Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Where the design argument goes wrong: auxiliary assumptions and unification

Maarten Boudry UGent and Bert Leuridan UGent (2011) PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. 78(4). p.558-578
abstract
Sober (2008) has reconstructed the biological design argument in the framework of likelihoodism, purporting to demonstrate that it is defective for intrinsic reasons. We argue that Sober’s restrictions on the introduction of auxiliary hypotheses is too restrictive, as it commits him to rejecting types of everyday reasoning that are clearly valid. Our account shows that the design argument fails, not because it is intrinsically untestable, but because it clashes with the empirical evidence and fails to satisfy certain theoretical desiderata (in particular, unification). Likewise, Sober’s critique of the arguments from imperfections and from evil against design is off the mark.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
INTELLIGENT DESIGN, PREDICTIONS
journal title
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Philos. Sci.
volume
78
issue
4
pages
558 - 578
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000295735100002
JCR category
HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
JCR impact factor
0.552 (2011)
JCR rank
21/56 (2011)
JCR quartile
2 (2011)
ISSN
0031-8248
DOI
10.1086/661753
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
1905403
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1905403
date created
2011-09-21 12:52:14
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:39:19
@article{1905403,
  abstract     = {Sober (2008) has reconstructed the biological design argument in the framework of likelihoodism, purporting to demonstrate that it is defective for intrinsic reasons. We argue that Sober{\textquoteright}s restrictions on the introduction of auxiliary hypotheses is too restrictive, as it commits him to rejecting types of everyday reasoning that are clearly valid. Our account shows that the design argument fails, not because it is intrinsically untestable, but because it clashes with the empirical evidence and fails to satisfy certain theoretical desiderata (in particular, unification). Likewise, Sober{\textquoteright}s critique of the arguments from imperfections and from evil against design is off the mark.},
  author       = {Boudry, Maarten and Leuridan, Bert},
  issn         = {0031-8248},
  journal      = {PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE},
  keyword      = {INTELLIGENT DESIGN,PREDICTIONS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {558--578},
  title        = {Where the design argument goes wrong: auxiliary assumptions and unification},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661753},
  volume       = {78},
  year         = {2011},
}

Chicago
Boudry, Maarten, and Bert Leuridan. 2011. “Where the Design Argument Goes Wrong: Auxiliary Assumptions and Unification.” Philosophy of Science 78 (4): 558–578.
APA
Boudry, M., & Leuridan, B. (2011). Where the design argument goes wrong: auxiliary assumptions and unification. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 78(4), 558–578.
Vancouver
1.
Boudry M, Leuridan B. Where the design argument goes wrong: auxiliary assumptions and unification. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. 2011;78(4):558–78.
MLA
Boudry, Maarten, and Bert Leuridan. “Where the Design Argument Goes Wrong: Auxiliary Assumptions and Unification.” PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 78.4 (2011): 558–578. Print.