So are you suggesting that the capacity to imagine a scenario (design in nature) that is consistent with observations can be considered evidence in support of that scenario?
Yes, Chris, that's the gist of it. (That's not my exact choice of words, but I believe it accurately conveys the concept I was pointing out.
An observation can be admitted as evidence for two propositions, even if those propositions are diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive.
One proposition cannot lay an "exclusive claim" on an observation. The observation must be available for interpretation as evidence by both propositions.
This is true, even if one of the propositions has been "thoroughly debunked" (if I may borrow that phrase from french e)
An individual may judge a proposition "thoroughly debunked", but that does not disallow admitting any evidence for it.
Chris B inquired ...
Couldn't the same logic apply equally well to evolution? That is, if we can allow ourselves to suppose that evolution is possible, and make observations that are consistent with evolution, is that not evidence in favor of evolution?
Absolutely, Chris, absolutely. We allow observations to be interpreted as consistent with evolution, and admitted as evidence for evolution.
Chris B asked...
Do Creationists reject evolution because the evidence is invalid, or "because the proposition is held to be invalid"?
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it, Chris.
I certainly can't speak for all "creationists" anymore that I can speak for all "evolutionists". But I can communicate what I have generally observed.
As you identify, it's the proposition they have a problem with; its the proposition that is invalid.
The big problem that creationists have with the theory of evolution is that it disallows a Creator.
(Again, I'm not speaking for all creationists, or for all evolutionists,I'm just communicating what I've observed.)
I think most evolutionists would agree that the ToE does not admit the possibility of a directed design from an agency from "beyond the observable universe"
(i.e. L. super = above or beyond + L. natura = nature or the observable universe)
But, to clarify, I'm not so sure whether its the ToE, or whether its the philosophical framework that informs the ToE. The real issue may be the worldview of the adherents of evolution.
I think many evolutionists would find themselves quite at home in a worldview described by metaphysical naturalism.
(My tendency is to refer to this worldview more generally as naturalism. But when I do, it's pointed out to me that what I am really describing is more specifically metaphysical naturalism. I do recognize the distinctions within branches of naturalism, but in practice, I think they all pretty much boil down the same.)
The point is, the evolutionist worldview does not allow for any agency that is L.super + natura ("beyond nature").
So, it's really two different worldviews that are opposed to one another.
The "theory of evolution" is informed by one, and "creation" is informed by the other.
The conflict between these two is that they cannot both be true. If one is true, the other is false.
What is sad and laughable (at the same time) is the lengths that many will go to to thoroughly distance themselves from even considering another point of view, from interpreting the universe from another philosophical framework.
HTH
spencer7593 said...
darkknight56 said...
So are you saying that if something looks designed it must be designed?
You know better than that, darknight56. That's not what I said.
darknight56 said...
Are there ever any instances of something looking like it was designed but actually wasn't?
I'm sure you have plenty of examples of things that have the appearance of being designed but you believe weren't designed. You are free to provide those examples.
darknight56 said...
If you actually have evidence, please show it
I submit for your consideration one small chapter from the book of nature.
Just one example (with which you are undoubtedly familiar), the bacterial flagellum, the tiny rotary motor/propeller that serves as a means of propulsion for some bacteria.
If we examine the flagellum closely, we observe that it consists of these major components:
. filament
. junction
. hook
. rod
. C-ring
. L-ring
. MS-ring
. P-ring
. stator
(This is only a list of the major components, not a complete list of the proteins that comprise the structure.)
The flagellum would seem to serve a purpose (the observed locomotion of the organism).
We observe a somewhat regulated function. It rotates both clockwise and counterclockwise, at variable speeds. (Rotation in one direction propels the bacteria, rotation in the other direction tumbles the bacteria, a rudimentary steering mechanism that works by changing the organisms orientation).
Each of the parts (proteins) work closely together in concert to achieve this propulsion.
Removal of any of these necessary components, and the flagellum ceases to function.
When we compare this tiny motor to an automobile engine, for example, we observe several parallels: rotation, bearings, parts in close tolerance, working together in concert. Each machine is a mechanism that converts potential energy into kinetic energy.
If (and I recognize this is a big "IF" for many) ... but IF, for the purposes of a thought experiment...
IF we were to allow (for a moment) consideration of design as a feature of the universe...
IF we were to humor that proposition, however briefly...
PLEASE NOTE: I am not making an argument that this proposition is true, or that there is overwhelming evidence. I am not presenting an argument of irreducible complexity. I'm not claiming that no other interpretation of the observation is available or better. That's WAY beyond the scope of this discussion, I am just temporarily allowing a proposition as a thought exercise.
I humbly submit, for your careful consideration, that this tiny rotary motor has a few characteristics which would be considered congruent with the appearance of a design.
I'm simply submitting here the observation of an appearance of design, something that appears to be designed.
We could take our observation, and interpret that as evidence of a design.
If we allow the possibility of design, then an observation of something that has some characteristics common with other things considered to be designed (for example, an automobile engine), then that observation can be interpreted as evidence,
(AND AGAIN PLEASE: I am not asserting that this "proves" there is a design, I am ONLY submitting an observation of ONE small rotary motor, as ONE TINY piece of evidence of a design.
I believe that this is reasonably valid evidence. (It's not overwhelming, it's not a proof, but I do believe it to be reasonable to consider it evidence.
@darknight56
I again reiterate my previous point. This evidence will be dismissed and rejected, not because this tiny piece of evidence is not valid, but because the proposition is held to be invalid.
I predict that this evidence will be discarded, and the refrains will continue to sound: "not a shred of evidence", "absolutely no evidence"...
french engineer said...
Actually spencer7593 the flagellum you speak of is only one protein away from ane earlyer defens emechanism that was used to exple poisonous molecules at ennemy cells. It is a perfect example of an "organ" evolving and changing from one useful function to another, more useful (in a given environnement) function.
[What the plastic does that have to do with the appearance of design, frenche? You're not satisfied with considering the appearance of design of the bacterial flagellum. You are describing another purposeful structure, suited for a different purpose, but similar in structure. This structure also shares an appearance of design.]
the bacterium flagellae are a modern "half an eye". Just as the eye argument has been thoroughly debunked, so has the flagellum argument.
[You needn't bother yourself looking for any characteristics of design. Since the proposition has already been "thoroughly debunked", no evidence can be admitted for the proposition. And for good measure, you'll preemptively dismiss other observations of the appearance of design, and disallow them as evidence.]
darkknight56 said...
spencer7593 said...
Just one example (with which you are undoubtedly familiar), the bacterial flagellum...The flagellum would seem to serve a purpose (the observed locomotion of the organism)...Each of the parts (proteins) work closely together in concert to achieve this propulsion. Removal of any of these necessary components, and the flagellum ceases to function...I am not presenting an argument of irreducible complexity...
Actually, that is the definition of irreducible complexity.
[Actually, no. Irreducible complexity is an argument against the occurrence of complexity from random chance and blindly undirected natural forces. That's not AT ALL what I am arguing.]
[I was intending to show that one characteristic of careful, intentional design is the absence of unnecessary parts. The typical automobile engine doesn't have extra spark plugs, sensors, catalytic converters which are not necessary for proper operation. Take away parts of the automobile engine, and it ceases to operate effectively. I'm promoting the characteristic of "no extra unnecessary parts" as a characteristic of design.]
I'm simply submitting here the observation of an appearance of design, something that appears to be designed.
We could take our observation, and interpret that as evidence of a design.
But is it actually evidence of design or not? Again, back to my original point which was that saying that it has the appearence of design doesn't mean it was designed.
[Actually, I thought your original point was that no one had shown you evidence of design, that you had implored, pleaded and begged, and no one could produce one shred of evidence. That you are now proposing that your original point was something different is disingenuous, almost as if by design, you are mis-identifying your original point.]To sit on the fence and say it may possilby be designed or part of a design is to leave open the possibility that it also may not be designed or part of a design.
[Oh, you can't be allowing that, can you, considering a proposition that runs counter to one that you already hold to be true. Who knows what the cat might drag in if we were to leave the door open to possibility.]
I again reiterate my previous point. This evidence will be dismissed and rejected, not because this tiny piece of evidence is not valid, but because the proposition is held to be invalid.
I predict that this evidence will be discarded, and the refrains will continue to sound: "not a shred of evidence", "absolutely no evidence"...
First, I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed. You knock others beliefs and stances but when it comes to your own, you become very evasive and hard to pin down.
[Can you provide any examples of where I "knock others beliefs and stances". That's a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. Dimensio will be happy to fill you in on the validity of unsupported assertions and allegations.]
[So, now the point of issue is not whether anyone has ever submitted evidence (after you've implored, pleaded and begged). Now its not about whether there is any shred of evidence of design. Now the issue is what I believe. What the plastic does that have to do with allowing a structure to be observed, and comparing its characteristics to other things known to be designed.]
Your whole argument here is if's and maybe's and appearance of design.
[No, it's not an argument. You asked for evidence, and claimed that you pleaded, and no one would or could submit any. That's what I've attempted to do, to admit just the observation of one tiny structure, to consider whether it shares any characteristics with any other structures that are known to be designed.]What do you actually believe? Do you believe the bacterial flagellum was designed? If something can look designed but not actually be designed then how do you tell which is which? You have to have some standard or criteria for making such distinctions; it can't be just a matter of opinion.
[We must admit evidence to allow it to be considered and evaluated. And yes there is some standard, we compare characteristics. And, again, what the plastic does what I believe have to do with it? You claimed you asked for evidence, you pleaded and implored, and no one could submit any. Obviously, you were intent on keeping it that way.]But before you predict anything you should look at a book called Finding Darwin's God by biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University. What may interest you about him is that he's NOT an atheist but a devout christian like yourself.
But is it actually evidence of design or not?
Yes, the appearance of design can be interpreted as evidence of design. Yes, it is actually evidence of design.
Again, back to my original point which was that saying that it has the appearance of design doesn't mean it was designed.
You aren't making a point. You are essentially asking a rhetorical question, "Are all things actually as they appear?"
It does not logically follow that the converse is true, that "All things actually are not as they appear".
There are some things that appear to be designed (as it turns out), that are actually designed.
To sit on the fence and say it may possibly be designed or part of a design is to leave open the possibility that it also may not be designed or part of a design.
Your point is that being open to considering two possibilities is allowing one too many possibilities? Your point is that we should consider only one possible explanation?
If I serve as a juror in a criminal trial, am I not obligated to consider the case from all sides? Am I only to be allowed to consider one possibility?
I think that we should look at what's on either side of the fence we're sitting on, before we get off of fence.
You knock others beliefs and stances but when it comes to your own, you become very evasive and hard to pin down.
Please substantiate your assertion, by giving examples showing where I "knock others beliefs" and showing where I am "very evasive" about my beliefs.
(Dimensio can fill you in about the validity of unsupported assertions.)
Your whole argument here is if's and maybe's and appearance of design.
No, not at all. I answered a request for a piece of evidence, very specifically, for an example of evidence that supported one particular proposition.
My presentation (or "argument" if you insist on characterizing it as such) as a response to the that someone supply evidence.
That's exactly what I did. Nothing more, nothing less.
I did make a claim, that for the purpose of admitting evidence to support a proposition, that we must first admit the proposition, in order to allow it to be supported.
Absent a proposition, there can be no evidence for or against it.
(Consider a criminal court case, where evidence is allowed only after charges are filed. Absent a charge, no evidence can be presented.)
And I provided you with a single example, one structure which we observe to exhibit the appearance of design. This one small example is just one small piece of evidence of design.
If you are pointing out that I was careful to address only that one issue, you are correct. I intended only to present one observation which can be reasonably interpreted as evidence for a particular proposition.
What do you actually believe?
What I believe about a proposition is of no import, in terms of evidence. What I believe has no bearing whatsoever on the matter. It has nothing to do with providing evidence to support a particular proposition.
If something can look designed but not actually be designed then how do you tell which is which?
That is an important philosophical question. The short answer is that we weigh the evidence. Not just on one side, but on all sides. We consider evidence for and against all sides.
@french engineer
I provided one example of evidence for design. That you've managed to "thoroughly debunk" a proposition entirely misses my point.
You effectively illustrate how evidence is disallowed, and the claimed not to exist.
You disallow any evidence for a proposition, not because evidence is not available, but because you entirely disallow the proposition in the first place.
It's just a continuation of the all too familiar refrains, "Absolutely No Evidence", and "Not One Shred Of Evidence".
If you refuse to allow a proposition to be considered, then there can be no evidence presented for it.
How con-veeen-yent.
That point either eluded you, or you blatantly chose to disregard it. Either way, you've won. You've safely secured the evidence away, informed by your narrow worldview, to keep it safely away from any other interpretation. Kudos.
Time to celebrate with one of your favorite choruses, might I suggest "Inadmissible Evidence Is Invisible" ?
french engineer said...
" spencer7593 said...
@french engineer
I provided one example of evidence for design. That you've managed to "thoroughly debunk" a proposition entirely misses my point.
You effectively illustrate how evidence is disallowed, and the claimed not to exist."
And you are missing MY point
Pointing at things and saying "it is evidence of design" does not make design true. Evidence is not something that is to be blindly accepted but critically evaluated.
In short, what you have provided is NOT evidence for design. Evidence for design would be something that cannot be explained except by design. What you have provided is a clue towards design, but not evidence of it since it can be explained without a designer. The best that can be said is that you have provided evidence for complexity.
Now, at first glance, it would appear that complexity requires a designer. I will grant you that. However, I humbly submit to you that at first glance, thunder looks like the anger of the gods and your computer looks like it runs on little elves. If there is one thing that science has taught us, it is that first glances are often meaningless.
There is no instance of complexity that has been documented and cannot be explained by unthinking natural processes. So Either your god does not exist, or he has had no measurable action in shaping life.
And the chorus goes on, "Not One Shred Of Evidence ..."
You illustrate my point. You clamor about the absence of evidence, then you disallow the proposition, in order to disallow any evidence for it.
"Show me evidence!" they cry, "No one has ever shown me evidence!"
Have you asked for evidence?
"Yes. Oh, yes," they proclaim, "many times. We ask for evidence, but no one can show it to us!"
But you wouldn't even bother weighing evidence if it was shown to you. Why should anyone bother submitting evidence?
"Sir," they boom authoritatively, "You offend us! Why, we DO admit evidence. It's just that NONE has been brought before us!"
If you would allow a proposition, then I would submit some evidence for it.
"Then BRING IT! We want to see EVIDENCE!"
Alright, I submit for your consideration, one item to be admitted as evide...
"OBJECTION!!!"
I thought you wanted to see some evide...
"Counsel refers to an issue that is NOT before the court."
But you said you would allow ...
"POINT OF ORDER!"
What?
"There is NO CASE here to submit evidence for. The case is already decided. The case is CLOSED."
You just yanked the proposition out from under ...
"Sir, we would look at your evidence, if it were admitted."
Would you just look...
"Now you are just playing silly 'what if' games. That's not allowed here."
But if you would just ...
"It's thoroughly debunked already."
Without any evidence?
"GET OFF THE FENCE! Sitting on the fence is not allowed!"
But I thought you were going to ...
"There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE!"
Then why ask for ...
"The case is CLOSED!"
And on goes the familiar refrain... "Not One Shred Of Evidence"
darkknight56 said...
spencer7593 said...
Your point is that being open to considering two possibilities is allowing one too many possibilities? Your point is that we should consider only one possible explanation?
You are more than welcome to consider many possibilities but in the end something actually was designed or it wasn't. A watch was either designed or it wasn't. DNA or bacterial flagellum were either designed or they weren't. To say something may have been designed therefore it is evidence for God is not evidence for anything.
My questions to you are how do you know if something was designed or not? What criteria is there in determining what was designed.
french engineer said:
"What you have provided is NOT evidence for design. Evidence for design would be something that cannot be explained except by design... you have provided evidence for complexity."
"There is no instance of complexity that has been documented and cannot be explained by unthinking natural processes."
So now you've yanked "design" from its seat, dragged it out the door, kicked it to the curb, and offered its place to "complexity".
You've disallowed "design" as the proposition, and to appear generous, you've replaced it with another proposition, an entirely different proposition of your own choosing.
"This court is now called to order!"
I was submitting an item of evidence for design ...
"NO! This court is not admitting any evidence for DESIGN!"
But I thought you had asked for evidence for design...
"This court does NOT ALLOW design as a proposition."
But without a proposition, how can there be evidence for it?
"OBJECTION!"
What?
"The issue before the court is COMPLEXITY!"
But I thought we were talking about design.
"There IS NO DESIGN! There is only COMPLEXITY!"
But design and complexity are two different things.
"This court ONLY allows evidence for COMPLEXITY!"
But complexity doesn't inform us about design ...
"PRECISELY! There is only apparent complexity. There is NO design!"
How can you decide there is no design, without looking at any evidence...
"There IS NO EVIDENCE for design!"
Have you looked for evidence?
"No one has shown us any evidence for design!"
Would you even admit evidence for design?
"Yes! We admit evidence for COMPLEXITY!"
But I wasn't submitting evidence for complexity,
"NO ONE has shown us any EVIDENCE!"
I don't have evidence of complexity, I have eviden...
"AHA! We already knew that! There IS NO EVIDENCE!"
french engineer said:
"Evidence for design would be something that cannot be explained except by design."
@french engineer
That just seems bizarre to me. Let's analyze the consequences of that statement. Let's see what logically follows from it.
You asserted:
"Evidence for A would be something that cannot be explained except by A."
It logically follows that
If something can be explained by B, then that something cannot be evidence for A.
Which means an explanation (X) for something is sufficient to disallow that something from being evidence for any other possible explanation (Y or Z.)
So, if there are two possible explanations for an observation (that is, a something), then that observation can be evidence for only one of those explanations. (Or neither of the explanations.)
Again, that whole idea just seems bizarre to me.
And how would that work as rules of evidence in a court room?
Scene 1: criminal court proceeding
Prosecutor: Officer, tell us what you observed.
Officer: When we arrived, I observed the suspect on front porch ...
Defense: Objection! The officer's observation is not evidence against my client!
Judge: Why is that?
Defense: Because there is already an explanation for the officer's observation.
Judge: What do you mean?
Defense: The officer's observation would only be evidence for the prosecution's case if it cannot be explained except by the prosecution's case.
If the officer's observation can be explained by my client's explanation, then the officer's observation cannot be evidence for the prosecution's case.
Judge: So, is there some other explanation for the officer's observation?
Defense: Yes! My client already has an explanation for the officer's observation.
Judge: Very well then! Sustained!
Prosecutor: Your Honor! The officer's observation is also evidence for my case!
Judge: Not according to the rules of evidence:
Prosecutor: What do you mean?
Judge: Since the officer's observation is something that can be explained by [B], the observation cannot be allowed as evidence for [A].
Prosecutor: But Your Honor!
french engineer said:
"There is no instance of complexity that has been documented and cannot be explained by unthinking natural processes."
@french engineer:
I was talking about design, not complexity.
And here we go again, with the blind, impartial, undirected, unthinking natural processes.
Do any of these have the appearance of design?
Or do any of these have the (allowable) appearance of complexity?
. a wheel barrow
. a swiss watch movement
. sun sparc processor
. a motorola cellular phone
. a six cylinder automobile engine
. a nuclear-powered trident submarine
. a nasa space shuttle (atlantis)
Are any of these the product of a design?
Are any of these designed?
Was a designer prominent in the development of any of these?
If the human race and human society is the result of "unthinking, natural processes," then are these examples of human design actually a result of "unthinking, natural processes?"
Are human thought and human designs the products of "unthinking, natural processes?"
french engineer said...Spencer
Actually, it would rather go like this:
Your honor, I have fingerprints from the defendant on the place where the crime was comitted. This is evidence that he comitted the crime.
Objection, your honor, the crime was comitted in the defendant's home, there is a therefore a totally logical explanation for the presence of the defendant's prints there.
objection sustained, go on with your case.
See? The fingerprints (the complexity of the system) appears to lead to a conclusion (design, or the defendants culpability in my little metaphor) while proper examination of the clue provides another, more logical explanation for it (it's his home, or out of the metaphor it's natural processes) . Therefore the fingerprints (complexity) are NOT evidence for culpability (design).
french engineer said:
"Evidence for [A] would be [X] that cannot be explained except by [A]."
Your assertion is ridiculous. And amending it (as you did in your last post), is even more ridiculous.
Your proposition means that if [X] can be explained by anything [other than A], then it cannot be evidence for [A].
By your rules, if [X] can be explained by [A] and by [other than A], then it cannot be evidence for [A]. And it also follows that it cannot be admitted as evidence for [other than A].
That's the logical consequence of the claim you made.
But in your last post, you've modified the rule. And now you are going to allow the observation as evidence for only one, either [A] or [other than A].
Following your example, the "observation of fingerprints found on an object at the site" (let's label it [X])
could be explained by "the presence of the fingers at the site" (let's label that [A]).
BUT, [X] could also be explained by something else, such as someone else transporting the object from a different site, an explanation which excludes [A] as an explanation, (let's label that [other than A].)
Now we have two explanations [A] and [other than A] for the same observation [X].
By the rule you asserted, observation [X] is not available as evidence for explanation [A] or for explanation [other than A].
But in your last post, you would now allow us to admit [X] as evidence for [A], but not allow it as evidence for [other than A].
We may find one of the explanations more reasonable that the other, and we find the other to be outlandishly incredulous.
But, WHAT IF it turns out that the more incredulous explanation [other than A] is ACTUALLY true, and the more reasonable explanation [A] turns out to be false.
If we have already admitted [X] as evidence for [A] and disallowed it for [other than A] ...
If [X] can be admitted for only one or the other, we now have to allow evidence to "switch sides" ...
The truth is that your assertion is ridiculous. And amended, it is even more ridiculous.
The truth is that an observation [X] can be admitted as evidence for both [A] and for [other than A].
You can not logically declare an observation evidence for one proposition, and disallow it as evidence for another.
darkknight56 said...
I have written on this blog many times sincerely begging, pleading, imploring ... for some evidence.
I really, really, really want to see evidence but if I'm to be accused of not weighing the evidence then the blame has to fall [on someone else] not being willing to show it to me.
If you actually have evidence, please show it or stop complaining that we aren't evaluating it properly.
Again, show me your evidence now, today, or go home.
@darknight56...
I submitted one simple observation (from the book of nature), which can be interpreted as evidence that supports a proposition, as informed by a worldview other than metaphysical naturalism.
I attempted to make it clear that metaphysical naturalism dismisses the possibility of the proposition from the get go, before the proposition even makes it out of the gate.
When the proposition is excluded from being considered, there can be no allowance of evidence for it.
Any observation submitted for consideration is derailed, and is immediately informed and explained by metaphysical naturalism.
No allowance is made for the observation to be informed by a different worldview, one that would actually allow the proposition, and would interpret evidence for it.
No. It's claimed that the proposition is already "thoroughly debunked". Not by a worldview that would allow it, have you, but by a worldview that specifically disallows it from being considered.
The familiar chorus of "there is no evidence" may be a comforting refrain to those already convinced of it.
But it rings hollow. It is a repugnant affront to philosophical debate and rational thinking.
the celtic chimp gibbered ...
spencer,
I hope you never serve on a jury where the defendant "looks" like a killer or "looks evil" or has a "creepy vibe" or whatever. You are suggesting that would constitute evidence. The sun appears to go move around the earth. What intuition dictates is absolutely and entirely NOT evidence.
Or, not.
I don't allow intuition to dictate anything. You should consider not allowing your intuition to dictate anything either.
I'm not aware of any facet of appearance that is common to a 'killer' and 'evil', and absent from a non-'killer' and non-'evil'. I don't think you do either.
When we look at 'design', on the other hand, there are some characteristics we look for: an intentional order or pattern that achieves some goal, an arrangement of parts for a purpose. These are characteristics we don't observe in non-design. What we observe in non-design is randomness, purposelessness, chaos, and either no pattern, or no discernible reason for a pattern.
A few simple examples will illustrate this.
When we look at automobile engines or swiss watch movements, we observe an arrangement of parts that suit a particular purpose, an ordered pattern that is intentional.
When we look at the grains of sand on a beach, we don't observe any careful arrangement, it appears random, and no other arrangement is any less suitable.
When we observe snowflakes, we do discern patterns (symmetry), but those patterns appear to be unpredictably random, seeming to serve no particular purpose.
In your analogy, you point to no characteristic of physical appearance that we identify with someone that is a 'killer' as opposed to someone that is not a 'killer', or someone that 'looks evil' as opposed to someone who does not. It's a feeble analogy.
As for the observation of the sun moving across the sky, that, in fact, was actually interpreted and admitted as evidence for the best scientific explanation of the day.
Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe was the best science available. The model was not held to be the best model because '/intuition dictated' it. (Your suggestion that it did is preposterous.)
The apparent movement of the sun across the sky was observed, and it was evaluated by reason (rational thought) to be very good evidence that Ptolemy's model was the best explanation.
It was over 1,000 years later before the 'new' science, the Copernican heliocentric model, upset the 'old' science.
Copernicus's better explanation did use the same observation, and interpreted it as evidence for the new model. But that doesn't mean the observation was not evidence for the older model.
The claim that Ptolemy's science was dictated by intuition, rather than evidence, is either misinformed or misleading.
You don't actually believe, that hundreds of years from now, scientists are going be looking back and claiming that the evidence that supported a particular model wasn't really evidence, because a better model is now available to them. Such a notion is ridiculous.
