"Ad Hoc" Explanations And Science

When a scientific theory requires a billion convoluted explanations and “just so stories” to explain or “prove” it is accurate, then the odds are good that the theory is seriously lacking, or possibly entirely false. This has been a fundamental truth within intelligent analysis of science and the natural world for a very long time, even in very ancient and early examples of scientific discovery and consideration. Ancient scientific theories that made little rational sense as data and evidence accumulated were dropped in favour of far better explanations and theories that more accurately fit and explained the known data. Often times, these new realizations and theories turned out to be much more simple (basic) than the theories that they had overthrown and replaced. You see, those “old” theories over time had evidence piling up against them, and in order to keep those favoured ideas from crumbling beneath the weight of such contradictory evidences, the theory itself had to morph, transform, and constantly modify itself in order to have any chance of survival. The theory had to somehow “explain away” the evidence that contradicted it, and so all kinds of additions and changes are made to the theory to try and keep it alive. Eventually, such a convoluted and top heavy theory invariably collapses because it becomes widely apparent that the theory itself must be severely flawed or completely wrong. The evidence against it is just too great, and the massive amount of replacement and complex changes and adjustments to the theory make it an absolute mess that ends up making very little logical and practical sense.

Why "Ad Hoc" Explanations Exist

Why does such a thing happen, even among professional scientists regarding scientific theories? It's important to briefly summarize why such things as “ad hoc” explanations are so often used to try and prop up a failed scientific expectation. The reason, is itself, very simple. Belief. We humans all hold beliefs, perspectives, ideologies, and ways of interpreting the world and universe we live within. Everything we believe and understand comes directly out of the knowledge we hold and the way in which we interpret that knowledge and the connected data. It all comes down to world-view, personal opinion and pre-conceived assumptions. There are many ways that scientific studies try to remove such potentially cloudy biases from interfering with the data collection process, but we are all human, and everything we do and understand is handled through interpretation. This is why “ad hoc” explanations happen. These extra explanations must be added on top of and in place of previously assumed systems to try and preserve that apparently failed system from crumbling.

For example, if I believed that the moon only appears at night after the sun has set, and live within a culture that never goes out or looks at the sky during the day, I am only left with two options if I step outside in the daytime and see, surprisingly, that the moon actually DOES appear in the sky during the day time. I must either throw away the theory that the moon only comes out at night, or I must explain away the reason for why this belief seems to have been so wrong. Essentially, option two requires a re-writing of history with a mental and intelligent warp. The prediction based on the theory was wrong, and so now unless you allow the theory to fall, you have to find some way (ANY way) to erase the apparent failure of the theory. Obviously a rational person not blinded by bias should probably go with the first option, dropping the wrong theory. But personal belief clouds this rationality and practically demands of the person's ego that the original theory CAN'T have been wrong. There must be another explanation! And that's where ad hoc explanations and reasoning comes from. Despite the probable reality, alternative and complex explanations end up added onto the original theory in an attempt to keep it from ultimately failing.

Now don't confuse this with actual scientific and rational attempts to better understand where a theory failed and why. Trying to better understand something and better explain it are good and noble causes. Just because a prediction has failed does not mean that the entire theory it was based upon is also wrong. There really are many possible reasons for a failed prediction (scientific or otherwise). So theories with many interconnected parts that better clarify a system of understanding are always greatly desired and needed. But eventually, if a theory is so heavily dependent upon questionable additions for explanation in order to prop up its regularly occurring failures, then in all likelihood something must be very wrong with the core theory itself.

To summarize, the more apparently contradictory and convoluted (messy and confounding) a theory is, especially with regards to the natural world, the more likely it is that the theory is flawed or wrong. The more things must be “explained away”, the more likely it is that the theory or belief is simply false.

Example:  Canyons And Uniformitareanism

A general scientific example of this issue in play can be taken from the adherence to the belief of Uniformitarianism (that the present average is the same as it has always been, the present is the key to the past). When a person who believes in Uniformitarianism sees a large canyon with a small river running through the bottom of it, he or she immediately surmises that the small river over many tens of thousands of years has slowly carved this canyon out of the ground. This is an automatic belief or assumption, just like a person who does not lean towards Uniformitarianism would be using his or her automatic assumptions if he/she believed that the Uniformitarianist explanation wasn't true or at work here. Both people are jumping to conclusions, though hopefully holding those beliefs and conclusions (explanations) very loosely, for now. Now if a wide range of evidence gathered in the area indicates that yes, the canyon was formed very slowly over a long period of time, then the Uniformitarean assumption will have been proven correct (or most probably correct), based on what we know. However, if there is widely contradictory evidence, some suggesting a long slow process and other evidence suggesting a very fast catastrophic process, then the truth of what happened is much harder to come by. If a great deal of evidence suggests a fast carving of the canyon, and the Uniformitareanist stubbornly refuses to accept what the evidence seems to be saying, and instead invents a pile of extra explanations and excuses for why Uniformitareanism should still be assumed and believed instead of a fast cataclysmic event, then the Uniformitareanist could very well be guilty of overriding the facts (evidences) with his/her faith (beliefs and assumptions). The same would be said for a person who stubbornly holds to a fast cataclysmic carving of the canyon when little or no evidence supports that belief, but the person continues to reject the evidence based on personal belief and bias. If there are multiple pieces of contradictory evidence supporting both possible explanations, then odds are good that one of the theories is wrong (or mostly wrong) in connection to this particular canyon, or more likely, BOTH explanations are true to some degree and BOTH scenarios have shaped the canyon in significant ways.

The Good And The Bad

Bias and assumptions can be ok, and even a good thing, because often times a person's convictions can be a strong motivator and end up producing excellent quantity and quality of work (scientific or otherwise). Beliefs and assumptions are not always a poison to scientific discovery or understanding. A person can't just toss out a scientific theory on a whim because not everything seems to line up with it as neatly as one would hope. If we did that, we'd never truly understand or learn much of anything. Trial and error are important factors in science and cannot be understated. But if a scientific theory becomes a behemoth (monstrous giant) of excuses in an attempt to keep it alive while it is clearly floundering, then that core theory or understanding needs to be seriously re-evaluated all across the board, because something somewhere has gone very wrong. It's like a liar who starts off by telling one or two lies and then must concoct an ever expanding fictional tale in order to try and keep those original lies from crumbling. Though with a liar the process is intentionally dishonest from the start, such a system of ever expanding excuses and replacements for a failing argument is still remarkably similar.

The point of this write up is to inform you, the reader, that science often relies on assumptions and beliefs. These beliefs and assumptions can be used at the beginning of a study as a stepping stone to better understanding, such as a hypothesis that you wish to test, or the assumptions and beliefs can be used on top of existing evidence and data to try and explain the gathered data. That second approach is more dangerous than the first, because it means interpreting the existing data based on personal belief, which might actually be wrong. This is where “ad hoc” explanations get thrown into the scientific mix to try and keep a belief system alive even when the evidence doesn't fit.

Even MORE risky is the creation of entirely speculative explanations. These theories and explanations exist with very little positive evidence to support them, but they must be created and believed in order to keep another larger theory alive and consistent. Evolutionism has been extremely guilty of this over the past century of its existence within mainstream science, the same as Uniformitareanism has. A quick example of this methodology in action can be seen in astronomy and the Oort Cloud that is believed to surround the outer edges of our solar system. Many scientists believe that our solar system is many billions of years old, but this means that short period comets (comets that regularly come into close orbit of our sun) cause a serious problem because they could only last thousands (tens of thousands) of years before melting away and vanishing entirely. In order to explain why we still have a number of short period comets traversing our solar system and orbiting our sun, scientists came up with the idea of a large sphere of ice and rock comets sitting way out at the farthest edges of our solar system that can constantly resupply us with fresh comets. There! Problem solved! We still have comets left over from the initial forming of our solar system because there are tons of them floating way out there just waiting to be knocked loose to make a run through our inner solar system for everyone to see. But besides this explanation itself, there is little solid evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud. It exists mostly as an “ad hoc” explanation, a way for scientists to explain the existence of regular comets when their main theory about solar system formation would expect no such comets to still exist after billions of years.

Scientists DO often admit when such explanations are purely theoretical or hypothetical, but often times they treat these beliefs and speculations as being factual to “average joes” because to admit the creative imagination used on such explanations to regular people would make them doubt or question other important scientific beliefs, such as the age of our solar system. They can't have that, so to everyone else, the Oort Cloud is taught as basically proven fact by scientists, even though between each other (other scientists) they'll always consider it theoretical (speculative, unproven).

There are many science based beliefs out there like the Oort Cloud with little or no evidence to support them, yet these kinds of theories exist in order to keep other grander theories from crumbling or being struck with potentially serious problems. Evolutionism is one of the biggest areas in which such “ad hoc” explanations of every kind exist all over the board. This is because the theory of Neo-Darwinism is so critically important to so many scientists who desire to toss God out of the creation process of life and the universe completely. So their presumed beliefs are regularly contradicted by gathered evidence, which forces them to invent alternative and complex explanations for why their theory keeps coming up wrong. The modern day reality is so unbelievably stacked against Neo-Darwin Evolutionism that the theory is literally drowning in “ad hoc” explanations everywhere you look. Some of these “corrections” have potential (they might be real, but not enough is known to prove or disprove them), but many of them are extremely speculative, merely creative imagination at work rather than hard factual science. One of the most notable problems of Evolutionism is the many critically important beliefs and theories that have existed in direct connection to Evolutionism that have been completely overthrown and replaced over the years, and yet the core theory is still widely believed as fact. Normally when a theory ends up so dramatically wrong so many times, it needs to be completely re-analyzed from top to bottom and seriously doubted. But Evolutionism is special, because it is the fundamental ideology of people who desperately want God excluded from the origin of life and the universe. Some prominent atheists and scientists have even stated this quite plainly, admitting that Evolutionism is a total mess full of massive holes and failed speculations over the years, but they hold to it, admittedly, because to NOT believe it is true is to open the door for God, and that, they simply cannot and will not do.

Many "ad hoc" and replacement speculative theories exist across almost all scientific branches of study (biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, etc.). They exist to explain away apparent major problems with existing theories, and are often labelled "paradoxes" or "anomalies" in a scientific theory. These are some of the favourite areas of attack that Creation Scientists like to key on because they are so void of solid scientific proof to back them up, despite their widespread use and belief.

(In the future I'd like to point more of these areas of problem out for you guys, my readers, because it is important to see just how void of solid proof many of these areas and explanations in science are despite being used constantly to try and prop up God-less understandings of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and life within it.)