Is science at odds with philosophy?

[SelfSim]

Not the author of everything you take in, but a constructor of models from it. Personally I think that, in general, the models are detailed, consistent, and durable enough to support the idea that they are, at least partial models of a source of information that we call reality.

The perceptual models, once described using language, are the reality. This is supported by abundant objective test results and is not an opinion or a belief. There is no need, (or objective evidence), supporting the idea that there exists 'a source' .. that's the belief and philosophical part, and an assumption which never gets tested. (I notice that idea was denoted as your personal belief there, too .. which is fine by me .. and great to see).

We're in a science forum here, discussing the question of science being at odds with philosophy. When it comes to what reality is, the only 'at odds part' there, would come from an assertion of the untestable belief that there exists 'a source which is real' .. that's where the tension comes from.

But we effectively live in the models - the brain receives information from all our senses as neural Morse code, nothing else.

The description of reality is our description, (obviously objectively evident), and it changes only when our information changes (eg: what we think is true changes with different philosophically reasoned beliefs .. and so do science's objective models change with new data). The place where we can tell when our information changes, is in our consciousness, eg: that is the place where we compile the information we are going to use to describe and enable testable predictions, using the scientific method.
So the role of consciousness, and the role of information, are inseparable, they come together because the conscious mind is where information gets assessed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It could mean many different things to different people and animals for that matter.

Exactly.

The different interpretations of quantum physics all have equal possibility...

What makes you think that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But its the assumption that consciousness is caused by the physical brain in the first place thats going to cause that conclusion. Its circular reasoning. The idea that everything is physical is the assumption so of course the scientific method is going to support its own assumption if thats all its looking for. But in the greater scheme of things consciousness may not be physical.

You're the one making the assumptions here. Scientific hypotheses are tentative explanations that can be falsified or supported by observations.

If you'd like to describe a hypothesis to test the possible non-physical nature of consciousness, please do so, and outline how this could be done.

Yes and thats what the scientific method is doing. Its accepting that everything is physical to begin with and not arguing or supporting that case. Therefore it accepts something without question and proof. It then restricts the verification of this to only testing physical stuff so it will verify its own assumptions.

No - you have it backwards. I've already explained this to you. Consider quantum physics - superposition, entanglement, non-local correlation; none of it consistent with physical reality as previously understood. But it was accepted as new physics - the meaning of physical reality changed.

 

[SelfSim]

Yet scientists propose non-physical ideas about consciousness and use the science method to try and verify them.

I'd need to see an example of that before commenting further.

I am saying that this is usually seen as woo regardless because it is assumed by mainstream science that anything non-physical is woo. No one even gets the chance to form hypothesis and test them as they are rejected from the start.

If I understand what you mean there, anything non-physical is also untestable, regardless of your opinion about 'not getting the chance', following one's proposal of testing untestable (in principle) notions.

How do you mean. First an assumption is made and then it is tested. If it stands up to testing then it is verified. But the assumption is made first before the testing.

The kinds of assumptions you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, are untestable in principle. To me, 'non-physical' is defined being nothing more than just a belief.

Speculation followed by the formation of an hypothesis, is part of the scientific process, for sure. Assumptions can also be made from notions already tested in unrelated, or other diverse fields, or can be based on already tested scientific definitions .. but you're not talking speaking about any of those(?)

I think you have just agreed with me. Maybe we are on the same page and there is a communication breakdown.

Ahh dunno 'bout that yet .. but I'll ride along and see.

I am saying that the science method assumes that physical stuff is all there is and non-physical stuff is woo.

And I'm saying that science requires no assumptions like the ones you are proposing. They would simply be detected, then promptly and efficiently, ejected from the process, because of their descriptions. Its not science's fault there .. its science's main feature.

I am saying in the overall scheme of things how does science know apart from using their owm measuring system which is biased towards physical stuff. For all we know consciousness may be the result of non-physical causes.

It wouldn't make any impact on us where we couldn't detect such a 'cause', now would it? How is 'cause' defined there anyway, if there's no way to detect it? (Its 'non-physical'), right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The perceptual models, once described using language, are the reality. This is supported by abundant objective test results and is not an opinion or a belief. There is no need, (or objective evidence), supporting the idea that there exists 'a source' .. that's the belief and philosophical part, and an assumption which never gets tested. (I notice that idea was denoted as your personal belief there, too .. which is fine by me .. and great to see).

I didn't say it was my belief.

We're in a science forum here, discussing the question of science being at odds with philosophy. When it comes to what reality is, the only 'at odds part' there, would come from an assertion of the untestable belief that there exists 'a source which is real' .. that's where the tension comes from.

My response to durangodawood was about a way to think about his mental life, not a claim about what is or isn't reality.

The place where we can tell when our information changes, is in our consciousness, eg: that is the place where we compile the information we are going to use to describe and enable testable predictions, using the scientific method.
So the role of consciousness, and the role of information, are inseparable, they come together because the conscious mind is where information gets assessed.

Agreed; as I said, "we effectively live in the models <we construct>"

 

[SelfSim]

I didn't say it was my belief

No you didn't say that .. but when the notion is untestable by science, then it passes an operationally testable definition for a belief.

 

[stevevw]

Exactly.


What makes you think that?

Because no interpretation has been verified over the other and a case can be made for each according to which interpretation is preferred. That is the weirdness of quantum findings in how it threw a spanner in the works of classical physics where particles became smeared out into sets of different potentials and possibilities.

 

[durangodawood]

....Yes and thats what the scientific method is doing. Its accepting that everything is physical to begin with and not arguing or supporting that case. Therefore it accepts something without question and proof. It then restricts the verification of this to only testing physical stuff so it will verify its own assumptions.

Perhaps this is a dumb question. But lets say some aspects of reality are non-physical. Whats our avenue to knowing about them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because no interpretation has been verified over the other and a case can be made for each according to which interpretation is preferred. That is the weirdness of quantum findings in how it threw a spanner in the works of classical physics where particles became smeared out into sets of different potentials and possibilities.

I am not sure if you understand quantum physics. Quantum physics does not throw reality out of the window. It only means that the over simplified version of every day physics is not correct. But then the same thing happens to us when the effects of relativity are taken into account.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No you didn't say that .. but when the notion is untestable by science, then it passes an operationally testable definition for a belief.

Let me put it this way - I'm a pragmatic realist; I like to think that the information I receive originates somewhere because that is consistent with how information behaves in the models I create from that information.

The information I receive is consistent with a model that I have a brain that does the thinking, a body that senses the world, and a world that it senses. It is also consistent with the idea that information is about or represents something. So, for consistency, I model the information that is used to create the models as also being about or representing something (with which the models aim to be consistent), and I call what it is about or represents (following convention), 'objective reality'. IOW it is whatever the information from which I create my models is about or represents in my models.

If the information changes and my models become inconsistent with it, I will revise the models accordingly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems I am damned either way you look at it. First you say I should explain things in my own words as though this is good enough. Yet you then question any links I may use anyway like they are all important.

No, don't try to shift responsibility. You were advised to look at textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method.

You said that you did look at textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method, so I'm just asking you what textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method you looked at.

So I linked an article from National Centre for Science Education, National Academy of Sciences and Princton education. As far as I know these are education outlets. I also used Wikipedia as it seems to be a well used source and is educational. This is on top of a number of other links I provided beforehand from what I think are good scientific sources like Berkerley. Com and NBCI which is peer reviwed science.

I don't think peer review science is just opinion nor do I think a site like Berkeley would allow opinion to be their official position on science. I think you cannot avoid philosophy when talking about what science is or is not and how it should be done.

Those articles were philosophical, not from science textbooks or teaching materials.

You omitted an important part of Fowler's article on 'Naturalism and Science' preceding the section you quoted, which actually repeats what I've been telling you:

"... naturalism is a derivative concept... the product of a particular way of going about the acquisition of knowledge, viz. the scientific method
...
methodological naturalism states that, as a practical matter, science can only utilize explanations that involve operationally definable quantities such as mass, energy, time, and so forth." [my bolding]
​

Metaphysical naturalism, as the part you did quote says, "cannot be a result of science; it is a distinctly philosophical position which must be justified on non-scientific grounds".

So the very article you quoted contradicts your claim that science is metaphysically naturalistic, i.e. that it claims only only 'natural' things exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, don't try to shift responsibility. You were advised to look at textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method.

You said that you did look at textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method, so I'm just asking you what textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method you looked at.


Those articles were philosophical, not from science textbooks or teaching materials.

You omitted an important part of Fowler's article on 'Naturalism and Science' preceding the section you quoted, which actually repeats what I've been telling you:

"... naturalism is a derivative concept... the product of a particular way of going about the acquisition of knowledge, viz. the scientific method
...
methodological naturalism states that, as a practical matter, science can only utilize explanations that involve operationally definable quantities such as mass, energy, time, and so forth." [my bolding]
​

Metaphysical naturalism, as the part you did quote says, "cannot be a result of science; it is a distinctly philosophical position which must be justified on non-scientific grounds".

So the very article you quoted contradicts your claim that science is metaphysically naturalistic, i.e. that it claims only only 'natural' things exist.

I think he meant to say (or should have more correctly said), science is methodologically naturalistic.

But, let's ask Steve what he meant. @stevevw, did you mean to use the term "methodologically" when you instead said "mythologically"?

We're just wondering....... Thanks!!!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because no interpretation has been verified over the other and a case can be made for each according to which interpretation is preferred.

That doesn't make them equally possible. We have no means of assessing their possibilities. The best we can do is rank them by abductive criteria as explanatory hypotheses.

That is the weirdness of quantum findings in how it threw a spanner in the works of classical physics where particles became smeared out into sets of different potentials and possibilities.

That's not how it works - far from 'throwing a spanner in the works', quantum physics resolved a number of puzzles in classical physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think he meant to say (or should have more correctly said), science is methodologically naturalistic.

But, let's ask Steve what he meant. @stevevw, did you mean to use the term "methodologically" when you instead said "mythologically"?

We're just wondering....... Thanks!!!

That should be 'metaphysically' rather than 'mythologically'.

He's already made clear more than once that he thinks that science assumes metaphysical naturalism, by saying it assumes that only the physical (natural) exists.

 

[SelfSim]

No you didn't say that .. but when the notion is untestable by science, then it passes an operationally testable definition for a belief.

Let me put it this way - I'm a pragmatic realist; I like to think that the information I receive originates somewhere because that is consistent with how information behaves in the models I create from that information.

The information I receive is consistent with a model that I have a brain that does the thinking, a body that senses the world, and a world that it senses. It is also consistent with the idea that information is about or represents something. So, for consistency, I model the information that is used to create the models as also being about or representing something (with which the models aim to be consistent), and I call what it is about or represents (following convention), 'objective reality'. IOW it is whatever the information from which I create my models is about or represents in my models.

If the information changes and my models become inconsistent with it, I will revise the models accordingly.

That is all a very reasonable argument but it doesn't lead to any objectively testable predictions and I'm not trying to have an argument there.

It includes the position of adopting the belief in mind independence, held as being true, even in the case where the intent for that position might only be contingent and provisional. Because that concept remains objectively untestable in principle, it effectively only argues for reasoned acceptance of that preferred belief. Its still a belief though and it has the appearance of a desire of "having one's cake and eating it too", scientifically speaking.

The intent of consistency is insufficient for regarding it as a product of scientific modelling, once it is put to the test and compared against science's purpose of being practically useful, by way of making testable predictions.

It also relies, first and foremost, on terms like 'represents' as the means of persuasion for acceptance of 'models' as only portraying 'the real thing', with apparently no attempt at demonstrating any evidence, which would lead to a conclusion of the truly independent existence of 'other things' from such models. As such, 'other things' at best, becomes just another mind model, given the weight of evidence supporting that notion.

(Also, therein lie the key reasons for keeping philosophically based arguments distinct from scientific commentaries, which is a separable argument, I might add).

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps this is a dumb question. But lets say some aspects of reality are non-physical. Whats our avenue to knowing about them?

I am not sure. Asking how we can prove non physical stuff is a philosophical question. I guess it comes down to determining what is existence and real. Is it something physical or can abstractions be regarded to exist. All I know is we do appeal to non-physical and abstract ideas as being real and existing like feelings, math, ect so why not. Who says the scientific method is the holy grail of determining what exists and is real.

In fact science considers concepts such as electromagnetic field and neutrons as physical yet they are just as abstract as mathmatics or social constructs. Why is one classed as physic and the other not. The determinination seems arbitrary.

 

[Ophiolite]

In fact science considers concepts such as electromagnetic field and neutrons as physical yet they are just as abstract as mathmatics or social constructs. Why is one classed as physic and the other not. The determinination seems arbitrary.

Surely it is only arbitrary if you consider classifying a duck as a bird, but not an elephant to be an arbitrary act. They are, after all, both lifeforms. A neutron may, ultimately be some 'constriction' of an energy field (whatever that is), but it has distinct characteristics that make it less abstract than the concept of freedom, for example.

 

[stevevw]

No, don't try to shift responsibility. You were advised to look at textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method.

You said that you did look at textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method, so I'm just asking you what textbooks and teaching material on the scientific method you looked at.

OK I was a bit confused. I thought you were questioning whether I linked educational sites in the first place. Thats why I explained they were educational sites below. Anyway

Those articles were philosophical, not from science textbooks or teaching materials.

OK like I said the The National Centre for Science Education is a National science education Association which states that part of its mission is to educate schools about science so I think that is about science education and an authority on the subject. The article I linked is a statement about their position on the scientific method.

As far the other articles I doubt that you even read the article I posted from Berkeley. Edu because it was in a previous post to SelfSim to the post you jumped in on. This site states it explains what science is according to scientific textbooks and like the NCSE it state that the science method is about testing naturalistic processes (Mythological naturalism) ie

How science works
The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science textbooks.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02
The process of science builds reliable knowledge about the natural world. The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions like
There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

But my original point I mentioned still stands that regardless of which scientific source educational or not describing the scientific method as far as what it does i.e. testing ideas with evidence is different to what I am talking about which is what 'what does the scientific method claim, what assumptions does it make about reality/nature'. That can only be answered philosophically.

You omitted an important part of Fowler's article on 'Naturalism and Science' preceding the section you quoted, which actually repeats what I've been telling you:

"... naturalism is a derivative concept... the product of a particular way of going about the acquisition of knowledge, viz. the scientific method
...
methodological naturalism states that, as a practical matter, science can only utilize explanations that involve operationally definable quantities such as mass, energy, time, and so forth." [my bolding]
​

And if you go back before that section you will find it says quote "Naturalism can thus be used to focus science on its mission". So its a prior assumption of the scientific method. It informs what is to be measured and as the article mentions this is restricted to physical stuff like mass, particles, ect. So yes the particular way the scientific method goes about acquiring knowledge of reality is to assume it’s naturalistic in the first place. So of course naturalism is going to be the product of scientific inquiry.

​

Metaphysical naturalism, as the part you did quote says, "cannot be a result of science; it is a distinctly philosophical position which must be justified on non-scientific grounds".

So the very article you quoted contradicts your claim that science is metaphysically naturalistic, i.e. that it claims only only 'natural' things exist.

I never said that metaphysical naturalism is a part of science. I said that it is easy for the scientific method to slip into metaphysical naturalistic claims about reality.

As the article above stated the scientific method uses explanations about mass, particles and energy etc. I then pointed out as the article said that because naturalism can be hard to define there is a fine line “small step “ between methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism, making claims about what nature is by the nature of its explanatory method 'Naturalism' only.

As the article said science does seek to tell us something about reality and continues to with updated info like with quasars, black holes, and dark matter etc. These are all about making reality about physical stuff and ruling out the supernatural. So metaphysics is not easily marginalized because science can slip into telling us what reality is.

The whole article is about how methodological naturalism is hard to define and asks the question about whether other ideas like the mind, colour, sound, dreams etc. are naturalistic and just because they may be hard to define and make tests for should they be excluded. Its all about the fine line between method and methaphysics and trying to establish a clear definition.

 

[stevevw]

Surely it is only arbitrary if you consider classifying a duck as a bird, but not an elephant to be an arbitrary act. They are, after all, both lifeforms. A neutron may, ultimately be some 'constriction' of an energy field (whatever that is), but it has distinct characteristics that make it less abstract than the concept of freedom, for example.

I think the point in the article was that determining what is reality is not seen in black and white terms. There are some things like God that you can definitely rule out and you can classify certain things. But there are others like to do with the mind, experiences of colour, love, music, mathmatics which are harder to define in physical terms. But should they be ruled out when determining reality.

 

[stevevw]

I think he meant to say (or should have more correctly said), science is methodologically naturalistic.

But, let's ask Steve what he meant. @stevevw, did you mean to use the term "methodologically" when you instead said "mythologically"?

We're just wondering....... Thanks!!!

Thanks for asking and clarifying. I think my answer to FrumiousBandersnatch may help. I did use the term "methodologically" but not in the way it was explained.