Blog can't wait to come back !Very impressive. I feel like I could live here.Keep up the good work will take me awhile to read all of this ,but love what I see ! Once again WOW ! sbj1964 Intense Debate
Cathy, I'm sorry to reveal this to you, but the Inference to the Best Explanation is an epistemic approach that is applied in one circumstance, and the hypothetic-deductive approach is one that is applied in other circumstances. You are wrong to equate the two. See the discussion over on my blog...
Tom,
Note, the inference to the best explanation is not just an epistemic approach; it relies on the Hypothetico-deductive method.
What is the best explanation for the existence of the universe? Is the answer to this question just something we know without making any inferences that are based evidence?--NO, as you yourself called it the INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION.
For an inference is:
a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
b. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.
So, in either way, an inductive or deductive argument is only as good its premises, and those premises must be true for a deductive argument to be sound, and the premises must have a high probability of being true for an inductive argument to be strong. For a premise to be true, or have a high probability of being true, they must correspond to the facts in an external world. Therefore, the inference to the best explanation is not just an "epistemic" approach. The best explanation for the existence of the universe must be supported by evidence--not just "I KNOW it is so."
You are just wrong, Cathy, to equate the abductive method (iBE) with the Hypothetic-Deductive method. They are two different approaches to acquiring knowledge; they are two different epistemic approaches. They have different purposes and are relevant in different circumstances. IBE is not, as you claim, a "scientific move," at least not necessarily and not always. I could use IBE to determine whether a certain musical piece was written by Beethoven or Brahms. So your equating the two epistemic approaches displays a surprising lack of understanding.
Beyond that, I would urge you not to rely on urbanelf's presentation here, for he lifts Craig's comments out of context. He complains about that which Craig did not explain, but he does it after having excised Craig's explanations. It's poor practice to do that, wouldn't you agree?
So the rest of your discussion here stands on very shaky ground. Why not examine what Craig actually said, instead of urbanelf's self-serving edited version?
@ Tom Gilson part 1
Actually, I am not wrong. I am a pragmatist, and I agree with Peirce. IBE, what Peirce called abduction is meaningless without the Hypothetico-Deductive method. This is especially true when we have competing explanations--the only way to tell that one explanation is "lovelier, better, and so on" than another is to test it.*
Let us consider Tom Gilson's example: "I could use IBE to determine whether a certain musical piece was written by Beethoven or Brahms." Assume we have competing explanations, as we do in the case of the explanations for the existence of the universe. How would we determine which competing alternative explanations as to whether a certain musical piece was written by Beethoven or Brahms, is the best explanation?--why, by deduction or by induction. If by deduction, reasoning from a general truth, to a particular instance of that truth. A deductive proof must be valid, that is have the correct logical form, and must be sound, that is the premises must be true. How do we verify that the premises are true? This ultimately ends up being verified by induction. Consider this classic syllogism:
P1. All men are mortal
P2. Socrates is a man
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
We know P1 and P2 by way of induction, the process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations.
So, when we have alternative abductions, or IBE, as to whether a certain musical piece was written by Beethoven or Brahms, it would have to be confirmed by induction.
If by induction, ipso facto--induction!
Therefore, when we have alternative abductions, or IBE, as to whether a certain musical piece was written by Beethoven or Brahms, it would have to be confirmed by induction.
part 2
*As Peirce points out:
"Concerning the validity of Abductive inference, there is little to be said, although that little is pertinent to the problem we have in hand.
Abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea; for induction does nothing but determine a value, and deduction merely evolves the necessary consequences of a pure hypothesis.
Deduction proves that something must be; Induction shows that something actually is operative; Abduction merely suggests that something may be.
Its only justification is that from its suggestion deduction can draw a prediction which can be tested by induction, and that, if we are ever to learn anything or to understand phenomena at all, it must be by abduction that this is to be brought about.
No reason whatsoever can be given for it, as far as I can discover; and it needs no reason, since it merely offers suggestions." (Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.171-172, 1903)
"Accepting the conclusion that an explanation is needed when facts contrary to what we should expect emerge, it follows that the explanation must be such a proposition as would lead to the prediction of the observed facts, either as necessary consequences or at least as very probable under the circumstances. A hypothesis then, has to be adopted, which is likely in itself, and renders the facts likely. This step of adopting a hypothesis as being suggested by the facts, is what I call abduction. I reckon it as a form of inference, however problematical the hypothesis may be held. What are to be the logical rules to which we are to conform in taking this step? There would be no logic in imposing rules, and saying that they ought to be followed, until it is made out that the purpose of hypothesis requires them. [---] Ultimately, the circumstance that a hypothesis, although it may lead us to expect some facts to be as they are, may in the future lead us to erroneous expectations about other facts, -- this circumstance, which anybody must have admitted as soon as it was brought home to him, was brought home to scientific men so forcibly, first in astronomy, and then in other sciences, that it became axiomatical that a hypothesis adopted by abduction could only be adopted on probation, and must be tested. ('On the Logic of drawing History from Ancient Documents especially from Testimonies', CP 7.202, 1901)
As far as the video goes, what Craig says in the video stands on its own. I am not using anything urbanelf said. I am learning how to splice videos, and once I have it figured out, I will post Criag's statements by themselves. If you have an explanation or a context that you think will help Craig's case, please present it, and I will consider it, as I see none that will help in this case.
No, thank you, Cathy. As I wrote elsewhere, and I know you have read, you have not allowed other discussions here to proceed in good faith, and I do not care to be involved in that sort of thing.
All you've done is given the modus tollens, but you've left out something very important. I assume that you're using the hypothetic-deductive reasoning of Karl Popper, and Carl Hemple went over this type of reasoning. He said something like "If hypothesis is true, then observation will be true. Observation is not true. Therefore the hypothesis isn't true."
But you've left something out, because our scientific hypothesis have auxiliary hypothesis along with them to derive their observational predictions. So the form would go like this: "If hypothesis (and AH^1 and AH^2 and AH^3...AH^n) is true, then observation will be true. Observation isn't true. Therefore either hypothesis or AH^1 or AH^2 or AH^3...or AH^n is false."
The point is that you don't if the hypothesis is false or one of it's, or mulitple, auxiliary hypothesis are false. So you can't clearly refute a hypothesis like that.
The other problem is that Craig did make the good point of we can't really tell if god would work the way that we say they will. So the point is that an auxiliary hypothesis has been set up to derive the prediction with the hypothesis of god. So it seems that Craig would be objecting that the argument you, hypothetically, is setting up an auxiliary hypothesis that they wouldn't accept.
So the argument as a refutation isn't very good. You don't know if the hypothesis is wrong, you just know something is wrong somewhere, just not where.
@ anonymous Part 1
Actually, I am not just using modus tollens--modus tollens is part of the hypothetical deductive method in the sense that if the observations are not confirmed, then the hypothesis does not do a good job of predicting the observations, in which case it does a poor job in explaining the phenomena. Look at the simplified version of the H-D method again:
P1. If h, then O1, O2, O3
P2. O1, O2, O3
P3. h does a better job in explaining the disease phenomena than h'.
P4. h fits in with other related h's that are themselves confirmed.
C. Therefore, h.
As you can see, P3 says that h does a better job in explaining disease phenomena than h'. Thus, this is the BEST EXPLANATION move.
Let us examine Popper's characteristics of a scientific theory, which are as follows:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem".)
I presented a simplified version of the Hypothetico-Deductive method which is consistent with auxiliary hypotheses.
Anonymous, your statement below makes no sense:
"The point is that you don't if the hypothesis is false or one of it's, or mulitple, auxiliary hypothesis are false. So you can't clearly refute a hypothesis like that."
I would recommend that you reread the post, so you will realize that no such claim was made. Nowhere did I argue that we refute a hypothesis in the manner that you imply.
@ anonymous part 2
With regards to your second point:
"The other problem is that Craig did make the good point of we can't really tell if god would work the way that we say they will. So the point is that an auxiliary hypothesis has been set up to derive the prediction with the hypothesis of god. So it seems that Craig would be objecting that the argument you, hypothetically, is setting up an auxiliary hypothesis that they wouldn't accept."
What you say is not a problem for me, but is EXACTLY what is wrong with Craig's best explanation move!--which is what I pointed out, and argued in the post. To be precise, you say:
"Craig DID make the good point of we can't really tell if god would work the way that we say they will." But as Popper pointed out in #4: "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice." This is exactly what I iterated and demonstrated as being wrong with Craig's "best explanation move."
Craig cannot object, because I have not hypothetically set up an argument for him. Craig claims he is using the "best explanation move." and as I pointed out in my introduction: "'The Best Explanation Move' is a scientific move. It is founded on having a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations. This is known as the scientific method or the "Hypothetico-Deductive" method." Note, that this has nothing to do with me setting up any auxiliary hypotheses--you are just confused on this issue, as I pointed out above.
In fact, it is Craig, as I have pointed out in my post, that commits the ad hoc fallacy that Popper points out in #7! I iterated in my post: "The implication of Craig's reasoning is that no hypotheses, and no predictions from those hypotheses, and no observations can be made which dis-confirm the existence of God. For as Craig says, "it is the better part of discretion or humility to reexamine and revise those expectations," when those expectations are not confirmed. This commits the Ad hoc hypothesis fallacy, the use of an unsubstantiated hypothesis to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory."--and that would include any auxiliary hypotheses.
Also, as Philip Kitcher stated: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save" (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit)." But according to Craig, neither the hypothesis, nor the auxiliary hypothesis are testable. For as Craig says, "it is the better part of discretion or humility to reexamine and revise those expectations," when those expectations are not confirmed.
Therefore, to iterate my conclusion from above: "If asked, "What is the best explanation for God?"--what predictions can be confirmed for the existence of God?--using Craig's reasoning, all and none. For if the observations dis-confirm the existence of God, just revise your hypothesis!! The God explanation predicts everything, and whatever predicts everything---predicts nothing. Que Sera Sera--Whatever will be, will be. Craig's best explanation move for the existence of God fails to meet the first condition of a best explanation move; you must have a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations."
So, my argument and refutation of Craig's best explanation move works, and is good! William Lane Craig's "Best Explanation Move" for the existence of God is Impotent!
@Tom Gilson April 29, 2011 10:42 AM
I allow all discussions and arguments to proceed in a scholarly and dialectical manner. The fact that you can not refute my arguments and your examples do not work are not a matter of "good faith" but poor reasoning on your part.
Post a Comment