[
Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #61]
Proper scientific investigations use methods that enable people to distinguish imaginary things from real things and mitigate for confirmation bias by attempting to disprove proposed hypotheses. This is accomplished by using the imagined hypotheses to make novel testable predictions. Then, when the novel testable predictions are observed to be correct, scientists can reasonably infer that these falsifiable hypotheses are describing things that actually occur in reality and aren't just referring to things that only exists in their imaginations. Otherwise, if the novel testable predictions made by these hypotheses are observed to be incorrect, then scientists can infer that the proposed explanations could have only been describing imaginary things.
For example, people can propose a hypothesis that imagines a racoon was responsible for knocking over the garbage can in the alleyway. Did a racoon actually knock over the garbage can or is this racoon only imaginary? To find out, they could make a novel testable prediction that recorded video from the closed-circuit television camera overlooking the alleyway will contain footage of a racoon knocking over the garbage can last night. If these people review the video footage to find their prediction was correct, then they can infer that the racoon hypothesis corresponds to reality and wasn't just describing an imaginary racoon. However, if the video footage reveals a cat knocking over the garbage can, then these people can infer from their failed prediction that the hypothesized racoon was only imaginary.
Things become a bit more complicated if the proposed hypothesis is unfalsifiable. For instance, people could hypothesize that an invisible demon knocked over the garbage can last night. Did an invisible demon actually knock over the garbage can or is this invisible demon only imaginary? To try and find out, they could attempt to make the prediction that recorded video from the closed-circuit television camera will feature the garbage can being knocked over by an invisible demon. However, how could they rule-out the possibility that a strong gust of wind was responsible for knocking over the garbage can? Both the demon and a strong gust of wind are proposed invisible forces with the capability of knocking over the garbage can. The video evidence could potentially support both hypotheses because a strong gust of wind would be indistinguishable from an invisible demon in its effect on the garbage can.
So, which hypothesis is more reasonable to believe? Well, the strong wind hypothesis is at least falsifiable because it makes a novel testable prediction that the garbage can will be knocked over when placed in a wind tunnel simulating the wind gust speeds recorded in the meteorological data from last night. If the experiment confirms the accuracy of their prediction, would this evidence conclusively prove a strong gust of wind was responsible for knocking over the particular garbage can in the alleyway last night and rule-out the invisible demon hypothesis? No, it is still logically possible for an invisible demon to have knocked over the garbage can before a strong gust of wind could do it. However, it is more reasonable to accept the strong gust of wind hypothesis as the primary candidate explanation because it made a novel testable prediction that was subsequently demonstrated to be accurate.
On the other hand, if the garbage can remained upright in the wind tunnel experiment, the prediction made by the hypothesis will have failed and ruled-out a strong gust of wind as a candidate explanation. Would that mean the invisible demon hypothesis becomes the most reasonable explanation? Not exactly. How could they rule-out the possibility that a mischievous extra-terrestrial alien in a spaceship hovering in the sky above the alleyway used an invisible force field to knock over the garbage can? An extra-terrestrial invisible force field would be indistinguishable from an invisible demon in its proposed effects on the garbage can. In fact, how could they rule-out any of a potential infinite number of other invisible supernatural explanations or any yet to be discovered natural explanations? Even if they could rule-out the extra-terrestrial hypothesis and other proposed explanations, how could they determine if the invisible demon claim is describing something that exists in reality or is strictly imaginary?
The invisible demon hypothesis will still have to make a novel testable prediction such that a failed prediction would rule it out as a candidate explanation and a confirmed prediction would not have already been achieved by another hypothesis. If the invisible demon hypothesis makes a prediction that has already been successfully made by another hypothesis, then it wouldn't be making a novel prediction. Otherwise, it will be impossible to infer that the invisible demon explanation imagined by the hypothesis actually occurs in reality because it doesn't rule-out the competing explanation. For instance, if the hypothesis predicts the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning because it imagines invisible demons are pushing the Earth around its axis, then observing the sun rising in the east the next morning would not demonstrate that it is more reasonable to infer the existence of invisible demons than to infer the existence of the physical forces hypothesized by Newtonian Physics. Instead, the invisible demon explanation would be a post-hoc rationalization designed to reinforce the a-priori conclusion that invisible demons actually exist and aren't just imaginary. Conversely, if the hypothesis predicts the sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning because invisible demons are expected to reverse the rotation of the planet, then observing the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning would not only falsify the hypotheses of Newtonian Physics but demonstrate that the imagined invisible demon explanation is describing something which can be reasonably inferred to exist in reality.
Do creationist hypotheses satisfy the criteria described above for them to be considered the most reasonable explanations or are they post-hoc rationalizations designed to reinforce their a-priori conclusion that creationism is true?
