In another thread, a creationist attempted to make creationist theory appear as legitimate as evolutionary theory, by stating they are the same as two opposing theories being argued in a court of law.:
"Ah but in trials are there not two or more interpretations of the evidence?(prosecution and Defense). Also side note (criminal trials often produce inconsistant results)"
This misconception, that scientific theories are equally true until argued before a "jury" which decides which is correct based on "best presentation", may have started with the scopes trial (whose real focus was whether evo should be taught in schools and not whether it was right).
More recently a lawyer named Phil Johnson has attempted to popularize this idea, in an apparent attempt (some may say obvious) to allow his opinions to compete with arguments by professional scientists. The emotional appeal within this idea is that science, like trials, are an attempt to find the truth, and therefore science must work like a trial or it is flawed.
I do not believe this to be the case at all. Science operates in a peer review fashion, but that is not similar to a trial at all. And this process is NOT flawed.
In practice, there are usually no "sides" drawn every time a new theory comes around. Only the most novel of theories, those which shift a larger world paradigm or remove an earlier held theory, are those which result in "divisions". But even these debates are not... at least not if they are good ones... like a trial where "best presentation" wins the day.
Proper scientific method is the removal of preconceptions and emotion from debate in order to construct a model which best fits ALL the evidence thus far gathered. Trials are based on manipulating opinion by using preconceptions and emotions to deliver the "best presentation". Thus trials and "best presentations" are the worst caricatures of how science operates.
I think a better analogy of how science operates may be to surveyors creating a map of an area (in this case an area of knowledge). When surveyors are dealing with certain "hidden" features of the landscape, there may be debate on how to best find out what those features are, and what the map ought to say until those features have been defined, but not all theories suddenly become viable, or equal. There are groundrules about making maps and reading the terrain which (based on experience) must be followed and so exclude or reduce the status of some positions.
Creationist theories are problematic because they tend to break groundrules regarding scientific methodology. The first of which appears to be using preconceptions to filter evidence... or perhaps better put, using certain preconceptions (which have no empirical support) as data equal to other empirically derived data which ultimately shapes the final model.
If the creationists want a level footing for their theory they need to take it out of the courtroom, and place it squarely back in the science lab.
Their model must use all geologic, chemical, and biological data available to build a singular theory... a "map" which can help someone clearly understand how to move from one point of evidence to another... and not to simply manufacture a "case" that tears down another theory.
In fact, they must lose the assumption all theories walk into a "debate" as equally correct, so that all they need do is throw doubt on the other side.
But I guess this itself is an argument. Am I wrong or is science properly conducted like a trial? Are all theories equal until proven correct in the court of public opinion?
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2