6533b859fe1ef96bd12b742b

RESEARCH PRODUCT

El concepto “ciencia” en la hipótesis del diseño inteligente, según la sentencia “Tammy Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District”

subject

description

PLANTEAMIENTO. La presente tesis doctoral propone una discusión crítica sobre si la hipótesis del diseño inteligente puede ser calificada, desde un punto de vista técnico-filosófico, como un discurso científico, o por el contrario pseudocientífico. Los parámetros de la discusión caen dentro del área de Filosofía de la Ciencia y subárea de Filosofía de la Biología, tratando de señalar las inconsistencias teóricas y empíricas del antievolucionismo, en el marco del debate entre evolucionismo y creacionismo. TEMA. El concepto "ciencia" en la hipótesis del diseño inteligente, análisis crítico. OBJETIVOS. Se pretende demostrar que la hipótesis del diseño inteligente: 1º Incumple los estándares requeridos por la Filosofía de la Ciencia contemporánea para admitir la cientificidad de un discurso. 2º Constituye un discurso pseudocientífico y no científico. 3º Su auténtica finalidad no es contribuir a la investigación científica, sino divulgar la ideología del fundamentalismo cristiano ultraortodoxo. METODOLOGÍA. Caracterizada por ser: 1ª Empírico-casuística: el punto de partida para la discusión consiste en un caso histórico y real, con gran repercusión social y dirimido ante un órgano jurisdiccional estadounidense. 2ª Filológica: la tesis doctoral presupone la traducción de la sentencia dictada el 20 de diciembre de 2005 en el caso Tammy Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District. 3ª Interdisciplinar: el tema discutido se plantea desde diversas perspectivas, tanto filosófica como histórica, jurídica, sociológica, pedagógica y científica. SÍNTESIS PRINCIPALES ARGUMENTOS. 1 Epistemológico: presenta caracteres incompatibles con la ciencia. 1.1 Causalidad sobrenatural. 1.2 Inverificabilidad. 1.3 Irrefutabilidad. 2 Metodológico: se sustrae a la metodología científica contemporánea. 2.1 Inobservancia del método hipotético-deductivo. 2.2 Mero apriorismo y carencia de todo sustrato empírico. 2.3 Procedimiento exclusivo a partir de la revelación y la autoridad. 3 Sociológico: es ajeno a la comunidad científica. 3.1 Inexistencia de publicaciones especializadas. 3.2 Falseamiento de conceptos científicos demostrados. 3.3 Peritación contraria de los ateneos consultados. BREVE EXPOSICIÓN DE LOS ARGUMENTOS PRINCIPALES I)Argumento epistemológico. El diseño inteligente presenta caracteres incompatibles con la ciencia. a)Causalidad sobrenatural. Estudiar la praxis de la comunidad científica actual permite afirmar que el riguroso apego a las explicaciones naturales es uno de los principales atributos constitutivos de la ciencia, el cual excluye explicar los fenómenos observados a partir de causas y fuerzas extrañas al mundo natural, y más concretamente, ajenas al espaciotiempo. Por el contrario, el diseño inteligente se basa en una causalidad sobrenatural, pues construye su discurso sin indagar una explicación natural para los fenómenos naturales, sino que argumenta sin apoyo empírico su carácter sobrenatural. Así sucede cuando afirma sin pruebas que las especies no se transforman mediante mecanismos evolucionistas consustanciales a la naturaleza, sino que fueron creadas abruptamente por un diseñador no natural. b)Inverificabilidad. Si la coherencia o consistencia lógica, basada en el principio de no contradicción y en las ideas de universalidad y necesidad, constituía el elemento fundamental para determinar la aptitud teórico-científica de un discurso en la concepción de "episteme" desarrollada por Platón y Aristóteles, tras la revolución cognitiva iniciada en Europa durante los siglos XVI y XVII y generalizada paulatinamente al resto del planeta, el criterio que autentifica y evalua la validez del estatus gnoseológico de una teoría científica es la posibilidad de verificar de sus hipótesis, instancia última a partir de entonces para decidir sobre la cientificidad de una teoría. El diseño inteligente basa completamente su discurso en fuerzas que actúan fuera del mundo natural, y afirma sin demostración empírica que explican los fenómenos y cambios del mundo natural pese a ser ser inobservables, irreplicables e incomprobables. Al tratarse de fuerzas absolutamente inverificables por la acción combinada de la observación sensible, la experimentación y la tecnología disponible por la especie humana, no pueden integrar una teoríacientífica. Al emplear enunciados inverificables, el diseño inteligente suprime toda experiencia, imposibilita todaevidencia empírica favorable a sus hipótesis, y con ello socava el fundamento epistemológico del conocimientocientífico, entendido en sentido moderno. Su discurso no es verificable mediante procedimientos científicos, y con ello vulnera las reglas de juego del lenguaje científico, que restringen la ciencia a explicaciones verificables por ser consistentes con la experiencia. c)Irrefutabilidad. Según el concepto de ciencia aceptado mayoritariamente por la comunidad científica desde Popper, desvinculado tanto del inductivismo ingenuo como del verificacionismo, una teoría científica sólo puede basarse en proposiciones falsables. Cuando el diseño inteligente incluye proposiciones irrefutables, como la atribución de una causalidad sobrenatural, obtiene una explicación imposible de contrastar empíricamente con experimentos realizables en una región del espaciotiempo dada, y por tanto, imposible de adverar o falsear con la experiencia. Permanece entonces en el ámbito de una estructura meramente lógica, y su estatus epistemológico no supera la ciencia ficción o pseudociencia. II)Argumento metodológico. El diseño inteligente se sustrae a la metodología científica contemporánea. a)Inobservancia del método hipotético-deductivo. El diseño inteligente prescinde de la metodología científica moderna, grosso modo basada en las actividades conducentes a observar, experimentar, formular hipótesis respaldadas por suficiente aparato matemático y verificarlas empíricamente, al objeto de deducir mediante este proceso leyes necesarias o cuasinecesarias de alcance universal o general. b)Mero apriorismo y carencia de todo sustrato empírico. El concepto central de la hipótesis del diseño inteligente, la llamada "complejidad irreducible", depende de ignorar la evidencia científica disponible sobre los mecanismos evolutivos, como sucede cuando pretende excluir, a priori y por la mera fuerza del concepto, el fenómeno de la exaptación, ignorando al hacerlo cuantiosa evidencia que refuta su argumento. Y respecto al sustrato empírico aportado para avalar sus afirmaciones, la hipótesis del diseño inteligente sólo aplica dicho concepto a tres sistemas biológicos en toda la biosfera: el flagelo bacteriano, la coagulación sanguínea y el sistema inmunitario. Sin embargo, la comunidad científica ha demostrado sistemáticamente la reducibilidad de dichos sistemas biológicos, sin olvidar además que la experimentación propuesta por sus partidarios nunca ha sido aplicada en condiciones biosféricas normales, sólo en el laboratorio, ni tampoco que los propios artífices de estos experimentos admitieron que sus resultados podrían diferir seriamente de las condiciones reales, e incluso que, caso de no diferir, ello sólo constituiría una prueba refutatoria o confirmativa de la evolución, pero no del diseño inteligente. c)Procedimiento exclusivo a partir de la revelación y la autoridad. Dado que, según se indicó, tras la mencionada revolución cognitiva iniciada en la Europa de los siglos XVI y XVII, una teoría sólo se considera científica si sus hipótesis son verificables, pierden el estatus epistemológico de ciencia aquellos discursos cuyo metodología cognitiva depende en algún grado, tanto de la revelación, consustancial a los textos considerados sagrados, como del argumento magister dixit, si resulta construido sobre la mera autoridad o prestigio del experto en la materia cuya persona u obra intelectual se cita como fundamento. Contra este criterio, el diseño inteligente no ha propuesto todavía una metodología científica capaz de verificar sus postulados, subordinando las observaciones obtenidas a juicios basados en la autoridad, la revelación, los textos considerados sagrados o las creencias religiosas. III)Argumento sociológico. El diseño inteligente es ajeno a la comunidad científica. a)Inexistencia de publicaciones especializadas. El diseño inteligente carece por completo de publicaciones contrastadas por otros especialistas en la materia, mecanismo clave para el control epistemológico de la praxis científica. Pues, primero, permite airear y actualizar la investigación, al fomentar el intercambio de la obra científica con colegas expertos, presentando sus hipótesis al examen y la crítica de otros especialistas en idéntica cuestión; segundo, garantiza que el texto con la investigación a divulgar sea científicamente minucioso, cumpla los estándares propios de la metodología científica y tenga relevancia para otros científicos; por último, implica que otros especialistas del ramo ya hayan valorado si, al elaborar el texto del artículo científico, el autor observó de cerca los protocolos de investigación, empleó una metodología correcta, consultó literatura científica actualizada y solvente, y en general, si practicó en su labor ciencia rigurosa. b)Falseamiento de conceptos científicos demostrados. La hipótesis del diseño inteligente en general, y en particular sus principales obras de referencia (Of Pandas and People y La caja negra de Darwin), tergiversan y mistifican ciertos conceptos de Biología Evolutiva, Biología Molecular y Genética Molecular empíricamente demostrados y aceptados ampliamente por la comunidad científica. En Biología Evolutiva, los libros citados falsean los conceptos "exaptación" y "homología", aunque además distorsionan gravemente el método cladístico y el registro fósil del Precámbrico. Y en cuanto a Biología Molecular y Genética, manifiestan una descarada voluntad por desacreditar aquellas evidencias científicas significativamente contrarias a los dogmas característicos del creacionismo, como la antigüedad de la tierra, la historicidad del diluvio universal, la intervención de una causalidad sobrenatural en la génesis de la vida, el carácter abrupto y global en el surgimiento de las especies, la imposibilidad de metamorfosis de una especie ancestral en otra descendiente, la superioridad jerárquica y estanqueidad entre la especie humana y las demás, etc. c)Peritación contraria de los ateneos consultados. En Estados Unidos, todas las asociaciones científicamente rigurosas que han emitido informes técnicos acerca del estatus epistemológico de la hipótesis del diseño inteligente, han concluido que su discurso no es científico, y que no puede ser considerada como ciencia. Así lo dictaminaron tanto la National Academy of Sciences como la American Association for the Advancement of Science, probablemente las dos asociaciones de científicos con mayor relevancia intelectual y cultural para pronunciarse sobre la cientificidad de un discurso en dicho país. Además, sus dictámenes concuerdan con el hecho de que la comunidad científica ha refutado los argumentos del diseño inteligente contrarios a la evolución. Así ha ocurrido con las deficiencias señaladas por la hipótesis del diseño inteligente y antes aludidas respecto al flagelo bacteriano, la coagulación sanguínea y el sistema inmunitario, pues en los años posteriores a la publicación de La caja negra de Darwin y Of Pandas and People, los científicos especialistas, particularmente en Biología y Química, han demostrado por doquier la presencia de los mecanismos evolutivos en los tres supuestos, tanto a nivel evolutivo como químico, molecular y genético. DOCTORAL THESIS: El concepto “ciencia” en la hipótesis del diseño inteligente, según la sentencia “Tammy Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District”. PLANNING This doctoral thesis proposes a critical discussion about if intelligent design theory can be considered, from a technical-philosophic point of view, as a scientific speech, or on the contrary pseudo-scientific. The parameters of its discussion belongs to Philosophy of Science area and Philosophy of Biology subarea, trying to point out the theoric and empiric weaknesses of anti-evolutionism, in the frame of reference of evolutionism and creationism debate. SUBJECT Criticism of the concept “science” in intelligent design theory. GOALS To show that intelligent design theory: 1º Fail to observe criterions required by current Philosophy of Science in order to accept the scientific nature of a theory. 2º Constitute a pseudos-scientific speech, not a scientific one. 3º Its real purpose is not to contribute to scientific research at all, but to spread extreme Fundamentalism’s ideology. METHODOLOGY Typified by being: 1ª Empiric and casuistry: the starting point for the discussion is an historic and real case, with very big social repercussion and sentenced by a Court of the United States. 2ª Philological: this doctoral tesis assume traduction of sentence ruled in Tammy Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District trial on December 20, 2005. 3ª Interdisciplinary: subject discussed is considered in several prespectives, philosophical, historical, juridical, sociological, pedagogical and scientific. ABSTRACT OF MAIN ARGUMENTS 1 Epistemological: shows incompatible characters with science. 1.1 Supernatural causality. 1.2 No verifiability. 1.3 Irrefutability. 2 Methodological: to withdraw from modern scientific methodology. 2.1 Non-observance of hipothetycal-deductive method. 2.2 Mere a priori nature and lack of all empiric substratum. 2.3 Exclusive procedure by means of Revelation and authority. 3 Sociological: is an outsider from scientific comunity. 3.1 Non-existence of specialized papers. 3.2 Falsification of proved scientific concepts. 3.3 Opposite expert opinion of scientific associations consulted. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter I. Background The aim of Chapter I is to trace the background of intelligent design within the history of ideas, and to do so a historical or historical-philosophical methodology is used. A distinction is therefore drawn between the historical background of intelligent design, on the one hand, and what could be considered its conceptual and philosophical precedents, on the other. The historical antecedents that have been identified to date suggest that intelligent design should be seen as an integral part of the intellectual tradition that characterises creationist thinking. With regard to its conceptual and philosophical precedents, the results from the study show that the thinking inherent to the discourse of intelligent design is based on a finalistic worldview of reality and that, more particularly, it is directly related to the teleological argument used by traditional Christian thinking to prove the existence of God by rational means. These philosophical-conceptual antecedents would be embodied in the ideas of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. The arguments of the Intelligent Design Movement contain conceptual ingredients that are akin to Aristotle's final causality and unmoved mover, as well as being closely aligned with the argumentative structure implicit in the Way of Governance, or fifth way, proposed by Thomas Aquinas as rational proof of the existence of God. However, the model that served as the most direct source of inspiration for intelligent design is that of the watchmaker analogy put forward by William Paley, to the point where the former could somehow be considered an updated version of the latter. Chapter II. Epistemological demarcation criteria This section outlines the elements that comprise the concept of science used by Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller case to decide whether intelligent design can be considered scientific discourse or not. This notion of science is set out in section E4 of Judge Jones’ ruling under the heading “Whether intelligent design is science”, where it can be seen that he took at least seven epistemological criteria into account in order to evaluate the extent to which intelligent design is really a science, namely: natural causation, verifiability, empiricism, refutability, application of the scientific method, acceptance by the scientific community and exclusion of meaning and finality. In the process of selecting and gathering this array of epistemological demarcation criteria, Judge Jones drew on three basic sources of information. First, he made use of the key texts in which the intellectual architects of intelligent design set out the contents of their doctrine, i.e. Of Pandas and People, Darwin’s Black Box and Darwin on Trial. Second, he took into account the statements made sub iudice by the expert witnesses from disciplines such as biology, biochemistry, philosophy of science, microbiology, palaeontology, pedagogy, sociology and theology who were called upon to declare in the trial by the litigating parties. Last, the statements made both inside and outside the courtroom by some of the main ideologists of the movement, such as Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski, were also taken into account by the judge and incorporated into the procedural acts. Chapter III. Critical reconstruction of the arguments underlying the intelligent design inference Before going on to discuss the basic conceptual elements implicit in the philosophy of intelligent design, first it seems necessary to reconstruct the meaning of the central core of its arguments, without which it would not be honest (and perhaps not even possible) to engage in a philosophical debate. This section addresses this aim. The critical or merely expositive doctrine usually distinguishes between two arguments – one positive and one negative – in the discourse of intelligent design, as did Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller trial. In this study, however, due to the advantages of considering the line of argument as a unitary whole, the terms ‘negative vector’ and ‘positive vector’ were considered to be more appropriate, although they maintain the same correlated meanings as the denominations ‘negative argument’ and ‘positive argument’ used in the literature. According to the negative vector of the line of argument usually employed by the Intelligent Design Movement, everything that discredits the theory of evolution confirms intelligent design. Section 1) of this third chapter thus analyses the non sequitur fallacies and false dilemma contained within this negative or merely anti-evolutionistic argument put forward by the proponents of intelligent design. Conversely, according to the positive vector of their line of argument, which is a little more complex and better strung together than the negative one, from the intention that can be observed in the way the different parts of a living being or the elements that go to make up its structures or organs are assembled, it can be deduced that it was designed intelligently. The theoretical nucleus of this positive vector has its roots in two legitimate concepts from the intelligent design philosophy, i.e. the ideas of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, or complex specified information. Section 2, 1 of this third chapter analyses the implications of the concept of specified complexity and, more specifically, the so-called ‘explanatory filter’, which is the logical argumentative strategy used by its intellectual author, William Dembski, to present said concept. Likewise, the same section also includes five objections to the concept of complex specified information, namely: absence of the hypothetical-deductive method, incomplete selection of relevant hypotheses, tautological nature and empirical shallowness, undefined statistical odds ratio and subsidiarity with respect to the concept of irreducible complexity. And section 2, 2 sets out to prove that the concept of irreducible complexity, proposed by Michael Behe, is an empty concept that entails an unsuccessful epistemic act. To this end, an empirical search is conducted for structures, systems or organisms that can be subsumed under the notion put forward by Behe, who exemplifies it with the flagella of certain bacteria, blood clotting and the immune system. With this aim in mind, the study surveys the recent specialised literature on genetics and biochemistry dealing with the issue, only to conclude that the research carried out by the international scientific community on this subject proves the existence of evolutionary precedents and homologies in these examples. This therefore refutes any possibility of admitting them as instances of irreducible complexity in nature. The chapter ends by putting forward several other objections. Of these, perhaps the most important concerns the use of the concept of ‘irreducibility’ in a way that is improper of the theory of information, in whose knowledge system the notions of irreducible complexity and, above all, specified complexity claim to reside. Chapters IV and V. Supernatural categorism: critical epistemology (I and II) Given the nature of the material dealt with in these two chapters, their contents must be summarised together. In fact they have only been divided for the sake of avoiding an excessively lengthy presentation. Their internal structure therefore remains unchanged, but they have been restated in a way that is easier to read. In other words, they constitute one single unit in terms of content that has been separated into two parts. Both chapters discuss the validity of the categories of supernatural causality and teleology or finality as demarcation criteria in some depth. The reason for this detailed treatment is that they play a key role in the philosophy of science proposed by the Intelligent Design Movement to undermine the epistemological discontinuity between science and religion and to attack the theory of evolution. Although the logic underlying these ideas is apparently very different, they are in fact combined by followers of intelligent design as a tactic to achieve the strategic goal of increasing its credibility as a scientific theory. Chapter IV discusses the supernatural category of intention or ‘cosmological teleology’, and poses essentially three theses on the matter. First, it considers the incompatibility between the ideas of telos and episteme, at least as far as the theoretical domain of scientific explanation is concerned. Second, it defends the idea that the Aristotelian notion of causality and, in general, a strong version of the so-called anthropic principle (both of which are implicit in the teleological cosmology defended by intelligent design) constitute two illegitimate justifications from the epistemological point of view. Finally, it also examines the epistemic limits of the teleological argument based on an analogical inference and concludes that the qualitative and causal elements cannot be transferred between the terms being compared. Chapter V discusses the supernatural categories of cause and effect. Cause must be examined because the intelligent design inference claims that a divine creator endowed with supreme intelligence is the agent that produced the harmony that can be seen in nature, the origin of life and the perfect assembly and design that living organisms appear to display. A review of the supernatural category of cause will mean carrying out an epistemological evaluation of its source, as stated by the intellectual leaders of intelligent design, i.e. the Special Revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures. From there, the research goes on to analyse the historicity of the supernatural by means of the exegesis of biblical texts, and concludes by highlighting two facts that refute the Scriptures as the epistemological foundation of the notion of supernatural causality: the contingent nature of history and the absence of a methodology that could be shared by the religious communities that authored the written tradition contained within the biblical texts. The category of effect, on the other hand, refers to miracles or miraculous events, supernatural products worked by the supernatural causality, that is to say, by the divine agent that causes the intelligent design supposedly displayed in nature. This will lead the research to evaluate, on the one hand, the so-called General revelation (namely, God revealed in nature), and, on the other hand, faith, both cases being pointed out by the main proponents of intelligent design as the epistemological basis of miracles. This chapter contains a section that attempts to pinpoint the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the arguments proposed to support design inference with the aim of justifying miraculous events. Chapter VI. Pseudoscientific nature and ideological finality The last chapter of this research study argues two theses. According to the first, the discourse put forward by the Intelligent Design Movement cannot be considered a scientific theory but should instead be seen as a pseudoscience. The second maintains that intelligent design does not seek to further knowledge but to pursue a particular ideological finality. Section I of Chapter VI addresses the issue of establishing the boundaries between science and pseudoscience by applying nine demarcation criteria that were proposed by Raimo Tuomela to detect pseudoscientific discourses and to distinguish them from scientific ones. It concludes that eight of them are clearly fulfilled, while the applicability of the ninth is a little more doubtful. One of these criteria (acceptance or rejection by the scientific community) stood out above the rest, however. As part of the study, a series of statements issued by twenty prominent scientific associations from around the world were located, acquired and translated. In these documents each of the institutions declared themselves against intelligent design being considered a scientific theory. And with respect to purpose, section 2 of this chapter draws on the translation, analysis and evaluation of the so-called Wedge Document to argue that intelligent design has an intrinsic ideological finality, given its inherent religious worldview and its overt political intention. This strategic-ideological finality of intelligent design is complemented by its pseudoscientific nature and also confirms that rather than having any interest in expanding knowledge, fostering scientific research, furthering technological progress or improving well-being in society, its aim is to disseminate the religious worldview upheld by the most orthodox sectors of evangelical Protestantism in the USA.