Depedestaling Science

[Received]

Welp. From Mark Byrne:

I happen to believe that a lot of scientific and rational premises are irrational to begin with — that the work of much science and academic inquiry is, deep down, merely the elaborate justification of desire, bias, whim, and glory. I sense that to some extent the rational ‘thinking’ areas of our brains are superrationalization engines. They provide us with means and justifications for our more animal impulses. They allow us to justify them both to ourselves and then, when that has been accomplished, to others.​

Now let's be clear on what he doesn't seem to be saying. He's not saying science is useless. Rather, science is like a medium people use to transport their ideas, rational or irrational, and lots of people "use" science under the guise of rationality, when they're really putting garbage in and getting garbage out. And here are two irrational beliefs often claimed to be "scientific" (IMO):

-God can be proven through science.

-God can be disproven through science.

Or a more in-depth stance: To be reasonable means to adhere to the limitations of science, and what can't be proven through science isn't reasonable or reasonably worth believing.

Or maybe the most popular of all: using facts known from science (and knowledge in general) to be a jerk and puff up your own sense of self-entitlement.

Discuss.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If he is objecting to "scientism", I can agree with him on that.

If he is rejecting a purely foundationalist epistemology in favor of one that has some elements of coherentism, I can agree with him there too.

When it comes to epistemology, pure foundationalism can lead to a skepticism so powerful that it is self-defeating. However, pure coherentism strikes me as having the opposite effect -- it can lead to a gullibility so powerful that it is self-defeating. It seems to me that a synthetic approach is needed. In that case, I think that science can have a strong value for some issues, and perhaps not so much for others. However, I don't think that one can ever rightly end up with an "anything goes" epistemology -- rather that some unproven beliefs may be accepted, but only tentatively.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Welp. From Mark Byrne:

I happen to believe that a lot of scientific and rational premises are irrational to begin with — that the work of much science and academic inquiry is, deep down, merely the elaborate justification of desire, bias, whim, and glory. I sense that to some extent the rational ‘thinking’ areas of our brains are superrationalization engines. They provide us with means and justifications for our more animal impulses. They allow us to justify them both to ourselves and then, when that has been accomplished, to others.​

What a rant!
To me, he sounds like a guy who is disappointed that one of his ideas isn´t subject to science, and instead of pointing out the limits of science (which are already defined in the scientific, though), he goes off to a complaint not only about those limits, but also tackles the scientific method as systemically flawed, tackles the scientists for making errors, and insinuates sinister motives to both science as a system as well as the individual scientists.
All that without a single shred of substantiation, explanation or elaboration.
​

Now let's be clear on what he doesn't seem to be saying. He's not saying science is useless.

Since one of the main goals of the scientific method is to eliminate the bias of the observer, he seems to be pretty much saying that science is useless for the very purpose it is pursuing.

Rather, science is like a medium people use to transport their ideas, rational or irrational, and lots of people "use" science under the guise of rationality, when they're really putting garbage in and getting garbage out.

Maybe that´s what he´s saying. I would like to know, though, whether that´s meant to be pointing out a systemic problem of science or pointing out the fact that science has been used in a corrupt way. Or both.

And here are two irrational beliefs often claimed to be "scientific" (IMO):

-God can be proven through science.

-God can be disproven through science.

1. These aren´t scientific claims. They are meta-scientific claims.
2. Whether "God" is subject to science depends entirely on the god concept in question. Meet Michael in the Science Forum who asserts that God is a physical phenomenon, and there: His God is subject to science.
Whereas most traditional Christian god concepts make sure God is defined as super-, beyond-, incomprehensible, mysterious, etc. etc., in the first place. I understand their frustration that they can´t have the cake and eat it, too - but, oh well.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yep, looks like a pretty typical reaction I've seen before. The author knows science is a powerful tool for discovering things which can be known with any sort of certainty. And yet science doesn't seem to work to prove my god, and has been used successfully to disprove various related ideas. What to do, what to do?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yep, looks like a pretty typical reaction I've seen before. The author knows science is a powerful tool for discovering things which can be known with any sort of certainty. And yet science doesn't seem to work to prove my god, and has been used successfully to disprove various related ideas. What to do, what to do?

Exactly my impression. It's the same blowhard attitude I get from all my uber-liberal, new-age hippy friends who try to tell me about chakra alignment, reiki, ESP etc.

Theists want it both ways. They claim their god is causally integrated with the natural world, but allow for that same god to immediately retreat into the esoteric 'spiritual' realm if they catch so much as a whiff of scientific scrutiny.

Once again, I must point out,

-A god that manifests in nature is subject to scientific scrutiny.

-A god that does not manifest in nature is indistinguishable from a non-existent god.

Those are your choices. You don't get to have it both ways.

Same goes for you, new-age hippies.

 

[Received]

Sweet Zeus. Guys, don't listen to quatona (he's a grouchy German ) and chillax.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sweet Zeus. Guys, don't listen to quatona (he's a grouchy German ) and chillax.

I thought he was french Canadian.

 

[Received]

I thought he was french Canadian.

Or that.

 

[Received]

I just know he has (had) nice hair and plays guitar really well.

 

[Received]

Which are totally signs of being a German, you know.

 

[Received]

If he is objecting to "scientism", I can agree with him on that.

If he is rejecting a purely foundationalist epistemology in favor of one that has some elements of coherentism, I can agree with him there too.

When it comes to epistemology, pure foundationalism can lead to a skepticism so powerful that it is self-defeating. However, pure coherentism strikes me as having the opposite effect -- it can lead to a gullibility so powerful that it is self-defeating. It seems to me that a synthetic approach is needed. In that case, I think that science can have a strong value for some issues, and perhaps not so much for others. However, I don't think that one can ever rightly end up with an "anything goes" epistemology -- rather that some unproven beliefs may be accepted, but only tentatively.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Awesome thoughts! I would wonder how we "know" the balanced/synthetic approach is the right one. I can only say that we intuit it, and possibly use reductio ad absurdum-type reasoning to say that foundationalism is too high a standard and coherentism is too low. That's a simplification.

 

[Received]

What a rant!
To me, he sounds like a guy who is disappointed that one of his ideas isn´t subject to science, and instead of pointing out the limits of science (which are already defined in the scientific, though), he goes off to a complaint not only about those limits, but also tackles the scientific method as systemically flawed, tackles the scientists for making errors, and insinuates sinister motives to both science as a system as well as the individual scientists.
All that without a single shred of substantiation, explanation or elaboration.​

Well, as you know, the scientific method isn't without its (kinda hidden) philosophical presuppositions which, if investigated deeply enough, invite their own problems. As for your last sentence, that goes with pretty much everything if you push it far enough, whether substantiation (even if you accept things under a scientific rubric, you're still assuming the philosophical presuppositions for science, a bit of a leap), explanation or elaboration (we can technically always explain things further, and determining whether something is explained or elaborated "just enough" is intuitive at best, definitely not the result of a clear external standard).

Since one of the main goals of the scientific method is to eliminate the bias of the observer, he seems to be pretty much saying that science is useless for the very purpose it is pursuing.

Eh, maybe (great point). I see it more as saying that science is used to "transport" irrational ideas under the guise of science, and/or GIGO.

Maybe that´s what he´s saying. I would like to know, though, whether that´s meant to be pointing out a systemic problem of science or pointing out the fact that science has been used in a corrupt way. Or both.
1. These aren´t scientific claims. They are meta-scientific claims.
2. Whether "God" is subject to science depends entirely on the god concept in question. Meet Michael in the Science Forum who asserts that God is a physical phenomenon, and there: His God is subject to science.
Whereas most traditional Christian god concepts make sure God is defined as super-, beyond-, incomprehensible, mysterious, etc. etc., in the first place. I understand their frustration that they can´t have the cake and eat it, too - but, oh well.

I don't think that's having their cake and eating it. More like defining an incredibly difficult metaphysical concept via negative reasoning (what something isn't), along the lines of: "God can't be physical, because something physical has X properties associated with the universe; therefore God must be 'beyond' the physical." Analogously to the whole *experience* involved in phenomenology: i.e., our experience of something is fundamentally different than (albeit possibly reducible to) any physical mechanisms in the brain. And trying to talk about the experience of something using concepts is no good, because the two are incommensurate with one another (one being ideas, the other being the experience "underlying" ideas and sensations, etc.).

As for meta-scientific claims, you're always going to have those when you do anything but science. Saying otherwise is like saying we can only communicate in science. Which we can't do, given that science itself is a philosophy with its own parameters and limitations, and so we must speak "beyond" science in a sense.​

 

[Received]

Exactly my impression. It's the same blowhard attitude I get from all my uber-liberal, new-age hippy friends who try to tell me about chakra alignment, reiki, ESP etc.

Whoa! I'm a human being, stop stop stop!

Theists want it both ways. They claim their god is causally integrated with the natural world, but allow for that same god to immediately retreat into the esoteric 'spiritual' realm if they catch so much as a whiff of scientific scrutiny.

That's a stereotype with theists, which opens up a huge demand for evidence on your behalf.

Once again, I must point out,

-A god that manifests in nature is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Huge claim. Please support this. Start with: are you saying that everything that can be proven is proven through science (i.e., there's nothing beyond science in terms of veracity)?

-A god that does not manifest in nature is indistinguishable from a non-existent god.

Assuming that, again, the limits of science are the limits of truth (what Eudaimonist above correctly called "scientism"). You're sounding a bit religious with your reasoning.

Those are your choices. You don't get to have it both ways.

Same goes for you, new-age hippies.

What on earth would give you the impression that a single quote from someone who critiques science is automatically in the same field as hippiedom?

 

[Paradoxum]

Science works. We know it works because the modern world is based on technologies that required science.

I'm also not sure what the objection is to basic reasoning;
eg: All mammals are warm-blooded.
All black dogs are mammals.
Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.

I'd agree that science doesn't prove or disprove God.

 

[Gadarene]

I generally am wary of claims of "scientism". It usually seems in practice to boil down to "this person thinks science can explain some things I think it can't".

 

[quatona]

Well, as you know, the scientific method isn't without its (kinda hidden) philosophical presuppositions which, if investigated deeply enough, invite their own problems.

Yes. If that was what he wanted to say I am wondering why he didn´t stop after the first 17 words (which got me intrigued), and immediately threw in all the rest of the stuff (which made me grouchy).

As for your last sentence, that goes with pretty much everything if you push it far enough, whether substantiation (even if you accept things under a scientific rubric, you're still assuming the philosophical presuppositions for science, a bit of a leap), explanation or elaboration (we can technically always explain things further, and determining whether something is explained or elaborated "just enough" is intuitive at best, definitely not the result of a clear external standard).

Yes, but saying "I believe that" and leaving it as that is not even an attempt of doing any of that.

Eh, maybe (great point). I see it more as saying that science is used to "transport" irrational ideas under the guise of science, and/or GIGO.

Ok. Since the criticism in the first sentence is directed at the fact that the scientific method itself rests on unsupported asssumptions and premises, it goes without saying that the results will never go beyond the boundaries determined by those premises. IOW, if the premises are garbage, the results have no leg to stand on. That´s a systemic problem (in case that the system is claiming to produce "truth").
But again: He didn´t leave it at that. He went on to say that "academic inquiry is, deep down, merely the elaborate justification of desire, bias, whim, and glory" - i.e. he stopped his systemic criticism and started to tackle the way this system is used and insinuated sinister motives on part of the scientists. Which are entirely different points.

Let´s just replace "science" by "mathematics":
Saying mathematics is a closed formal system (and therefore can´t explain anything beyond the defined boundaries of mathematics) is one thing.
Saying that mathematic inquiries are, deep down merely the elaborate justification of desire, bias, whim and glory would be a completely different, even unrelated one.

I don't think that's having their cake and eating it. More like defining an incredibly difficult metaphysical concept via negative reasoning (what something isn't), along the lines of: "God can't be physical, because something physical has X properties associated with the universe; therefore God must be 'beyond' the physical." Analogously to the whole *experience* involved in phenomenology: i.e., our experience of something is fundamentally different than (albeit possibly reducible to) any physical mechanisms in the brain. And trying to talk about the experience of something using concepts is no good, because the two are incommensurate with one another (one being ideas, the other being the experience "underlying" ideas and sensations, etc.).

How´s that any different than saying that the existence of the god of this concept isn´t subject to science, and therefore neither provable or disprovable with its methods? Just like you won´t be able to do it by means of mathematics or dentistry?
And I am not aware that anywhere in modern scientific research (nor in mathematical works or dentistry) the existence of such Gods have even been the subject - what exactly is the complaint?
God is defined as a metaphysical entity, therefore God doesn´t show up in science.

I am just not seeing how and why a researcher of, say, gravitational issues could possibly throw in God into his works (other than possibly ending each paragraph with "In God we trust", in order to appease theists, who find the fact disappointing that no God is needed to explain gravitation ). I am also not seeing how that allows for ascribing "desire, bias, whim, and glory" as being at the core of his efforts.

As for meta-scientific claims, you're always going to have those when you do anything but science.

Of course. However, I didn´t say there was anything wrong with meta-scientific claims. I just pointed out that those claims you brought up as scientific claims are actually meta-scientific claims.

I´m off to a 10 weeks Turkey vacation, hopefully losing a bit of the grouchy attitude.

Enjoy this, for a farewell:

Bright Eyes Land Locked Blues - YouTube

[FONT=&quot]"I keep drinking the ink from my pen
And I'm balancing history books up on my head
But it all boils down to one quotable phrase
If you love something, give it away

...

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]You'll be free child once you have died
From the shackles of language and measurable time
And then we can trade places, play musical graves
Till then walk away, walk away"


(It´s not me, of course - I wish it were.)[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[KCfromNC]

Huge claim. Please support this. Start with: are you saying that everything that can be proven is proven through science (i.e., there's nothing beyond science in terms of veracity)?

I didn't get that at all. It's just a common sense claim that if something has an observable impact on the natural world, science has the best track record studying those effects. Claims that god are magically immune to these investigations sounds like special pleading, at best.

 

[Received]

I didn't get that at all. It's just a common sense claim that if something has an observable impact on the natural world, science has the best track record studying those effects. Claims that god are magically immune to these investigations sounds like special pleading, at best.

Sounds like, for sure. But I think a lot of our difficulty with God is that we want to treat him like he's a pretty easy to understand, practical, not metaphysically ridiculously complicated phenomenon or concept. Along the lines of, "everything should be reasonably explained, which is why science is a good standard to use, and if it's too screwy or difficult or really annoying people [lots of religious people] are behind it, to heck with it."

As for an actual mini-argument: if you can imagine God being metaphysical, you can compare him to a three dimensional object "interfering" with a two dimensional world. The two dimensional world is constrained to two dimensions, so even if there was interference by this third-dimensional thing, you can't say this thing is special pleading just because it doesn't "fit" the standard of two dimensions. That's a mini-argument because it doesn't spell everything out for the sake of time. But God as "metaphysical" is perfectly analogous to this idea, IMO.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

That's a stereotype with theists, which opens up a huge demand for evidence on your behalf.

I submit every piece of theistic literature in human history as evidence. All theistic religions purport the existence of gods which causally integrate in the natural world. They create planets and stars, cause volcanoes to erupt, impregnate virgins, slay heretics, take the form of all manner of earthly beast and fowl, part seas, cause statues to drink milk offerings, give flight to horses, turn wives into pillars of salt, hurl meteorites at mountain peaks, bestow rabbis with the ability to walk on water, forge weaponry, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Huge claim.

No, utterly mundane claim. Science is the study of the natural world. Anything that occurs in the natural world is by definition subject to scientific scrutiny.

Assuming that, again, the limits of science are the limits of truth

My point does not necessitate that assumption. I am addressing specifically those claims that trespass in the natural world while simultaneously claiming refuge from it.

 

[Received]

Hi, EFM, I appreciate your response. Let's play the polysyllabic game.

I submit every piece of theistic literature in human history as evidence.

Whoa, now it constitutes evidence? I imagine you meant to say something like "is applicable to the standard of empiricism [evidence]"? If so, how so? Please (and I'll be happy to cut/paste) see post #18 when I compared God, being "metaphysical", to a second dimension constraint attempting to explain or verify empirically something from the third dimension. This ain't a hippie, careless unphilosophical comparison, but something held by serious philosophers of religion (theistic and atheistic, and no don't ask me for names, that takes too much work stretching and stuff). Translation: it's your metaphysical premise that God is commensurate with the "natural" world. Just because something *interferes* with the natural world *doesn't mean* the entity itself which interferes is itself commensurate with scientific standards (i.e., the natural world); just like a second dimension standard can't "comprehend" a third dimension one.

All theistic religions purport the existence of gods which causally integrate in the natural world. They create planets and stars, cause volcanoes to erupt, impregnate virgins, slay heretics, take the form of all manner of earthly beast and fowl, part seas, cause statues to drink milk offerings, give flight to horses, turn wives into pillars of salt, hurl meteorites at mountain peaks, bestow rabbis with the ability to walk on water, forge weaponry, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Totally. See above.

No, utterly mundane claim. Science is the study of the natural world. Anything that occurs in the natural world is by definition subject to scientific scrutiny.

1) That still ain't mundane no matter how many times you repeat it (contra Chomsky's claim, "what does 'natural'" even mean?"; 2) Science may be the study of the natural world, but that's far from the leap of saying that God is also commensurate with this natural world and/or the standard of science. Lots of things are outside the verification of science, such as, hm, science itself, the existence of the external world (just saying "science proves physical X" begs the question here), uniformity in nature, the existence of other selves as opposed to robots (no, the Turing test isn't sufficient).

My point does not necessitate that assumption. I am addressing specifically those claims that trespass in the natural world while simultaneously claiming refuge from it.

Cool. So you're saying that perhaps the philosophical exceptions in the previous paragraph I posted are somehow cool if science can't verify them, but something massive, complicated, and arguably metaphysical by nature (not to mention the 3d/2d analogy) just doesn't cut it in terms of an exception to science?