Skip

Is intelligent design actually an actual philosophically true scientific theory? The question is not asking if ID is “true”, but how well does it pass the scientific theory tests?
September 8, 2011 1:18 PM   Subscribe

Let's see if this can be done without causing any ideological controversy. The simplest yet most descriptive explanation of a true scientific theory is below. "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." An actual theory must be falsifiable as well. My understanding is that Intelligent design does not fit the bill as a set of empirically proven facts or pass the falsifiability test. Also, I understand that Darwin's theory may have the most facts supporting his theory (therefore it is the best explanation for the evolution of life we currently have), but that it may not be falsifiable as well. The basic question is what is intelligent design if not a theory? I don't think it qualifies as a hypothesis either. Please explain to this scientific layman. Bonus points if you can explain how The Theory of Natural Selection is falsifiable.
posted by 4Lnqvv to Science & Nature (46 answers total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
Charitably, it's merely an explanation of the just-so-story variety; more accurately, it's Christian apologetics in a disingenuous form.
posted by clockzero at 1:21 PM on September 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


Evolutionary theory is (in theory) falsifiable. I can imagine a set of facts that would "break" evolutionary theory. That's all you need.

Intelligent design is a dogma in sheep's clothing—it is creationism with a thin veneer of sciencey-sounding babble laid on top.
posted by adamrice at 1:21 PM on September 8, 2011 [3 favorites]


This is kinda all over the place. Philosophically true scientific theory? That makes no literal sense. The words in that order don't mean anything.
posted by odinsdream at 1:22 PM on September 8, 2011 [3 favorites]


Evolution is falsifiable.
posted by novalis_dt at 1:23 PM on September 8, 2011 [13 favorites]


The answer to your question depends largely on what, exactly, you're referring to when you reference "intelligent design." I mean, I don't know of any meaning of "intelligent design" that would constitute an actual philosophically-correct scientific theory in the sense that you're asking. But what, exactly, it is depends on what you're talking about.
posted by The World Famous at 1:23 PM on September 8, 2011


Darwinian evolution is falsifiable because it makes claims whose consequences could be observed: if DNA and genes were found to work very differently than we think they do, for instance. So-called "intelligent design" is unfalsifiable because it assumes a cause that it can't actually explain or understand, i.e. God, and so any contradiction or inconsistency or other problem can be hand-waved away.
posted by clockzero at 1:27 PM on September 8, 2011 [8 favorites]


ID basically says that there is something outside the testable realm that it driving the continuous creation of species. It therefore immediately disqualifies itself from any scientific rigour.
posted by scruss at 1:30 PM on September 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Science is limited in that it deals solely with observable phenomena, which may or may not encompass reality as a whole. So-called "intelligent design" deals with beliefs about realities that are not observable.

Therefore, you're right; it's not coherent to refer to "intelligent design" as a scientific theory or a scientific hypothesis. It is suprascientific, and attempts to transcend science. It is therefore probably best called a "doctrine."
posted by koeselitz at 1:33 PM on September 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Natural selection says that children have qualities similar to thier parents, and based on thier reproductive success, the qualities of the population will shift to resemble the more successful individuals. This could be falsified if we saw random distribution of qualities across a population, populations staying stable in spite of pressures to change or adapt, if offspring had no resemblance to thier parents, etc. There is no imagineable a world with any qualities where you can't say 'God did it'. Sorry, 'An intelligence designed it'. Literally anything can be explained that way. Therefor nothing can. There is a bit of a difference there. Natural selection can look like a tautology, but it's not.
posted by Garm at 1:36 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. A theory MUST have some predictive value - some ability to predict what further evidence will be discovered.

Intelligent Design predicts nothing - it dictates. Intelligent design rigs the answer before any evidence has been collected. When contrary evidence is discovered, intelligent design bends the facts to make it fit - ie. dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth by the devil to trick humans.
posted by Flood at 1:38 PM on September 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


Intelligent design is a separate theory which is related to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design is a theory that says that a certain entity commonly referred to as God among English-speaking people was the creative force behind the creation of the universe and/or life (there are several variants.) The means by which this creation was accomplished falls under the realm of evolutionary theory. I suppose an analogy might be the case of a dead person with a knife in him. Intelligent design theory would be the theory that the death was a murder and evolutionary theory would be the theory of how exactly the knife cut through the body and biologically caused death.
posted by michaelh at 1:45 PM on September 8, 2011


Intelligent design fails as a scientific pursuit because beyond a certain point, the mechanism behind it is unknowable. Theories about the natural world can't have supernatural components.
posted by bonobothegreat at 1:45 PM on September 8, 2011 [5 favorites]


The falsifiability of evolution is often illustrated by the Precambrian rabbit.
posted by TedW at 1:51 PM on September 8, 2011


Intelligent Design, depending on it's various interpretations is merely a statement of belief. Those who believe in ID are not positing it as a theory or hypothesis, they are not seeking to have it proven (and are even less concerned about falsifiability). Statements about proof of ID (bananas fitting in your hand so very well) are merely evangelizing. ID is simply an attempt for religious believers to adapt to the theory of evolution. In essence "evolution is real but God still exists and therefore he made evolution happen"
posted by boobjob at 2:51 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable because you can always invoke a "God of the gaps" who will explain any not-yet-explained aspect of life and its evolution. It begins with an a priori statement intended to dwarf other conclusions we might reach were we to examine the evidence neutrally.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:54 PM on September 8, 2011


Bonus points if you can explain how The Theory of Natural Selection is falsifiable.

Next time you get the flu, ignore the warning on the bottle of antibiotics that says "take the entire bottle." Take say, 2 days worth.

Then when you continue being sick, try and take the same antibiotic to get better.

You'll know from personal experience that natural selection works.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:54 PM on September 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Quibble: influenza ("flu") isn't treated with antibiotics, but Ironmouth's point is a good one. One could also do that experiment in petri dishes with various bacteria and ampicillin. As thousands of microbiologists do in their labs, all the time.
posted by Maximian at 3:04 PM on September 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


what is intelligent design if not a theory?

A disguise.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:06 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Thanks for all the great responses!

OK, so ID as dogma and doctrine are good answers to my question, "what is ID if not a theory". Boobjob states that ID "is merely a statement of belief." also a good answer. So would a pseudoscientific theory, such as homeopathy be considered a mere belief as well?
posted by 4Lnqvv at 3:13 PM on September 8, 2011


So would a pseudoscientific theory, such as homeopathy be considered a mere belief as well?

Homeopathy is falsifiable, from what I understand. Either the treatments work, or they don't. The only problem is that it is demonstratively false, and yet its adherents don't care.

Astrology would be more in the realm of unfalsifiability.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:15 PM on September 8, 2011 [7 favorites]


I should also mention that if you're confused about theories, hypotheses, laws, and other such nonsense, you can get to the underlying question more simply: what do I believe about the origin of species, and why do I believe it? The answer to "what" ought to be something like, "with 99.9% probability, X, but there's the off chance that the real answer is Y." The answer to "why" ought to be "on the totality of the evidence, weighted according to its strength."
posted by novalis_dt at 3:16 PM on September 8, 2011


Homeopathy is not mere belief, because it makes falsifiable claims such as "A 10^10 dilution of a substance is more powerful than a 10^2 dilution of the same substance". It's real science in that it makes predictive, verifiable claims; it just happens that those claims are completely wrong.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:17 PM on September 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


Note that astrology makes falsifiable claims as well: "People born during this particular range of dates are more outgoing than others" or "People born under this astronomical condition are going to suffer worse fates tomorrow than the average person".

You have a 2x2 matrix here: Things that are falsifiable and correct (gravity), things that are falsifiable and wrong (homeopathy), and a big column on the right for things that are unfalsifiable (which can be neither right nor wrong). The ability of a theory to put itself in the "right" or "wrong" bucket based on data is what makes it scientific, not whether or not that theory turns out to be correct (see spontaneous generation, for example - scientific, but wrong, because we collected data that disproved it).
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:22 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oh, and coming full circle, data confirming spontaneous generation as a source of complex life would be another great way to falsify evolution and natural selection.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:25 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


My way of putting it is that the value of a theory is directly proportional to its ability to tell us what cannot happen. The broader the range of things it says cannot happen, the better the theory is (assuming it's right). If it cannot exclude anything, it is utterly worthless.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:30 PM on September 8, 2011


Note that astrology makes falsifiable claims as well: "People born during this particular range of dates are more outgoing than others" or "People born under this astronomical condition are going to suffer worse fates tomorrow than the average person".

The problem is that astrology in practice is so fluid as to render these sorts of predictions impossible to confirm or disconfirm. Astrology charts are rife with poetic seeming contradictions and vague statements which could be construed in a number of ways.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:34 PM on September 8, 2011


Intelligent Design is a theory which produces falsifiable claims. It's just wrong.
posted by empath at 3:48 PM on September 8, 2011


The basic question is what is intelligent design if not a theory?

It's a cognitive fallacy.
posted by polymodus at 3:54 PM on September 8, 2011


Some ID proponents will be heard to say that some structure is "irreducibly complex." That is, that it could not have evolved from a less-complex structure, because it is only useful to its owner in its present form. Leaving aside that this is factually incorrect (there are plenty of simpler structures that precede the mammalian eye that nevertheless provide value to their owners), the statement is not an attempt to explain the origin of the eye, it's an attempt to discredit a serviceable theory about the origin of the eye.

Yet, it is not an attempt to falsify natural selection either, because it doesn't present factual evidence that that theory doesn't hold up. It presents a lie, and expects people to buy into it without investigating the actual evidence.
posted by klanawa at 4:17 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


The talk.origins archive has a nice document detailing evidence for common descent that has many sections discussing potential falsifications of common descent.
posted by jcreigh at 5:19 PM on September 8, 2011


The design of the knee is not all that intelligent--this falsifies ID.
posted by Obscure Reference at 6:01 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't accept that Intelligent Design is falsifiable.

Let's talk about a panda's thumb, for a second (this is just one rather famous example). A panda's thumb isn't the same as our thumb - humans have 4 fingers and an opposable thumb, while pandas have 5 fingers, plus an opposable appendage that clearly evolved from part of their wrist bone.

I can argue that this disproves intelligent design - why would a designer use two different models to make thumbs in mammals? But a proponent of intelligent design can point out that we can't imagine the mind of our designer, or something. Pandas and humans have different kinds of opposable digits because that's just how s/he did it.
posted by muddgirl at 7:27 PM on September 8, 2011


Therefore, you're right; it's not coherent to refer to "intelligent design" as a scientific theory or a scientific hypothesis. It is suprascientific, and attempts to transcend science. It is therefore probably best called a "doctrine."

koeselitz, I think 4Lnqvv's term of "pseudoscientific" is more appropriate, as ID specifically excludes science ("irreducibly complex" forbids scientific explanation) from its set of mechanics.

Just a quibble, really, but I'm not willing to give those imbeciles any epithets that sound high-fallutin' and admirable.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:24 PM on September 8, 2011


These debates are ultimately silly because everyone is operating under different definitions of everything. A philosopher of science will have different definitions from a working scientist, who will have different definitions from an IT guy who blogs for a freethought group.

Truth: Are we talking correspondence, coherence, or pragmatic theories of truth?

Many definitions of theory sort of break down when you are on the borders of scientific knowledge like string theory or cosmology anyway. Especially questions of falsifiability (Is Many Forlds falsifiable? I'm damn sure it's a theory). In my experience most scientists tend to viewing theories as models. All models are wrong, some models are useful. (see e.g. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences)

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." An actual theory must be falsifiable as well. My understanding is that Intelligent design does not fit the bill as a set of empirically proven facts or pass the falsifiability test.

I can imagine an ID theory that meets your criteria. Any ID theory is a set of statements to explain a group of phenomena. ID is pretty widely accepted, if not on Mefi. Just about any particular ID theory could be falsifiable, though a new slightly modified ID theory could always be advanced if a given bit was falsified. That's true of any theory though. (Although it does speak to the fact that proponents of ID are more wedded to the theory than to the science (but if a lifelong string theorist saw a significant flaw in the theory pointed out he'd probably look to alter the theory before abandoning it entirely)) An example of falsifiability: irreducible complexity arguments have in fact been falsified:

Shanks, Niall; Joplin, Karl H. (1999). "Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry". Philosophy of Science (The University of Chicago Press) 66 (2, June): 268–282.

Again, a new ID theory could be advance, in a modified form, but that is true of any falsified theory. If you are interested in this subject I'd recommend a university library that has the scholarly articles that will examine these subjects in greater detail.
posted by pseudonick at 9:42 PM on September 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Another place where intelligent design breaks down is that for a theory to be valid it must be useful. I am a biologist, and everywhere I look there is really stupid design, often beautiful and elegant in its stupidity, but still reeking of stupid. For example, if I were an engineer building the human body from scratch I would do a lot of things fundamentally different.

The human foot has way more bones than we need. They make the foot fragile, require extensive amounts of fragile flesh to protect them which needs extensive capillaries for blood supply which are themselves under crazy pressure constantly from our weird vertical posture making everything even more fragile. If you have ever worked on your feet all day you should know the consequences of "bad design" quite intimately. If human feet were designed well for the purposes that we use them for they should look a lot more like goat feet. However, they wern't designed for us, they are the product of vertical evolution from a no longer extant arboreal (or semi-arboreal) ape that didn't need goat feet at all and had more use for another lower set of almost hands for gripping branches.

The human back is even worse! Also way to many bones. The number of vertebrae we have in our lower backs would be great for the kinds of flexibility you see in your dog when it licks its junk, but we neither need nor use them for that purpose. The whole system is under way to much stress. We know from other mammals that we could have roughly the same range of flexibility but not have almost guaranteed back problems as we age with fewer and larger vertebrae with fewer and stronger muscles.

There are at least eight fundamentally different designs for the heterogeneous eye, and you know what the freaky part is? We don't have the best one. Thats at least four or more in gastropods, one in copepods, one in annelids, and one in cephalopods in addition to our own poor one. Squids' are much much cooler

Also a lot of our cellular pathogens are pretty pathetic, the ones that have been around for a while tend to be missing so many useful genes that newer ones arn't that its pretty ugly design. However, Muller's ratchet explains it pretty well

If there is an intelligence behind all of this, it is certainly not an intelligence we can appeal to for predictive power. Nature will have a trivially easy time falsifying any goal you might want to ascribe to it.

Since the mind of a deity capable of creating such an absurd and inhuman universe must be so inherently unfathomable and unpredictable what predictive value could intelligent design possibly hold? It is inherently not useful.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:37 AM on September 9, 2011 [3 favorites]


@pseudonick: I'll accept your argument in the broadest sense, condescension and all, and ignoring your attempt to equate "theory" and "truth", in that different stakeholders in the debate variously define the same term and the precise definition of a theory is difficult to agree on. But I still find your conclusion uncompelling. In particular, I feel supported by your citation of String and Many Worlds.

Whether or not scientist view theories as models or not, one thing they always strive for is repeatable testability. While I think most of us are thinking MWI is probably bunk, they and the String proponents are furiously looking for a testable way to prove various aspects of their theory. The String folks in particular have come up with some novel concepts recently which may or may not pay off with real experiments. And it's pretty universally agreed amongst scientists that until those hypothetical predictions are testable, noone is going to say "yup...that's probably how it works". I'm betting neither is right, because they just aren't particularly elegant, but that's opinion and not science. What is science is that we will continue to test, and we'll be throwing out stuff that doesn't pass muster.

Contrast this with ID, which basically sits around and tries to convince us that Yet Another pulled-out-of-ass measure of "complexity" is sufficient to "prove" it had to be God, all the while stridently avoiding any mention of God with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink "why, there could be any number of explanations for an all powerful, intelligent creator that made us and everything we see". Like aliens. Or something. Which is probably good in the sense that it keeps the real scientists on their toes, because it's easy to find hard problems in Evolution. Our side just doesn't throw up our hands and say "See! Must be God. I'm done here.".

Of particular note is that to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), they aren't designing experiments to look for the Intelligent Designer, just ways of poking holes in Evolution. There are no ID proponents looking to create the God-finder equivalent of LHC. Because dogma don't want proof.

So...you have a point. If you torture the definitions enough, you can certainly define ID as a little-t theory. But it isn't science, isn't testable, and that's the important thing.
posted by kjs3 at 12:46 AM on September 9, 2011


Falsifiability cannot be a valid scientific theory or part of a valid scientific theory.

If it were, it would have to be falsifiable, and that would mean that there must be a possibility of a valid scientific theory that is not falsifiable, because if no such theory was even conceivable, then the theory of falsifiability would not itself be falsifiable and is therefore not a valid scientific theory.

And yet, if a valid scientific theory which is not falsifiable is possible, the the scientific theory of falsifiability is simply wrong on its face.

So if the principle of falsifiability is true in some sense, it must rely on a way of reaching true conclusions which is entirely outside of science and which is also prior to science, because science relies upon a product of that way of reaching true conclusions-- namely the principle of falsifiability-- for the construction of valid theories.

Among its many sillinesses, this would have the effect of forever removing scientific enquiry from the the list of possible subjects of scientific enquiry, because scientific enquiry can only deal with the falsifiable, and such a removal is patently absurd.

In my opinion, then, falsifiability has no place in determining whether Darwinism or ID is a valid scientific theory, except as a rule of thumb that has an intuitive appeal, but turns out to be self-contradictory and absurd on further analysis.
posted by jamjam at 12:59 AM on September 9, 2011


Sorry kjs3,

I didn't mean to be condescending (was it the IT comment?). I really have nowhere from which to descend. The web page linked pushed my buttons a bit because there are interesting discussions to be had around questions like this, he's not going to have an interesting discussion with that approach. There is a ton of literature out there, but a cursory review of dictionary.com and wikipedia isn't going to find it.

I personally don't think of 'ID' as a scientific theory, I think many of the arguments made on its behalf are dishonest ones, but it could easily fit into the definition quoted without any torture at all. And if falsified a new, slightly modified version could be advanced as a theory just as valid under that definition. Definitions of what science is don't come from some platonic Science, they are what people decide it's going to be. And largely, people working in science have decided ID does not make the cut, Blasdelb makes a good point about the usefulness of the theory, I said the same thing "All models are wrong, some models are useful" ID doesn't seem that useful. You point out that arguments could be made against String Theory and MWI being scientific theories at the moment, given the current knowledge. Other perspectives would place them clearly in a scientific realm, and I think we can both agree they are closer to being scientific theories than ID is, but there is no right place to draw the line.

It's 3 AM, and I need to sleep. But while maybe only tangentially related, the two essays that have made me think most about truth and science are The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences and The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

Hamming writes: "Not that science explains "why" things are as they are - gravitation does not explain why things fall - but science gives so many details of "how" that we have the feeling we understand "why." Let us be clear about this point; it is by the sea of interrelated details that science seems to say "why" the universe is as it is."

ID is an attempt to prove a why with a how, and so is fundamentally misguided.
posted by pseudonick at 3:05 AM on September 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution lists the evidence for evolution, and for every category, it lists examples of "Potential Falsification".

For instance, under 2.4: Ontogeny and Development of Organisms, it says:

Potential Falsification:

Based on our standard phylogenetic tree, we may expect to find gill pouches or egg shells at some point in mammalian embryonic development (and we do). However, we never expect to find nipples, hair, or a middle-ear incus bone at any point in fish, amphibian, or reptilian embryos. Likewise, we might expect to find teeth in the mouths of some avian embryos (as we do), but we never expect to find bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos (eutherians are placental mammals such as humans, cows, dogs, or rabbits). We may expect to find human embryos with tails (and we do; see Figure 2.3.1), but we never expect to find leg buds or developing limbs in the embryos of manta rays, eels, teleost fish, or sharks. Any such findings would be in direct contradiction to macroevolutionary theory (Gilbert 1997, esp. Ch. 23).
posted by martinrebas at 3:49 AM on September 9, 2011


If it were, it would have to be falsifiable, and that would mean that there must be a possibility of a valid scientific theory that is not falsifiable, because if no such theory was even conceivable, then the theory of falsifiability would not itself be falsifiable and is therefore not a valid scientific theory.

The concept of "falsifiability" is not, itself, a theory. So it doesn't have the requirements that theories have.

Actually, if every part of a theory had to be a theory, as you seem to be implying, that would create a "turtles all the way down" situation where you're never allowed to make any assumptions.
posted by LogicalDash at 4:11 AM on September 9, 2011 [2 favorites]


Thanks, LogicalDash. "Falsifiability" isn't a theory in and of itself, it's a function of the scientific method. Science asks, "How does this work? How can we test it?" Testing doesn't mean white men in white lab coats with thoughtful beards and test-tubes, it means forming a hypothesis and then proving or disproving it. Something is falsifiable if we can disprove it. ID makes a hypothesis, but that hypothesis can't be disproven, because it assumes an unknowable and thus untouchable agent is at work.

So far, proponents of ID haven't even attempted to put ID on the scientific field in any meaningful sense. They offer evidence that Evolution is false, which is fine if the evidence can hold up, but that doesn't automagically mean that ID is true.

It would be akin to faith healers saying, "Aspirin doesn't actually alleviate pain, therefore faith alleviates pain." It's a non-sequitor.
posted by muddgirl at 5:59 AM on September 9, 2011


The concept of "falsifiability" is not, itself, a theory. So it doesn't have the requirements that theories have.

One of my main points was that falsifiability cannot be a scientific theory, so I'm grateful that you grasped this much.

However, the mere existence of the principle of falsifiability, if it is true, implies the existence of a more basic and more valid mode of understanding than science, since the principle of falsifiability must remain forever outside of science, and forever immune from scientific interrogation or challenge, because science depends for its validity on this principle, and that leaves us mired in the surreal absurdity of claiming that science can never address the question 'are valid scientific theories falsifiable?'

It is indeed something all the way down, but I think it's more appropriate to nominate squabbling philosophers in place of turtles.
posted by jamjam at 10:08 AM on September 9, 2011


I think you're looking at this backwards. There is no "principle of falsifiablility" - it is an inherent part of the (man-made) scientific method. If a stated hypothesis can't be disproven, then we can't use the scientific method to test it - it's as simple as that. You can use a different method, if you choose - the Greeks were fond of just stating that the hypothesis was true for philosophical reasons and leaving it at that.

Science isn't a religion. We don't have to believe that it is the most basic and most valid mode of understanding (and toss out anything to the contrary) to use the scientific method.
posted by muddgirl at 11:46 AM on September 9, 2011


jamjam, if you're just trying to say that science can't prove everything, that's old news. Actually, no system of knowledge sophisticated enough to support the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 can prove everything--that's what we learn from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.

I don't know what a "more basic and more valid" mode of understanding is. I thought that "modes of understanding," like philosophical discourse, were what you used to determine what's valid and what isn't.
posted by LogicalDash at 12:43 PM on September 9, 2011


The interesting thing about ID to me is not the question of its validity. Rather it is the question of why anyone would spend a moment discussing a theory that seems (again, to me) as relevant to reality as phrenology. As a matter of interest, is there any country other than the USA that takes ID seriously?
posted by nickji at 3:15 AM on September 11, 2011


However, the mere existence of the principle of falsifiability, if it is true, implies the existence of a more basic and more valid mode of understanding than science

That would be: logic.
posted by klanawa at 7:30 PM on October 2, 2011


« Older Needed: the ability to overlay...   |  I own a small food delivery bu... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.


Post