“Evolution shows that the design argument puts the cart before the horse. Natural Selection, as Dr. Schmidt appositely remarks, accounts for adaptation as a result without requiring the supposition of design as a cause. And if you cannot deduce God from the animate world, you are not likely to deduce him from the inanimate.” –G.W. Foote (Dean Stanley’s Latest, August 1881)
Evolution
Why Plantinga’s EAAN Argument is a Non-Sequitur (Update)
In Christian theologian Alvin Plantinga’s book Warrant and Proper Function, Plantinga argues that, if both:
(N) naturalism – the view that there are no supernatural beings
(E) evolution – current evolutionary doctrine
are true, then the probability that:
(R) our cognitive faculties are reliable and produce mostly true beliefs must be either low or inscrutable.
Plantinga claims that this argument gives anyone who accepts N&E with a undefeatable defeater for any belief produced by those faculties, including N&E itself. Hence, N&E has been shown to be self-defeating (this is his Evolutionary argument against naturalism).
Basically, he is saying that “the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low.”
Now I am not going to criticize Plantinga’s skills of philosophy, but it seems to me he actually hasn’t thought about the ramifications of the claim.
If no cognitive judgments can be made, then rationality, is an illusion. We only think we are being rational, but in reality, our ability to make a rational, cognitive, decision would exhibit the same probability as a coin toss.
I offer an extremely easy to do scientific experiment which would show that Plantinga’s theory is, in truth, a non-issue. It’s basically a non-sequitur, and here’s why.
Let’s test the theory. We shall use a coin. We will give a control group certain problems to solve, while another group will be given the same problems. These problems will require using the cognitive function of the brain and thinking rationally to solve. While the other group will be attempting to answering the same problems based on random coin tosses.
If we see that the ratio of cognitive based problem solvers happen to provide the correct answer, and solve more problems, more often than the coin tossing based problem solvers then we can safely say cognitive function exists–regardless of whether naturalism and evolution both being true makes the probability of cognitive function low. Indeed, having tested the ration of random coin tosses with the ability to rationalize we would at least know, that having validated cognitive function, that the existence of cognitive function is real despite Plantinga’s theory that it would be nearly non-existent.
So we must test it. Here is my proposal.
Here are five simple problems to solve for both test groups. Remember, group A gets to use their “thinking caps” while group B must solve the problems with a coin toss.
1. Before eating your breakfast cereal, should you a) poor milk onto it, or b) poor gasoline onto it?
2. Is the following sentence grammatically correct? “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
3. John is twenty years younger than Amy, and in five years’ time he will be half her age. What is John’s age now?
4. Solve for J:
- J = A − 20
- J + 5 = (A + 5)/2
5. Do problems #3 and #4 represent the same question, yes or no?
Now, just as an aside, I do not expect anyone to actually eat the cereal with the gasoline on it, as it would likely prove lethal, or at the very least, make them horribly ill.
My point here was to show that our cognitive capacity to rationalize should always met out the correct answer, unless of course, the person is brain damaged or mentally ill and cannot differentiate between something toxic like gasoline and something like milk. But such a case would be so rare that it probably needs no further consideration.
The test reveals the cognitive capacity to rationalize and think through the problems outweighs the random coin tosses when giving us the correct answer, allowing us to definitively say that human cognitive function exists while evolution and naturalism both are true–and this would just make Plantinga’s argument a non-sequitur, because it hinges on the notion that cognitive function would either be an illusion, in which case his argument is mute, or extremely low–which it does not appear to be. It’s a 100% verifiable.
Proof of cognitive function, then, renders the claim that naturalism and evolution cannot both be true erroneous. By initiating the test which is designed to prove and confirm that cognitive processes are not an illusion, because they are shown work when aiding us in problem solving whereas random coin tosses do not work, allows us to dismiss Plantinga’s theory as incorrect and Plantinga’s premise is falsified.
A simpler, more basic, test which does likewise is is to take a picture of red colored square, with the following question written in black letters underneath, “What color is the (above) triangle, yellow or blue?” and show it to someone. Have them read the card, and then watch their reaction to the cognitive dissonance it generates.
A thinking mind could and should be able to detect the dilemma that causes cognitive dissonance. There is no triangle, it’s a square. It’s not yellow nor blue, but it is red.
Of course, anyone can do this because we all recognized there are such things as different colors, or at least we believe there are, and the ability to detect the difference shows we hold a basic belief about the difference between colors. The same goes for detecting different shapes.
Moreover, our belief that the question is misleading, and wrong, and our cognitive capacity to make a correlation between the image and the incorrect information imbedded within the questioning cannot be, as Plantinga admits, an illusion. If it were, it would suggest that the belief that triangles and squares are geometrically dissimilar is false. It would suggest that, in actuality, they are the same.
Now stop to think about this for a moment… how can two entirely different geometric objects, each containing a different number of points and lines, be indistinguishable from one another? They can’t. This falsifies Plantinga’s theory–because we can rationalize that our belief in the difference of colors and shapes is not an illusion when it is a proberly basic belief, otherwise there is no such thing as properly basic beliefs.
[Note: The beliefs being properly basic, if cognition was an illusion, then cognitive dissonance couldn’t arrise. An illusion cannot arise from the destruction of a prior illusion, unless of course, the beliefs weren’t properly basic to begin with. Red is red, not yellow nor blue. If it were an illusion, then this admits that red could be classified as something other than red, but it appears to us redly so it must be a properly basic belief. Hence, it cannot appear to us wrongly, meaning if it is said to be a color other than it appears to be, then our cognitive reasoning kicks in and informs us that something is not right, i.e. it sparks cognitive dissonance, thereby demonstrating cognition is not inscrutable or illusionary, but is entirely real.]
Whether or not evolution and naturalism negate each other, it seems that such an inference is refuted by the basic evidence we contain which shows evolution to be a natural process. Maybe there is something more philosophically complex that I am missing, but not being a professional philosopher, perhaps I am not qualified to say, but Stephen Law refutes Plantinga’s theory here, showing evolution and naturalism to be fully compatible.
Personally, knowing that our cognitive function isn’t impaired in the slightest, and knowing the abundance of natural evidence which suggests evolution is true, I would surmise that Plantinga has probably misunderstood something about the nature of evolution or has not fully thought out naturalism. I would hate to have to say this about such an esteemed philosopher, but one has to wonder, why such an esteemed philosopher never thought about how his theory might be falsified and discredited. I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to give you the correct rational response to, “Should you poor milk on your breakfast cereal or gasoline?” You can ask any child and they’ll give you the correct answer.
Such a simple test should have been considered by Plantinga before he posited his theory–but having failed to do so makes him seem like either a bad philosopher, dead wrong, or biased to the point where he can’t seem to admit that his theory is a non-sequitur from the start; which means Plantinga doesn’t expect his theory to be falsified–he expects you to agree with him that naturalism and evolution are incompatible (or inscrutable). Which they are not, due to the amazing gift we have which is cognition and the ability to think rationally, as proved by my five question quiz and simple cognitive function test with the red square.
Therefore, I have offered a scientific proof, a test anyone can run (and see for themselves), which proves cognition and completely falsifies Plantinga’s theory that N&E are incompatible. The only recourse Plantinga has now is to point out that N&E together only make our cognitive facilities a low probability–not entirely impossible–just improbable. But if that is the recourse, then why offer the theory in the first place? As you can clearly see, the theory is a non-sequitur any which way you look at it. It beats me why philosophers continue to keep resurrecting it. It didn’t work for C.S. Lewis back when he offered it in his book Miracles, and it certainly doesn’t work for Plantinga now.
Although it is not directly related to the above essay, I felt I needed to share the observation I made while thinking about how to falsify Plantinga’s theory. It seems to me, the above refutation highlights an issue philosophers like Plantinga, and those who follow in his footsteps, need to start to seriously address. Science can discredit poor philosophy, but philosophy will never be able to discredit science. Plantinga wants to discredit naturalism and evolution to maintain his belief in a metaphysical supreme creator God–but having showed individual cognition is real–the burden is on Plantinga to explain how evolution x naturalism, something we have strong evidence for, is somehow less true than unfounded metaphysical assumptions. I do not think anyone who is honest with themselves would even try to deny that cognitive function and naturalism x evolution are 100% real–therefore another theory must be offered if Plantinga wants us to buy into his metaphysical propositions, which are far as I can tell, are completely without basis.
[ If you’re not familiar with Alvin Plantinga, or his work, I have provided a link which Plantinga explains properly basic beliefs. I’ll let you decide the merit of his arguments for yourself.]
[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the “follow” tab next to the “Blogger” icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says “join this site.” Thanks!]
Understanding Science Better: What is Science?
Understanding Science Better
I for one feel it is imperative to educate people about the merits of science. But before we can do that, we have to talk about what science is, and only then can we come to a better understanding of science.
Personally, I am no scientist. But I did take numerous science classes in astronomy, biology, chemistry, human physiology, and psychology at a prestigious university of science. Also, I practically devour any scientific work of popular literature I can get my hands on–especially in the areas of cosmology, evolution, and neuroscience. Occasionally, I read scientific journals and articles, just to keep with the times. So I think it’s safe to assume that I have an idea of what science is.
Here is what I understand science to be (but don’t take my word for it–read a book–reading rainbow).
Science, as we use it colloquially, commonly refers to the scientific method. As such, science is basically just a methodology for testing the validity of evidence.
This is exactly why science makes no assumptions, mind you. It can’t actually make judgements until it has tested evidence first. After a lot of observation and testing, the evidence either proves true, or else, it proves false. No assumptions made. Just pure discovery.
In addition, we must be mindful not to confuse science (the methodology) with a scientific theory. They too are different things.
A scientific theory is hypothesis in which a premise, a principle, supposition, or proposed explanation is made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation–and which relies on science for either confirmation or falsification of that hypothesis.
Fending Off Scientific Illiteracy
Often times we hear a scientist, or scientifically literate person, defend the merits of genuine science from the cultish anti-science fear mongers–who toss around science as a pejorative term. I recently encountered someone who, without intending to, simply made an ass of himself by demonstrating a flabbergasting ignorance as to what constitutes science.
We all have run into someone like this at least once. They are so certain they know a lot on a subject they clearly have never taken the time to study or inform themselves about the least. Most of the time we choose to ignore them, because their blatant Lingua Franca like appreciation of the subject matter, usually is a dead give away. Surely there is nothing we can say or do to convince them that their knowledge is wanting, because in their eyes, they know all there is to know.
I have an aunt that thinks eating microwave popcorn will give you cancer. She asserts her views as a matter of fact, but it never ceases to confound me at to why she continues to keep a microwave oven in her kitchen. Maybe the kitchen came with it? Who knows. But what concerns me is where she is getting her information. After all, there is no reason to believe microwave popcorn will give you cancer–but she heard it at church–and, well, instead of Googling how a microwave oven works she took a different authority’s word for it. An authority who, predictably, is as scientifically ignorant as my poor aunt.
I want to begin to correct this painful, and embarrassing, form of scientific ignorance–and the only way to do that is to highlight the mistakes and make people aware of them. It’s the same as getting a test back from a teacher with dozens of red marks littering the page. The red marks are the red flags showing you the areas where you are completely ignorant. The idea of highlighting the mistakes is to, hopefully, ensure that the erudite student will go back and study those vital areas–and educate themselves more thoroughly. But most people, it seems, aren’t concerned with improving their understanding–they usually just take things at face value.
Needless to say, this causes the conversations to go downhill rather fast. The conversations often look something like this:
Scientific Minded Person, “We gain new knowledge not from religion but from the sciences?”
Religious Minded Person, “No … all scientifical knowledge is provisional and limited to the assumptions of science.”
Please don’t mistake my criticism of the problem as being unduly harsh on scientifically illiterate folk by making them sound borderline retarded. Heck, nobody would actually say “scientifical” now, would they? Actually, yes–this is an exact segment of a transcript of a conversation I have been reading on a forum where this religious fellow thinks all “scientifical” knowledge is provisional and limited by the “scientifical” assumptions it makes, apparently.
Perhaps what our “scientifical” minded friend was doing when he said that science makes assumptions is confusing general theories, or hypothesis, with formal scientific theories. But a working theory and a basic assumption are two very different things, as everyone well knows.
When informed that science doesn’t, in point of fact, make any assumptions at all, his reply was:
“Show me a scientific factual evidence that 2 + 2 = 4.”
The problem here is clear. Science is not the same thing as logic.
Both science and logic are methods of validation, but science often times runs counter-intuitive to logic. Logic dictates, for example, that something cannot come from nothing. But science, in the field of quantum mechanics, has shown that this logic doesn’t always hold. Subatomic particles, for example, phases in and out of existence all the time.
What we can say is that both science and logic are concerned with validating our understanding so that it might constitute real knowledge, and helps to paint a better picture of the reality in which we live.
Whereas science is concerned with the validity of evidence, logic is concerned with the validity of various types of rationale/beliefs. Unlike science, logic doesn’t test evidence. It tests the coherency of any given premise based on certain ideas/beliefs about the world.
Logic = rational tool for testing the coherency of ideas/beliefs.
Science = pragmatic tool for testing the validity of evidence.
Additionally, if something holds to be logically sound, then it becomes a formal proof. Even so, it still could be falsified, or merely theoretical, so should be considered provisional for these reasons.
As long as the logic is sound, however, then science is able to acquiesce the proof as a form of empirical support for helping to further along a hypothesis or else falsify it as counterfactual.
Conclusion
By talking about what science is, and doing away with all the misrepresentations, hopefully we can sponsor a greater interest in considering the merits of science and the impact is has on our everyday lives. My goal here has not been to explain how to do science. For that you should consult a real scientist. My goal here has simply been to detail a (hopefully) accurate representation of what science is and means.
Because the Truth Matters or Darwin vs. the Holy Flaming Snowflake of God!
Evolution Under Attack (Futurama)
So true. So true indeed. I liked the FSM cameo! What a hoot!
Questions Atheists Can’t Answer: ANSWERED!
And then this preview sample for the Atheist Bible including the “atheist” bits:
What does this say? Mainly that “to do good” is a choice, “compassion” is a human trait which stems from our ability to perceive suffering (even mental anguish), and empathy comes from our understanding that when something bad happens we have the capacity to place ourselves in the other person’s shoes and realize that we would not want to undergo the burden they endure. Checkmate Ray!