Is God an unscientific theory?

Not to wax all semantical here but... strictly speaking, the criterion is that the entity in question must be falsifiable at least in theory, if not empirically.

This was the main thrust of the post-Vienna Circle Positivists, so as to allow strictly logical entities.
 
Supreme Court of the U.S. Chief Justice Rehnquist had a problem with Popper. "Only with regard to factors judges might use in screening evidence did Justice Rehnquist dissent.18 He was disturbed by a statement that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability,"19 and wrote, e.g., that, while he has great respect for federal judges, "I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its 'falsifiability,' and I suspect some of them will be, too."20http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/fall/daubert.htm If I am hard headed, then I join the elite company of a Chief Justice.
 
Many contemporary philosophers of science, notably W.H. Newton-Smith, are strongly critical of Popper's philosophy of science. Popper's mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice. Inference to the Best Explanation, an alternative account of scientific reasoning, has in recent decades become widely accepted in preference to the Popperian view.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
 
Firstly, two points:

One, strictly speaking, the principle of verifiability pertains to propositions and whether or not they can be said to have meaning.

Two, before you jump back with an ad verecundiam, you're the one who is harping on about the definition.

And so...

John J. Bannan said:
What is your authoritative cite for the proposition that a scientific theory must be falsifiable?
Click to expand...


Although Sarkus has done a fine job so far....

As I noted before, the Principle was established during the early Logical Positivist period: A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1936.

In summation: to be meaningful, a statement must either be tautologous, or verifiable (logically).


John J. Bannan said:
Supreme Court of the U.S. Chief Justice...

blah, blah....
Click to expand...


Category mistake.

It goes without saying that legislative bodies have a poor understanding of logic.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Supreme Court of the U.S. Chief Justice Rehnquist had a problem with Popper. "Only with regard to factors judges might use in screening evidence did Justice Rehnquist dissent.18 He was disturbed by a statement that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability,"19 and wrote, e.g., that, while he has great respect for federal judges, "I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its 'falsifiability,' and I suspect some of them will be, too."20http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/fall/daubert.htm If I am hard headed, then I join the elite company of a Chief Justice.
Click to expand...
Since when does a Law Court have any jurisdiction in determining scientific enquiry?

To be honest, his opinion is as useful as a kindergarten school child.

He doesn't understand it.
So what!

The scientific community did - does - and will continue to understand it, and follow it. Primarily due to Popper. He IS an authority on this.

End of story (although I bow to Glaucon's apparent superior knowledge - supremely demonstrated).

A far as I, and most of the scientific community are concerned, scientific theory MUST be falsifiable (or, as we've been reminded, at least falsifiable in theory) or it can be classified as unscientific.

"God" fails in this - although VitalOne claims "God" IS falsifiable but has yet to show how.
 
I'm harping on the definition because the thread is about the definition of scientific theory. The best you've cited so far is Popper. Other scientists disagree with Popper. You've got to do better than Popper if you want to show falsifiability is a requirement of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Try again.
 
John J. Bannan said:
I'm harping on the definition because the thread is about the definition of scientific theory. The best you've cited so far is Popper. Other scientists disagree with Popper. You've got to do better than Popper if you want to show falsifiability is a requirement of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Try again.
Click to expand...
Logic fallacy... It's like saying that because I disagree with X on the subject of A that everything X has said is wrong or in dispute.

You've taken something from Wikipedia that says that scientists disagree with Popper on some things - but until you can show that they disagree that falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory then your unwillingness to accept it is nothing but deliberate obstinacy, dishonesty or blatant trollism. Your pick.
 
John J. Bannan said:
A.J. Ayer speaks only for himself. This is not an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory.
Click to expand...
All that you will ever be able to find is individual scientists who speak for themselves. But there isn’t any “International Council on Scientific Opinions” that issues authoritative decrees about the philosophy of science, which is what you seem to be hoping for. That being said, falsifiability is a requirement that is widely accepted by the majority of scientists.
 
...Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics. First, the section revolves around 4(a)(1) which asserts a sudden creation "from nothing." Such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable (25).

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
 
O.K. You say there is no authoritative scientific body that defines scientific theories or hypothesis. There clearly is a debate, however, between falsificationists and justificationists. Accordingly, it is quite acceptable for a scientist to reject falsificationism, even if that scientist is in the minority. Arguing that God as a scientific theory does not require falsifiability, then, is not trolling. This is a legitimate scientific debate. Admit it.
 
Creationism isn't science because it's theology and incorporates supernatural rather than natural explanations.
 
I'm not arguing creationism in the sense of all those whacko ideas about the Earth only being seven thousand years old. I am arguing that God is a scientific theory or hypothesis.
 
John J. Bannan said:
...
I am arguing that God is a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Click to expand...

No you're not. At least, you've yet to provide any such argument.

All you've done in this thread, as of yet, is attempt to deny a criterion for a scientific theory.

Let's hear your argument.
 
No it isn't, since at the very least, it is a supernatural rather than a natural explanation.
 
The argument is that a scientific theory does not require falsifiability. Therefore, you can scientifically theorize that God created the universe due to the absence of a better explanation.
 
That is one aspect of science that you are concentrating on, how about the requirement that hypothesis be naturalistic, that conclusions are tentative, that it be testable, that they be based on observation?
 
I didn't say God existed, did I? I said, God is a scientific theory or hypothesis. The conclusion is tentative. As far as testable, that's the whole point of the falsifiability debate. A scientific theory or hypothesis doesn't have to be per se testable. With regard to observation, that's easy. Look at the magnificense of the universe. It is observable that God created it. As far as naturalistic, the observation that God created the universe is an observation of nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top