Science is Dead to me

[The Barbarian]

According to a Quinian ontology, "being" is just a count noun. To say something exists is to say there is at least one x. Ontology goes no deeper than that (all other ontological commitments aside). And, once you see that principle in the context of predicate logic, it is sufficient.

Quine... I remember something about self-reference and contradiction.... Daniel Dennet, I think wrote about how that related to Quine's idea of ontology...

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

Or something like that.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Can someone who knows the method review this and modify it accordingly???

Scientific method
1) Observe a thing
2) Form a guess as to whats happening and why
3) Test your guess (make a prediction maybe??)
4) If guess passes test, you think your guess is more reasonable or more likely to be correct

 

[The Barbarian]

Can someone who knows the method review this and modify it accordingly???

Scientific method
1) Observe a thing
2) Form a guess as to whats happening and why
3) Test your guess (make a prediction maybe??)
4) If guess passes test, you think your guess is more reasonable or more likely to be correct

Hmmm.... From my experience...

1. "What the tummel was that?"
2. "Looks a little like (something). Maybe it's (hypothesis)."
3. "How would we know?"
4. "Well, if it's (something like that), then (a way to know)."
5. (Test the idea)
6. If (a way to know) happens, then it's (hypothesis) If not, go to 2.

Key is, the hypothesis is not a guess. It's a prediction, based on previous knowledge. Prediction is the key. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the predictions of a hypothesis (which has to be testable) are repeatedly verified by testing.

 

[Fervent]

That's the good part. You don't have to "shift to fields." Since they behave like discrete objects, you can treat them like discrete objects for pretty much everything.

Mathematically they can be treated like discrete objects, but they create philosophical issues for what it means for something to exist.

Since chemistry is about the behavior of atoms, it kinda is. This is why scientists don't use ontologies in research.

This is rather non-critical, as I am not criticizing how research is conducted. Science education is not limited to conduct in research.

For the obvious reasons....

Philosopher to Scientist: "Why don't you use my wonderful ontologies in your research?"
Scientist to Philosopher: "They don't work."

Again, not about research. This is about education.

Actually, there are no "atheistic ontologies" in science. And anyone familiar with science notices that Nobels go to "academics who go against prevailing thought."

In an ideal world, the separation would be recognized. In practice, there is no way to truly separate phenomenology from ontology. In high level discussions, the distinction may be made but in practical application and general education there is an implicit materialist ontology that cannot be separated from methodology. Unless your image of God is material, materialist ontologies are necessarily atheistic.

Can't. Atheistic (or for that matter, theistic) ontologies are impossible in science. It's too weak a method to consider God or not-God. Of course, they are possible for scientists, but surprisingly, the science comes out the same regardless. If you thought about it for a bit, I'm sure it would be clear why that is.

If scientific practice were confined to theoretical applications, yeah. And this is often recognized by scientists themselves, but it is with education that the ontology that is implicit in the scientific method becomes problematic because it is not explicitly recognized. Which leads to materialism being adopted as the default ontology uncritically by a great deal of the public, and any criticism of it is seen as illegitimate.

I don't think you've given it much thought if you actually think so. Non-scientists are often way too impressed with science. It's not as all-knowing as it might seem.

I'm well aware of the limits, and it is the non-scientists I am concerned with. Because what I am concerned with is not conduct in research but pedagogy.

That's an example of such thinking. It's perfectly O.K. to be unscientific for many purposes. And pretty much all the scientists I've met realize this. I am often unscientific myself.

Sure, but the issue isn't with scientists. This is a philosophical issue, specifically a matter of how public education approaches science education. It's largely about public misconceptions rather than a properly limited scope of science.

"How do you know?" is pretty much the whole thing for investigating the physical universe.

And there's an ontology. What physical universe?

If you were to accept that science is merely a useful tool for finding out stuff, it might be easier to think about the issue.

I very much do accept it as such, but I hold an instrumentalist view of it as an antirealist. Science is wonderful, but the uncritical acceptance of materialism by the general public is not.

So you've never discussed politics, music, art, or sex with scientists?

How science education is conducted has little to do with scientists.

So you don't think that a plumber or a biologist can function as an agnostic? How so?

I don't believe there are any true agnostics, as it seems to me the existence of God boils down to either believing Him to exist or seeing the world in such a way as to make Him impossible. Agnosticism is essentially nothing more than the atheist version of fideism.

That's kind of a wordy way to say that science requires no metaphysical assumptions other than that the universe is consistent and knowable.

Except it does require metaphysical assumptions, in that it assumes the world is primarily physical. It requires an assumption of causal closure, because the minute you allow for a miracle-making God the assumption of consistency goes out the window. Causal closure necessitates materialism. And the problem is these types of assumptions are rarely, if ever, made explicit. The notion that science requires no metaphysical assumptions is exactly the issue I have with how it is presented, because while they are kept minimal there are metaphysical assumptions involved. Metaphysical assumptions that if held consistently require a theology of a non-interventionist God leaving open only an extremely limited number of options none of which are the God revealed in the Bible.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Hmmm.... From my experience...

1. "What the tummel was that?"
2. "Looks a little like (something). Maybe it's (hypothesis)."
3. "How would we know?"
4. "Well, if it's (something like that), then (a way to know)."
5. (Test the idea)
6. If (a way to know) happens, then it's (hypothesis) If not, go to 2.

Key is, the hypothesis is not a guess. It's a prediction, based on previous knowledge. Prediction is the key. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the predictions of a hypothesis (which has to be testable) are repeatedly verified by testing.

i said "guess" instead of "hypothesis" as a way of keeping language simple.

So - we have something to work with until it fails a test or until other hypothesis also start passing the prediction test also.

Is that fair???

 

[The Barbarian]

Mathematically they can be treated like discrete objects, but they create philosophical issues for what it means for something to exist.

Science has no need for that hypothesis.

This is rather non-critical, as I am not criticizing how research is conducted. Science education is not limited to conduct in research.

Science education works when scientists do it, in the same sense that literature education works when people who can read and write do it.

Philosopher to Scientist: "Why don't you use my wonderful ontologies in your research?"
Scientist to Philosopher: "They don't work."

Again, not about research. This is about education.

I have taught science. I find that the most effective way is to talk about science is to discuss the research and how it happens. The narrative as to how things become known is a critical part of the process.

Unless your image of God is material, materialist ontologies are necessarily atheistic.

Or at least methodologically agnostic.

And there's an ontology. What physical universe?

Whatever we can detect with our senses.

I'm well aware of the limits, and it is the non-scientists I am concerned with. Because what I am concerned with is not conduct in research but pedagogy.

Even in high school, science teachers normally have degrees in science. But it seems to me that the problem for you is not science but the misconceptions people have about it, such as we're dealing with here.

Science is wonderful, but the uncritical acceptance of materialism by the general public is not.

I see this with creationists generally. Nothing works as well as science for understanding the physical universe. So considerable science envy, even people speaking about "creation science" which is an oxymoron. Science can't go there, even if it doesn't in any way deny creation.

I don't believe there are any true agnostics

I was once. Went through a hard time as a young adult. So you're just wrong there.

Agnosticism is essentially nothing more than the atheist version of fideism.

It's the opposite of fideism. Agnosticsm is an admission that one does not have sufficient reason to know. Fideism, is the assertion that it's all faith, with no need for reason.

Except it does require metaphysical assumptions, in that it assumes the world is primarily physical.

No. It assumes that the methodology of science can only work with the physical world, without denying that there can be things beyond the physical. This is why theists can do science.

It requires an assumption of causal closure, because the minute you allow for a miracle-making God the assumption of consistency goes out the window.

Newton, for example. would point out that you are wrong. Nowhere in science is there an assumption that there might be something beyond the physical that could produced miraculous effects.

And the problem is these types of assumptions are rarely, if ever, made explicit.

Because, I suppose, miracles are rare enough that we very rarely encounter them in doing science. You might as well insist that plumbers have metaphysical assumptions about plumbing. Plumbing, you know, is also methodologically naturalistic.

 

[The Barbarian]

i said "guess" instead of "hypothesis" as a way of keeping language simple.

I get it. I have even occasionally heard a science teacher use "educated guess" for a hypothesis. But it's really a prediction, not a guess. It's based on knowledge and has to be testable. Which guesses don't necessarily have to be.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I get it. I have even occasionally heard a science teacher use "educated guess" for a hypothesis. But it's really a prediction, not a guess. It's based on knowledge and has to be testable. Which guesses don't necessarily have to be.

do you think it happens a lot that predictions get made and tests keep getting passed - but the theory still turns out to be wrong later on ???

I wonder what the limits of the scientific method are?? I suppose i would have to read the philosophy of science to find that out???

 

[The Barbarian]

do you think it happens a lot that predictions get made and tests keep getting passed - but the theory still turns out to be wrong later on

All theories are provisionally true. For example, Newton's Theory of Gravitation is very useful and always works. But where relativistic effects are significant, a correction is necessary. Is gravity true?

 

[Fervent]

Science has no need for that hypothesis.

Science is not a hegemony.

Science education works when scientists do it, in the same sense that literature education works when people who can read and write do it.

The ability to conduct research does not entail the ability to teach and encourage critical thought on the issues.

Philosopher to Scientist: "Why don't you use my wonderful ontologies in your research?"
Scientist to Philosopher: "They don't work."

You keep repeating this strawman, so I will simply repeat that I am not discussing research.

I have taught science. I find that the most effective way is to talk about science is to discuss the research and how it happens. The narrative as to how things become known is a critical part of the process.

Or at least methodologically agnostic.

Agnosticism does not seem to me a viable position, at least not regarding a Biblical God. He either must exist by necessity, or His existence is impossible. Methodological naturalism isn't neatly separable from metaphysical naturalism without inconsistency.

Whatever we can detect with our senses.

The issue comes down to extension and meaning, internalist vs externalist philosophies. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a "universe."

Even in high school, science teachers normally have degrees in science. But it seems to me that the problem for you is not science but the misconceptions people have about it, such as we're dealing with here.

It's more misconceptions pushed by science popularizers like Dawkins, Dennett, and similar. Which there is often little ability to respond to because they deal with philosophical issues that are dressed up as if they are enshrined in science.

I see this with creationists generally. Nothing works as well as science for understanding the physical universe. So considerable science envy, even people speaking about "creation science" which is an oxymoron. Science can't go there, even if it doesn't in any way deny creation.

Again, you mention a physical universe. That's ontology. We're talking about philosophy, not methodology.

I was once. Went through a hard time as a young adult. So you're just wrong there.

I don't deny that there are people who consider themselves agnostic, but true agnosticism would lead to a kind of skepticism that is completely unliveable. In practice, you were an atheist.

It's the opposite of fideism. Agnosticsm is an admission that one does not have sufficient reason to know. Fideism, is the assertion that it's all faith, with no need for reason.

It's the atheist version of fideism. Fideism says we can acceptably believe in God prior to having knowledge about Him, while agnosticism says we should not believe in God until we have rational demonstration of His existence. Either someone believes God exists, or they don't.

No. It assumes that the methodology of science can only work with the physical world, without denying that there can be things beyond the physical. This is why theists can do science.

What physical "world?" That's ontology.

Newton, for example. would point out that you are wrong. Nowhere in science is there an assumption that there might be something beyond the physical that could produced miraculous effects.

The methods of science rely on causal closure in the hypothesis stage. They can only recognize and entertain one kind of cause, so while scientists may not deny the possibility of miracles the methods of science must regard miracles as either impossible or vanishingly unlikely.

Because, I suppose, miracles are rare enough that we very rarely encounter them in doing science. You might as well insist that plumbers have metaphysical assumptions about plumbing. Plumbing, you know, is also methodologically naturalistic.

How would we know if we encountered a miracle when doing science? A miracle, by its very nature, would simply appear as an anomolous piece of data. You seem to be stuck on this idea that I'm attacking employing scientific methodologies in research, despite the fact that I have repeatedly emphasized that my issues boil down to philosophy of science questions. It is scientific realism that I take issue with, because the abduction involved in moving from the instrumental success of scientific methods to metaphysical realist positions doesn't seem justified to me. Science's instrumental success can be explained entirely in terms of the methods employed, without reference to the truth-value of the theories involved. Which I would have no issue with if these types of issues were discussed alongside science education, especially rigorous courses on the types of inferences and their weaknesses/strengths. So once again, I have no issues with science per se nor am I defending "creation science."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mathematically they can be treated like discrete objects, but they create philosophical issues for what it means for something to exist.

This is rather non-critical, as I am not criticizing how research is conducted. Science education is not limited to conduct in research.

Again, not about research. This is about education.

In an ideal world, the separation would be recognized. In practice, there is no way to truly separate phenomenology from ontology. In high level discussions, the distinction may be made but in practical application and general education there is an implicit materialist ontology that cannot be separated from methodology. Unless your image of God is material, materialist ontologies are necessarily atheistic.

If scientific practice were confined to theoretical applications, yeah. And this is often recognized by scientists themselves, but it is with education that the ontology that is implicit in the scientific method becomes problematic because it is not explicitly recognized. Which leads to materialism being adopted as the default ontology uncritically by a great deal of the public, and any criticism of it is seen as illegitimate.

I'm well aware of the limits, and it is the non-scientists I am concerned with. Because what I am concerned with is not conduct in research but pedagogy.

Sure, but the issue isn't with scientists. This is a philosophical issue, specifically a matter of how public education approaches science education. It's largely about public misconceptions rather than a properly limited scope of science.

And there's an ontology. What physical universe?

I very much do accept it as such, but I hold an instrumentalist view of it as an antirealist. Science is wonderful, but the uncritical acceptance of materialism by the general public is not.

How science education is conducted has little to do with scientists.

I don't believe there are any true agnostics, as it seems to me the existence of God boils down to either believing Him to exist or seeing the world in such a way as to make Him impossible. Agnosticism is essentially nothing more than the atheist version of fideism.

Except it does require metaphysical assumptions, in that it assumes the world is primarily physical. It requires an assumption of causal closure, because the minute you allow for a miracle-making God the assumption of consistency goes out the window. Causal closure necessitates materialism. And the problem is these types of assumptions are rarely, if ever, made explicit. The notion that science requires no metaphysical assumptions is exactly the issue I have with how it is presented, because while they are kept minimal there are metaphysical assumptions involved. Metaphysical assumptions that if held consistently require a theology of a non-interventionist God leaving open only an extremely limited number of options none of which are the God revealed in the Bible.

Fervent, as a brother in Christ, I really appreciate your zeal. However, as an Existentialist and (more or less) a Critical Realist and Methodological Naturalist, I find it difficult to share your philosophical perspective.

What's more is that this whole dialogue between you and Barbarian is a little painful for me to read. There's a lot of unfounded assertions made here in brass tack fashion back and forth with little or no necessary documentation, support or reference (...well, I take that back. @public hermit does jump in and offer some substantive, useful references). Furthermore, no one is actually getting into any deep conceptual nitty-gritty and no other scholars are specifically cited for support or by which further examples can be brought and then analyzed.

We're just going back and forth, alledged Scientific Realist vs. alledged Scientific Anti-realist, with allusions toward Ontology thrown in to serve as dispersions of the claims of those we're arguing with.

Personally, I'd love for someone to come in and dispel all of my own questions and false and wrong-headed epistemic ideas that I have about God, the Bible, the modern enterprise of Science, and the various modes and uses of Philosophy that I have in order to show me, once and for all, one way or another, that the God of the Bible is definitively and necessarily evident, present and immanent .............................. or utterly not so (as so many atheists/ex-christians trot about claiming to have successfully done). Sadly to say, I'm not really seeing how a lot of this sort of debate/dialogue, as we have here, serves to illuminate and dispel the many epistemic issues we all wake up to each and every day.

Anyway, with that said, and however wrong I may be, I appreciate you, @The Barbarian and @public hermit, despite the fact that none of us agrees with one another on a whole lot of things...

 

[Fervent]

Fervent, as a brother in Christ, I really appreciate your zeal. However, as an Existentialist and (more or less) a Critical Realist and Methodological Naturalist, I find it difficult to share your philosophical perspective.

What's more is that this whole dialogue between you and Barbarian is a little painful for me to read. There's a lot of unfounded assertions made here in brass tack fashion back and forth with little or no necessary documentation, support or reference (...well, I take that back. @public hermit does jump in and offer some substantive, useful references). Furthermore, no one is actually getting into any deep conceptual nitty-gritty and no other scholars are specifically cited for support or by which further examples can be brought and then analyzed.

We're just going back and forth, alledged Scientific Realist vs. alledged Scientific Anti-realist, with allusions toward Ontology thrown in to serve as dispersions of the claims of those we're arguing with.

Personally, I'd love for someone to come in and dispel all of my own questions and false and wrong-headed epistemic ideas that I have about God, the Bible, the modern enterprise of Science, and the various modes and uses of Philosophy that I have in order to show me, once and for all, one way or another, that the God of the Bible is definitively and necessarily evident, present and immanent .............................. or utterly not so (as so many atheists/ex-christians trot about claiming to have successfully done). Sadly to say, I'm not really seeing how a lot of this sort of debate/dialogue, as we have here, serves to illuminate and dispel the many epistemic issues we all wake up to each and every day.

Anyway, with that said, and however wrong I may be, I appreciate you, @The Barbarian and @public hermit, despite the fact that none of us agrees with one another on a whole lot of things...

I don't really see the discussion about being realism vs anti-realism in this thread, or rather I see no reason to try to dissuade scientific realists of their realism. I do, however, believe there is an unfounded epistemic optimism that popular presentations of science encourages. It seems to me there has been a strong epistemic shift away from a historical skepticism(even of a moderate sort) due in large part to the purported success of science. I see this as criticial to apologetics, because the success of a methodological approach to research is typically seen as endorsement of the semantic content of the theories. When I speak of being an antirealist, in truth I am not speaking to an ontological position but to an epistemic one as it is merely a skepticism/agnosticism towards the "approximate" truth of science.

I also see skepticism, genuine skepticism and not the type of selective skepticism that is so often championed by anti-theists, as being critical to intellectually honest pursuits. It is insufficient to say that something is "approximately true," because there is no way to measure the distance between what is actually the case and what we currently know. So since we can explain the success of scientific research purely by appeal to the methods employed, the intellectually responsible is to leave questions of whether or not it truly refers open. So I see my antirealism not as a positive position, but instead as not entering a claim on the matter.

It seems to me the discussion in this thread has largely been colored by assumptions that I am pushing for creation science or anything of the like. It would be a lot easier to leave science to the scientists if there was discourse in the popular literature that recognized the serious challenges to realism and skepticism was given its appropriate weight.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's the atheist version of fideism. Fideism says we can acceptably believe in God prior to having knowledge about Him, while agnosticism says we should not believe in God until we have rational demonstration of His existence.

Or, in my case and I suppose the cases of many others, until we feel the revelation of God.

It seems to me there has been a strong epistemic shift away from a historical skepticism(even of a moderate sort) due in large part to the purported success of science.

Success does tend to increase confidence, I suppose. Science has been rather successful in explaining the physical universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science is not a hegemony.

Usually scientists have to tell other people that fact.

The ability to conduct research does not entail the ability to teach and encourage critical thought on the issues.

Generally, it does. The best scientists out there tend to be good teachers. Critical thought is what it's all about, after all.

Agnosticism does not seem to me a viable position, at least not regarding a Biblical God. He either must exist by necessity, or His existence is impossible.

Hmm....
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

Seems to me, you're selling God short, here.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

All theories are provisionally true. For example, Newton's Theory of Gravitation is very useful and always works. But where relativistic effects are significant, a correction is necessary. Is gravity true?

I’ve never heard of “provisionally true” before.

Ive also thought of truth as a spiritual thing. So it’s strange to hear “is gravity true”. Is gravity truth sounds weird.

“Is the current theory of gravity correct?” sounds right to me. What I think your answer would be (if I’m understanding you) is “it’s correct enough for us at the moment”

Is that fair summary?

 

[Jipsah]

The problem isn't that science and the Bible conflict. They don't and they can't, since God created the laws of science that hold the universe together.

That's it in nutshell. Science is the quest to learn the laws that God has established in His design for the universe.

The problem is opposing world views on how the scientific evidence is interpreted. Thus, it's the popular conclusions of man that are wrong, not the reality of scientific evidence we see all around us.

Unarguably true.

Understand that science includes physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, archaeology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, informational, mathematics, and other disciplines that all reveal God's power, glory, and super intelligent design.

Amen.

The available evidence from each of these disciplines provide specific support towards the Bible's accuracy and authority.

No Bible believing Christian need accept opposing scientific viewpoints or the dismissal of science completely. What's needed is discernment in seeking truth. Fortunately, such truth is readily available today from several on-line sources that correctly interpret evidence through a Biblical world view.

Unfortunately there's none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[The Barbarian]

I’ve never heard of “provisionally true” before.

It's the nature of inductive reasoning. You can look up the rules of a game and then from the rules prove how things work in particular instances. In science, you have to observe the particular instances and infer the rules.

Ive also thought of truth as a spiritual thing.

All Euclidean triangles have interior angles that sum to 180 degrees. That's proven truth. Don't see anything spiritual there.

“Is the current theory of gravity correct?” sounds right to me. What I think your answer would be (if I’m understanding you) is “it’s correct enough for us at the moment”

"So far all the predictions of the theory have been confirmed." is more like it. In Newtonian theory, gravitation is a force. And tests always confirmed it. Then Einstein showed that it could be confirmed to be the distortion of space by mass. And then when it was tested and found to be true, it became a fact. But NASA still uses Newton's theory of gravitation to navigate the solar system, with an occasional correction needed for relativistic effects.

Bottom line in science? "It works."

 

[Fervent]

Or, in my case and I suppose the cases of many others, until we feel the revelation of God.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that agnosticism is nothing more than a presumption of atheism. In truth, if someone were actually agnostic it would be impossible for them to overcome epistemic challenges like the trickster god.

Success does tend to increase confidence, I suppose. Science has been rather successful in explaining the physical universe.

Sure, but confidence in what exactly? Science is a powerful methodology, but its success can be explained without resorting to any realist propositions. Which if we stick to heuristics like occam's razor, we should seek no further explanation for science's instrumental success than the methodology employed. Inventive men and women sifting creative theories based on how many predictions they are able to accurately make, with the singular focus employed making it operate extremely efficiently. It's possible to explain the success, while remaining agnostic(or even pessimistic) about the truth or falsity of the theories.

 

[Fervent]

Usually scientists have to tell other people that fact.

Sure.

Generally, it does. The best scientists out there tend to be good teachers. Critical thought is what it's all about, after all.

To an extent, except where cultural defaults and other biases cause blindness to predominant threads of "common sense."

Hmm....
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

Seems to me, you're selling God short, here.

Thomas Aquinas' words don't contradict my statement, as what I am talking about is a consequence of aseity. Either God Himself exists as the necessary foundation of all existence, or His existence is impossible. Unfortunately, in either case the empirical evidence would appear the same. Which presents us with an epistemic problem, because either we build a top-down epistemology on theology, or a bottom-up epistemology on some proposed fundamental element of nature. Be that fundamental element be "natural laws" or "matter" or some other sensible thing. Pragmatically speaking, a bottom-up epistemology provides us with a more useful methodology but given that we must build it on some combination of induction, deduction, and abduction confidence in such a method depends entirely on confidence in human reasoning capacities. Issues like Munchaussen's trilemma, Hume's fork, and similar epistemological problems make me suspicious of a bottom-up approach, because it seems we can't come to a decisive conclusion about when we even have knowledge let alone identify what of our supposed knowledge is actually true in any capacity.

 

[The Barbarian]

To an extent, except where cultural defaults and other biases cause blindness to predominant threads of "common sense."

I don't often see appeals to "common sense"; more often, "the data show."

Thomas Aquinas' words don't contradict my statement, as what I am talking about is a consequence of aseity.

And since causes can be either necessary or contingent insofar as God is concerned, how does being entirely self-caused impose on God the requirement to be necessary?

Pragmatically speaking, a bottom-up epistemology provides us with a more useful methodology but given that we must build it on some combination of induction, deduction, and abduction confidence in such a method depends entirely on confidence in human reasoning capacities.

Whereas, if we choose a top-down epistemology, it has nothing to do with human reason?