Why do absolutists behave like relativists?

[KCfromNC]

I am sure that without much effort one could find examples of formal science failing to find the cause of something and indigenous knowledge not derived from formal science finding that cause with no problem.

Then I guess nothing's stopping you. Let us know what you find.

I have no idea where that came from with respect to this thread.

You seemed surprised that people thought that science was the best at what it did. I was curious where that surprise came from.

But the defenders of science seem to be too busy with self-congratulations and oohing and aahing over the recent phenomenon of formal science and its accomplishments to acknowledge the accomplishments of anybody not recognized as having the discipline and rigor of a "scientist".

Who specifically are you talking about here?

You are distorting my words. I did not say anything about anything evolving or getting better.

Really? Seems to contradict this :

That is because, I would show, the elements of science have always existed in some form (you know, pre-historic peoples discovering agriculture can probably be seen as informal science) and always will.

Unless they've existed in the same form, science as a tool has been refined over time to give us what we have now.

Acting like science is threatened by some school board changing the legal definition of science or Congress or some other economic actor defunding science is behaving like science is relative.

Huh? Seems like the logical conclusion is that redefining science would be behaving as if it is relative, not the objection to the redefinition.

And you're saying that it is unreasonable to think that science education would suffer if we teach mythology in science classes? I have no idea where you'd get that from.

Anyway, are you agreeing then with the assertion that science is nothing more than the latest fad in human thought?

No.

Or is science--even if it isn't always what we today recognize as "science"--an absolute that does not depend on things like evolutionary psychology, culture, social structure, political and economic circumstances, etc.?

No.

 

[Belk]

As I observe the behavior of people a pattern is becoming increasingly clear to me. People very vocally insist that certain things are absolute but their actions with respect to those things suggest that those things are relative.

To me the behavior that has stood out the most is that of many of the defenders of empirical science. They insist that science and its findings are absolute but at the same time they fight political battles over the definition and social status of science and for resources to fund science, launch ad hominem attacks against followers of non-scientific worldviews, make ad nauseum self-congratulations for the accomplishments of science and how it has contributed so much to "human progress", etc., etc. They behave as if science and its findings is just another alternative worldview while talking like it is an absolute that all beings honestly seeking wisdom will arrive at.

Could it be that while relativism may not be true one backs him/herself into a corner by taking absolutist positions?

Could it be that while there may be absolutes no person can know them and the only path to wisdom is to treat all alternatives equally (not relatively), keep an open mind at all times, and never stop asking questions and seeking new ideas/views?

It has been my experience that they insist the exact opposite. That all knowledge is conditional and subject to change as new data comes in. That is one of the core principles of science.

 

[Gottservant]

It is the absolute, that decides what is relative.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

No, all perspectives are not of equal value.

I did not make a categorical statement about the value of anything.

I suggested that the path to something (wisdom) is to treat all alternatives equally.

Maybe based on objective criteria one can conclude that, say, the social sciences are inferior to the natural sciences. But if one person reads a work of sociololgy thinking "If this can even be called science, it is inferior to physics" and another person reads that work thinking "I am going to take what this book has to offer" the latter will likely gain wisdom from the experience while the former likely will not. It is about respecting all thinking as potential sources of wisdom.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It has been my experience that they insist the exact opposite. That all knowledge is conditional and subject to change as new data comes in. That is one of the core principles of science.

This is not about the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise or the tentative nature of scientific explanations.

This is about how science and its findings are absolute concepts. For example, I doubt that any defender of science has ever said that whether or not gravity exists depends on culture, politics, the mind of the thinker, etc., etc. In other words, the existence of gravity only depends on whether or not gravity exists.

And let's not confuse any of this with objectivity. Objectivity is a value. This is simply a question of why people who think that science and its findings are absolute behave as if such things are relative. If, say, the amount of money that Congress allocates (or does not allocate) for scientific research cannot destroy science, then why do the defenders of science act like it can?

Finally, this is not a thread about science. This is a thread asking in general why some absolutists behave like relativists.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I'm not sure if I understand why you think absolutism fuels relativism though...

When people take something that they believe is absolute and drag it into the realm of things that are relative (culture, political circumstances, economic conditions, etc.) they fuel the belief that some things or every thing is relative.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I can't believe that I have to show anybody that science is about power, prestige, social status, economic status, etc.

The vast majority of scientists work away, completely anonymous to you and me. They have no power or prestige. As for social or economic status, as a scientist they'll likely make a good wage, however that's true for any profession that requires a lot of education.... But the vast majority aren't going to be filthy rich either.

Science is about trying to understand the universe and world around us. The goals of science are far more honourable than religion could ever hope to be.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The vast majority of scientists work away, completely anonymous to you and me. They have no power or prestige. As for social or economic status, as a scientist they'll likely make a good wage, however that's true for any profession that requires a lot of education.... But the vast majority aren't going to be filthy rich either.

Science is about trying to understand the universe and world around us. The goals of science are far more honourable than religion could ever hope to be.

Social status is relative to the persons one is interacting with. In some circles, depending on what field of science an individual is working in, scientists will have low social status. Their research will be derided as inconsequential and their field disparaged as irrelevant. Unfortunately, this sometimes happens among scientists themselves.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When people take something that they believe is absolute and drag it into the realm of things that are relative (culture, political circumstances, economic conditions, etc.) they fuel the belief that some things or every thing is relative.

Some things may be more relative than others, but that doesn't mean they are inconsequential to the enterprise of science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I did not make a categorical statement about the value of anything.

I suggested that the path to something (wisdom) is to treat all alternatives equally.

Then you are a fool.

All alternatives are most certainty not equal. Indeed, all alternative methods of acquiring truth are not equal - and of all those methods, modern, formalised, western science is the best. If you disagree, I submit your own computer as rather overwhelm proof.

Maybe based on objective criteria one can conclude that, say, the social sciences are inferior to the natural sciences. But if one person reads a work of sociololgy thinking "If this can even be called science, it is inferior to physics" and another person reads that work thinking "I am going to take what this book has to offer" the latter will likely gain wisdom from the experience while the former likely will not. It is about respecting all thinking as potential sources of wisdom.

Nonsense. If the social sciences are inferior, then they are inferior. One does not magically acquire wisdom and understand from simply believing that a source is reputable - it either is, or is not. The results of the social sciences either are, or are not, supported by the weight of the evidence.

What you're alluding to is the issue of the 'soft' vs. the 'hard' sciences - sociology and psychology vs. physics and biology. This is an issue of quantifiable evidence, which the latter two are very good at producing, while the former two have a somewhat harder time at. Some say this means they are inferior sciences (inasmuch as their theories are harder to empirical falsify), some say they are on par with other sciences despite their empirical difficulties.

But a physicist who derides psychology as a mere soft science is no more deprived of knowledge than someone who relishes psychology - the data are there for all to peruse.



And to your OP, I simply don't believe that anyone, even the most ill-informed individual, says that science and its findings are absolute. Science is the best method we have for determining and quantifying the truth about the world we live in. This is demonstrated most obviously by technology - that we can talk to each other through an internet of computers built from transistors and circuits positions across the planet is fantastic proof that science works.

 

[Cearbhall]

To me the behavior that has stood out the most is that of many of the defenders of empirical science. They insist that science and its findings are absolute but at the same time they fight political battles over the definition and social status of science and for resources to fund science, launch ad hominem attacks against followers of non-scientific worldviews, make ad nauseum self-congratulations for the accomplishments of science and how it has contributed so much to "human progress", etc., etc.

While it's ridiculous to say that a scientific theory is wrong just because something besides science told you so, the first thing you'll learn in any quality science class is that science can never reveal the absolute truth. It's a matter of getting as close as we can to the truth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

While it's ridiculous to say that a scientific theory is wrong just because something besides science told you so, the first thing you'll learn in any quality science class is that science can never reveal the absolute truth. It's a matter of getting as close as we can to the truth.

Small correction, Science can reveal the absolute truth... however we'd be foolish to assume it is the absolute truth, in case we're wrong.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

While it's ridiculous to say that a scientific theory is wrong just because something besides science told you so, the first thing you'll learn in any quality science class is that science can never reveal the absolute truth. It's a matter of getting as close as we can to the truth.

But the point is that science and its findings are concepts of absolute things. The existence of gravity does not depend on culture, the structure of the brain of the observer, political and economic circumstances or any other thing that a relativist might bring up. The existence of gravity depends only on the existence of gravity.

Yet, the defenders of science behave as if something will be destroyed if, say, a state cuts funding for secondary science education. That is behaving like science and its findings are relative.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

All alternatives are most certainty not equal. Indeed, all alternative methods of acquiring truth are not equal - and of all those methods, modern, formalised, western science is the best. If you disagree, I submit your own computer as rather overwhelm proof...

I do not have time to analyze logic. Therefore, I can't say if I am dealing with straw men, red herrings or something else.

I can say that you are not responding to anything that has actually previously been said.

The path to wisdom, I suggested, is to equally respect all serious, honest human thought as a potential source of wisdom.

I am going to approach the work of Confucius the same as I approach a paper in the latest edition of a scientific journal. To not treat them the same will likely result in missing out on some or all of the wisdom offered by one or both.

Nonsense. If the social sciences are inferior, then they are inferior. One does not magically acquire wisdom and understand from simply believing that a source is reputable - it either is, or is not. The results of the social sciences either are, or are not, supported by the weight of the evidence.

What you're alluding to is the issue of the 'soft' vs. the 'hard' sciences - sociology and psychology vs. physics and biology. This is an issue of quantifiable evidence, which the latter two are very good at producing, while the former two have a somewhat harder time at. Some say this means they are inferior sciences (inasmuch as their theories are harder to empirical falsify), some say they are on par with other sciences despite their empirical difficulties.

But a physicist who derides psychology as a mere soft science is no more deprived of knowledge than someone who relishes psychology - the data are there for all to peruse...

Again, straw men, red herrings or something else. Again, I do not have time to figure out exactly which one(s) I am dealing with in your responses.

If a person approaches any source of serious, honest human thought with the attitude that it is in any way not worthy of everybody's attention then he/she is likely to miss much or all of the wisdom that it has to offer, I assert.

And to your OP, I simply don't believe that anyone, even the most ill-informed individual, says that science and its findings are absolute...

The defenders of science argue against relativism. Therefore, the absolutism of science and its findings is implied, if not directly stated.

Science is the best method we have for determining and quantifying the truth about the world we live in. This is demonstrated most obviously by technology - that we can talk to each other through an internet of computers built from transistors and circuits positions across the planet is fantastic proof that science works.

None of that changes that there is likely a lot of wisdom to be found in the work of Confucius (I have not read anything by Confucius) and that if I approach such work thinking "This is not as effective work as modern empirical science" I will likely not get much or all of that wisdom from it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yet, the defenders of science behave as if something will be destroyed if, say, a state cuts funding for secondary science education. That is behaving like science and its findings are relative.

Something will be destroyed.... not the objective facts about the universe of course, but people's ability to understand those facts will, which can definitely limit their personal career options and hamper the progress of our culture as a whole.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I do not have time to analyze logic. Therefore, I can't say if I am dealing with straw men, red herrings or something else.

I can say that you are not responding to anything that has actually previously been said.

The path to wisdom, I suggested, is to equally respect all serious, honest human thought as a potential source of wisdom.

I am going to approach the work of Confucius the same as I approach a paper in the latest edition of a scientific journal. To not treat them the same will likely result in missing out on some or all of the wisdom offered by one or both.

If you took the time to analyze logic, you would have discovered there's no fallacy present in what he said.

Again, straw men, red herrings or something else. Again, I do not have time to figure out exactly which one(s) I am dealing with in your responses.

If a person approaches any source of serious, honest human thought with the attitude that it is in any way not worthy of everybody's attention then he/she is likely to miss much or all of the wisdom that it has to offer, I assert.

Perhaps if you were not intellectually lazy you would stop throwing out spurious fallacies in an attempt to discredit the person you are arguing against.

Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's committing a fallacy.... after all, he could be right.

The defenders of science argue against relativism. Therefore, the absolutism of science and its findings is implied, if not directly stated.

The facts are not relative, in that you are correct. The facts are the facts.

How we interpret the facts, and the theory we build to describe how things work are certainly not absolute though. In fact it's completely unscientific to assume any work we have done to be absolutely correct, because there may be data we don't know yet, an experiment was flawed, etc.

So we can be absolutely sure that gravity exists, or that evolution happens, or that substances can be in a solid, liquid or gaseous state, etc. Our understanding of how those happen is subject to how good our data is, and how well we interpret the data. Even if we have a full and complete understanding, we'd still not be justified in calling it absolute.

None of that changes that there is likely a lot of wisdom to be found in the work of Confucius (I have not read anything by Confucius) and that if I approach such work thinking "This is not as effective work as modern empirical science" I will likely not get much or all of that wisdom from it.

The thing is you're arguing apples and oranges. Confucius may have good moral lessons for people, or good advice on how to act (and he may have some bad advice too)... But what he has to say on the workings of the universe is utterly useless when compared to science.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Something will be destroyed.... not the objective facts about the universe of course,...

But this has never been about the "objective facts of the universe" (nor has it ever been about "science"; this thread, as the title clearly shows, has been about the behavior of people--specifically, people who take the position, on one hand, that certain things are absolute, but, on the other hand, act from that position as if those things are relative; meanwhile, the proposition that such contradictory behavior is due to the fact that taking an absolutist position backs one into a corner and that the way to avoid all of it and stay on the path to wisdom is to treat all human thought equally rather than absolutely or relatively, was added).

Again, not the tentative nature of scientific explanations. Again, not the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise. Again, not objective vs. subjective (objectivity is a value; and as Stephen Gaukroger shows in Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction, objectivity is a matter of degree, not an either-or state). Again, the behavior of people.

For the millionth time, all of the scientists-are-searching-for-the-best explanation / scientific-explanations-are-subject-to-falsification/revision thinking is irrelevant. The point is that the defenders of modern formal science take the position (a behavior of theirs) that science and its findings are absolute. That means that science and the findings that result from its practice are absolute concepts. It means that science and the findings that result from its practice do not depend on anything other than science and the findings that result from its practice. Regardless of cultural context, ability of the observer/thinker, social structure, the distribution of power, etc. science is there and the status of its findings--the findings of the practice of science, not the "objective facts about the universe"--depend only on the internal properties of the findings themselves. The status of the concept of gravity depends on the properties of that concept, not what mind(s) are imagining the concept, who benefits politically or economically from the concept, etc., etc.

As I already stated clearly, I believe that there are absolutes. And as I have clearly suggested, the position that people take with respect to those absolutes can either deny or add fuel to the thinking of relativists. Not really anchoring one's self to any position--continuously searching; never being satisfied intellectually; approaching every source with humility and respect--will keep one out of the relativist traps set by others and may therefore be the true path to wisdom, I suggested. None of that has anything to do with external "objective facts about the universe". It is simply about the behavior of people.

but people's ability to understand those facts will, which can definitely limit their personal career options and hamper the progress of our culture as a whole.

And people's ability to understand those facts, people's personal career options, the progress of culture, etc. are not part of the absolutist position that the defenders of science take. By anchoring their ship to A, letting it bounce around in issues like people's personal career options, and warning that the whole process is making it sink, they are behaving like relativists. If I was a defender of science (the fact that I do not identify myself as a defender of science does not make me an opponent of science, so, please, don't anybody go out on that tangent) I would say let's free that anchor and take the ship wherever we can do the best sailing. Such freedom from the potential traps of relativism would probably do more for people's personal career options than getting dragged into struggles for power.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If you took the time to analyze logic, you would have discovered there's no fallacy present in what he said...

Formal or informal fallacies or not, the response in question did not address anything that had actually been said.

Perhaps if you were not intellectually lazy you would stop throwing out spurious fallacies in an attempt to discredit the person you are arguing against.

Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's committing a fallacy.... after all, he could be right...

Some of us have internet access that is severely limited. Some of us have time that is severely limited.

Meanwhile, I doubt that anybody here is looking for "agreement".

When people want answers--answers/responses to what has actually been asked/proposed--and their resources are severely limited, don't be surprised if they point out formal or informal fallacies that might be undermining the effort.

The facts are not relative, in that you are correct. The facts are the facts.

How we interpret the facts, and the theory we build to describe how things work are certainly not absolute though. In fact it's completely unscientific to assume any work we have done to be absolutely correct, because there may be data we don't know yet, an experiment was flawed, etc...

But the status of the data and the experiment depend only on the properties of the data and the properties of the experiment. The fact that, oh, the data was gathered and the experiment was conducted in a partriarchal system and 99% of the people doing the work were white men has no bearing on the status of the data or the experiment, the defenders of science seem to insist. Add it all up and I see the defenders of science taking an absolutist position with respect to science and its findings.

The thing is you're arguing apples and oranges. Confucius may have good moral lessons for people, or good advice on how to act (and he may have some bad advice too)... But what he has to say on the workings of the universe is utterly useless when compared to science.

If we were talking about the goals of various intellectual traditions that might be true.

But we are not talking about the goals of various intellectual traditions. We are talking about absolutists and relativists. Specifically, we are talking about how some people seem to take an absolutist position with respect to A but at the same time behave as if A is relative. A could be a number of different things, not just "science". I wish that right now I could provide an example other than "science", but my time is too limited.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If we were talking about the goals of various intellectual traditions that might be true.

But we are not talking about the goals of various intellectual traditions. We are talking about absolutists and relativists. Specifically, we are talking about how some people seem to take an absolutist position with respect to A but at the same time behave as if A is relative. A could be a number of different things, not just "science". I wish that right now I could provide an example other than "science", but my time is too limited.

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But this has never been about the "objective facts of the universe" (nor has it ever been about "science"; this thread, as the title clearly shows, has been about the behavior of people--specifically, people who take the position, on one hand, that certain things are absolute, but, on the other hand, act from that position as if those things are relative; meanwhile, the proposition that such contradictory behavior is due to the fact that taking an absolutist position backs one into a corner and that the way to avoid all of it and stay on the path to wisdom is to treat all human thought equally rather than absolutely or relatively, was added).

ok...

Again, not the tentative nature of scientific explanations. Again, not the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise. Again, not objective vs. subjective (objectivity is a value; and as Stephen Gaukroger shows in Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction, objectivity is a matter of degree, not an either-or state). Again, the behavior of people.

ok....

For the millionth time, all of the scientists-are-searching-for-the-best explanation / scientific-explanations-are-subject-to-falsification/revision thinking is irrelevant. The point is that the defenders of modern formal science take the position (a behavior of theirs) that science and its findings are absolute. That means that science and the findings that result from its practice are absolute concepts. It means that science and the findings that result from its practice do not depend on anything other than science and the findings that result from its practice. Regardless of cultural context, ability of the observer/thinker, social structure, the distribution of power, etc. science is there and the status of its findings--the findings of the practice of science, not the "objective facts about the universe"--depend only on the internal properties of the findings themselves. The status of the concept of gravity depends on the properties of that concept, not what mind(s) are imagining the concept, who benefits politically or economically from the concept, etc., etc.

And here you're wrong. Anyone who knows a damn thing about science would openly admit the data or findings are not an absolute. There may be data we have not yet discovered that would alter our results, etc.

When those people argue from a scientific viewpoint, they take the view that this is true to the best of our knowledge. Furthermore they are justified in taking that position because invariably they must have testable evidence backing them up if their argument is scientifically valid.

As I already stated clearly, I believe that there are absolutes. And as I have clearly suggested, the position that people take with respect to those absolutes can either deny or add fuel to the thinking of relativists. Not really anchoring one's self to any position--continuously searching; never being satisfied intellectually; approaching every source with humility and respect--will keep one out of the relativist traps set by others and may therefore be the true path to wisdom, I suggested. None of that has anything to do with external "objective facts about the universe". It is simply about the behavior of people.

I also believe there are absolutes, those absolutes are the "facts" about the universe we then investigate. It is an absolute that the sky is blue (on a cloudless sunny day), etc. It's also an absolute that quantum gravity exists and works, we don't know how it works though.

What is not absolute then is our interpretation and ideas based around what we know about quantum gravity. The facts are the facts, and those aren't going to change. What will change (and therefore is not absolute) is how we view and understand the facts. One day we'll figure out how quantum gravity works, but until that happens our views will likely change a few times.

And people's ability to understand those facts, people's personal career options, the progress of culture, etc. are not part of the absolutist position that the defenders of science take. By anchoring their ship to A, letting it bounce around in issues like people's personal career options, and warning that the whole process is making it sink, they are behaving like relativists. If I was a defender of science (the fact that I do not identify myself as a defender of science does not make me an opponent of science, so, please, don't anybody go out on that tangent) I would say let's free that anchor and take the ship wherever we can do the best sailing. Such freedom from the potential traps of relativism would probably do more for people's personal career options than getting dragged into struggles for power.

And again, a scientist or anyone who understands science at all would never take an absolutist position on scientific data or findings.

They may take an absolutist position on it deserving funding, but not on the science itself.