12.27.05
Law blog on Dover
The Chicago Law School Faculty Blog has a good analysis of the problems in the Dover ruling. In an essay full of interesting points, here’s this:
The court argues that ID does not follow the ground rules of science because it is not “testable” or “falsifiable.” Like most writers on the subject, the court invokes the image of science associated with Karl Popper – a view still endorsed by many scientists but rejected for good reason by most philosophers of science.
It is a strange paradox that modern science has impoverished philosophies of science, Popper being far less watered down than most, with cryptic roots in Kant via Schopenhauer disguised from public view. Because he still has some life left in him, he tends to be the ‘take me to you leader’ candidate, his falsification criterion somehow a allowing one to get a handle on scientific methodology, most failing to realize the curious aspects of this.
Richard Holden said,
December 28, 2005 at 7:00 pm
It is strange how even Behe talked about falsifiability, so even ID scientists are not immune from this outdated view of the philosophy of science. Especially as taking a Kuhnian view would have perhaps been more advantageous for ID supporters, as his paradigms allow less to justify scientific knowledge being privileged than Popper does. Whether or not ID is a scientific knowledge was to a degree irrelevant surely? All that mattered constitutionally was whether it had a religious character to it, which surely cannot be denied.