The Great Divide - Pt. 1

Equivocation and Our Key Term - Science

At this point we need to clarify a few points and begin to define some key terms. I mentioned previously that I get the sense that Plantinga's argument may lapse into equivocation at points as it develops. If it does it is because he is taking for granted the opposition's definition of science, which relies exclusively on the fallacy of equivocation.

A definition from the Philosophy department at Texas State University states that

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."


Basically it's the old bait and switch. In my limited experience, equivocation has often been used to a devastating extent, mostly because it is easily overlooked. But there is a solution to this problem- A simple way to uncover this fallacy can be found in Aristotle's wisdom:


"Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions."

At the outset of any investigation we should ask ourselves what the foundations are for any given claims, and most importantly what terms are used to construct that foundation. Regularly asking the question  "What do they mean by _____ ?" at the outset of any discussion or dialogue can help to ferret out equivocation.

The problem and solution proposed in Plantinga's argument turns on the definition of science itself. If he or the opposing side use multiple definitions for the key term "science" without clearly stating what is meant, then they are equivocating. 

In a generic and etymological sense, "science" means knowledge. So then, what kind of knowledge does science give us access to? Is it unique from other types of knowledge? -(I am assuming that there are other types). Are there any constraints on the knowledge science gives us access to? Is science self-referential / self-supported? If not, then what supports it? Can other sources of knowledge overlap or be brought to bear on science?

These are just a few of the many questions we could ask, and there are probably tons more.

The Empirical, Revelational, and My Personal Favorite - Reverse Induction

Let's get down to it. And while we're at it, why not use the scene from the Cohen brothers' film again?


After Pete discovers Everett stole from his brother...
Pete: You stole from my kin!
Everett: Who was fixin to betray us
Pete: You didn't know that at the time!
Everett: So I borrowed it til I DID know
Pete (confused): That don't make no sense!
Everett: Pete, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart...

If you've seen the movie (if you haven't you're missing out) and can remember some of this scene you may remember that Turturro's character (Pete) reads the back of the watch - inscribed with his brother's name on it - and hears Clooney's character (Everett) describe when and why he took it. At that point in the film most of us ordinary folks would say that Pete "knew" that Everett had stolen his brother's watch. The philosopher might be willing to say that Pete had a justified true belief that Everett stole his brother's watch. The empirical facts were there- Everett had pulled it out of his pocket and threw it to him. The revelational facts were there- Everett told him where and why he stole it. So even Pete, as dull as he was, had to do what was rational- he formed the belief that Everett had stole from his kin!

The two types of facts, empirical and revelational, are a good starting point for our discussion on science. Consider the outcome of Pete's belief concerning the watch if Everett had only thrown it to him but said nothing about taking it- what would Pete think? No doubt he might infer something similar to what Everett had taken it. What if the watch were not inscribed with his brother's name? Would he still be able to make the inference? He might. Or let us take away the empirical all together. What if Everett confessed to stealing the watch but didn't show it to him? In each case Pete's "knowing" might have a different level of warrant depending on a number of factors. I would venture a guess that most of us would say that the combination of the empirical facts and Everett's testimony- revealing what he did - serve as the strongest basis for Pete's belief that Everett had in fact stolen from his kin.

When someone's testimony is in harmony with observable facts it is fairly easy to formulate a belief and be comfortable with it. But what about when someone's testimony seems to conflict with what we observe? What would Pete do if Tim Blake Nelson's character (Delmar) had piped up and said that he stole it and stuck it in Everett's pocket at an earlier time? And where would he be if Delmar and Everett both claimed to have stolen it? Now he has competing revelational "facts" to try and work through if he wants to arrive at a belief. We could complicate things even more by throwing in conflicting empirical facts, which often have the same effect- confusion.

Everett's response to Pete's hostility is hilarious, and, at the same time has some gems to glean. His ad hoc argument to try and justify his stealing parallels something in science that I call - "reverse induction." There are other names for it - like "uniformitarianism," but they don't roll off of the tongue quite as nice as... "reverse induction."

Street Racing and Deceptive Sight

If you are setting at a stoplight and someone pulls up next to you, revving their engine hard and looking over at you- you might infer that they want to race. So you shift to 'R' for "Race" and slam on the gas!...Whooooooooooo!... After the tow truck, police, and ambulance come you now know that R does not stand for "Race," it stands for Reverse- going backwards.

How about induction (inductive reasoning that is)? In a broad sense, induction of any sort (predictive, generalizing, causal or what not) takes one or more events from our experience and extrapolates outward away from our experience. There are many good examples of how we do this in our everyday life. Suppose someone brought me a jar full of jelly beans and I grabbed two red ones and ate them one at a time. They both taste like a cherry to me. I grab another red one. At this point my mind has made an inductive inference and I am anticipating another bit of artificial, cherry-flavored goodness to greet my tongue. But lo and behold this one is eggplant flavored! After cleaning up the puke, I toss the rest of them in trash. I'm not taking any chances. So what happened? There was even a dead give away too- the shade of red was seven thousandths off (toward the red side of the spectrum, naturally) compared to the previous two (they were identical in color of course).

Reverse induction then is simply the process of reasoning about the past by using any number of data / empirical facts from the present, and then extrapolating backwards. We could also call it - "historical induction." So what's the deal with this process of reasoning. We will look at in more detail next.