Is science at odds with philosophy?

[stevevw]

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.

Yes but I still maintain that science uses methological naturalism. That is why I posted that article to help explain how the science method can easily slip into metaphysical naturalism. This is a common point of discussion within science so its not something I just made up.

Logically it would be that if metaphysical naturalism restricts explanations to physical stuff and rules out the supernatural isnt that taking a position that there is only physical stuff. Isnt that making a statement that reality is material. Its not finding physical stuff from a neutal position that any possible cause can make reality. It begins with taking a position (assumption) that only investigates physical stuff and then confirms this with the scientific method of testing for physical stuff. Its a self support method of determining reality as physical stuff.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I am not saying it throws reality our the window but rather it brings in questions about what is reality. But in some ways it is saying that reality as we know it through everyday physics is not the case.

All I know is that since the findings of quantum physics there has been a 10 fold increase in ideas that question reality.
Quantum physics: our study suggests objective reality doesn’t exist
Quantum physics: our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
How quantum theory says we can never see a complete picture of reality
How quantum theory says we can never see a complete picture of reality | New Scientist

Even mainstream scientists are doing the same. I mean though the Multiverse is probably more mainstream of all the ideas it still invites realities with various physical parameters that we would probably think were out of this world.
5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse
5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse | Space

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not saying it throws reality our the window but rather it brings in questions about what is reality. But in some ways it is saying that reality as we know it through everyday physics is not the case.

All I know is that since the findings of quantum physics there has been a 10 fold increase in ideas that question reality.
Quantum physics: our study suggests objective reality doesn’t exist
Quantum physics: our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
How quantum theory says we can never see a complete picture of reality
How quantum theory says we can never see a complete picture of reality | New Scientist

Even mainstream scientists are doing the same. I mean though the Multiverse is probably more mainstream of all the ideas it still invites realities with various physical parameters that we would probably think were out of this world.
5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse
5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse | Space

There has always been believers in woo woo that are willing to abuse the sciences. I do not take such articles seriously and QM is not a new concept. It began roughly at the start of the 20th century. In fact Einstein's Nobel prize was in that area. He discovered the Photo electric effect. He never got a prize for relativity.

 

[RDKirk]

I wonder too, if there is some parallel between Bible-based Chriatianity and the advent of science... Because, where the more ancient Churches, like Orthodoxy and Catholicism stress a spirit influenced conscience/Heierarchy, the bible-based Churches tend to lean more toward textual "truths" - something more akin to "evidence".

..I wonder if there might have been a sort of influence there, considering the time frame of Protestantism was around the same time as the advent of modern science.

...And if true, we can see how different types of thinking blend into one another at the outer edges.

That is a change in the concepts of the philosophy of epistemology. The writers of scripture used a different basis for determining a truth: If two or three persons were willing to die in declaration of an event, that event was considered true. That's why there was no concerted effort in the 1st century to secure physical evidence of Christ's existence, or His birth, or His death, or His resurrection. The testimony of martyrs (witnesses) was sufficient within their epistemology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

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.

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.

The assumptions in the Berkeley article are what they mean by the supporting framework for hypothesis testing, i.e. other verified hypotheses. The 'basic' assumptions are somewhat misleading - the first effectively defines what we can observe as 'natural', the other two are existing, implicitly tested, hypotheses; i.e. we empirically know that we can learn from our observations, and we empirically know there are consistencies in our observations.

Scientists don't know what 'nature' is, it's effectively a word for what is, in principle, discoverable about the world. They make hypotheses based on observations and test them. The verified results are provisionally categorised as representing 'nature', i.e. what we (provisionally) know & understand about the world. Most people go a stage further and (in my view, reasonably) reify nature in its own right.

It doesn't matter what you call unverified speculations - immaterial, supernatural, spiritual, mystical, etc., if it is verified to have a detectable influence in the world, it is categorised 'natural'. One can say 'naturalism can focus science on its mission', but it's not a particularly meaningful statement - it doesn't say it's an assumption of science, it just emphasises observables.

Perhaps part of the problem here is semantic; but I suspect the main part of the problem is that you're determined that science is at fault for not validating your beliefs.

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.

The scientific method is a set of practices, it's not an entity that can make claims about reality

I'm still waiting for you to outline the hypothesis involving the non-physical that you want to test, and your description of how you propose it should be tested. IIRC it was to do with consciousness, but any phenomenon will do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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).

OK. I wasn't making a scientific commentary, just describing my thoughts about my perceptions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes but I still maintain that science uses methological naturalism.

Well, yes - if you can explain how, as a practical matter, science can utilize explanations other than those that involve operationally definable quantities, I'd be interested to hear it.

That is why I posted that article to help explain how the science method can easily slip into metaphysical naturalism.

As before, the scientific method is not capable of metaphysics.

Logically ... if metaphysical naturalism restricts explanations to physical stuff and rules out the supernatural isnt that taking a position that there is only physical stuff. Isnt that making a statement that reality is material.

Yes; yes, it is. It's a philosophical position.

Its not finding physical stuff from a neutal position that any possible cause can make reality. It begins with taking a position (assumption) that only investigates physical stuff and then confirms this with the scientific method of testing for physical stuff. Its a self support method of determining reality as physical stuff.

You're confusing or conflating metaphysical and methodological naturalism. Science is methodologically naturalist; it has no choice - unless, as I keep asking, you can describe some means by which it can investigate the non-physical.

You're saying science should be investigating the non-physical, so put your money where your mouth is - how do you propose to investigate the non-physical? Any example will do to start.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Yes, I tend to count those things as non-physical and label them "real". But I dont count them as non-natural, as they seem to be capabilities of consciousness which itself appears to have emerged from entirely physical processes.

What I dont see is any sort of non physical reality that precedes the emergence of consciousness from its physical process constituents.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Oh, ok. I haven't read much of anything in this thread, so I haven't kept up on all of what Steve was saying. It's just that since he cited and quoted the National Center for Science Education, I thought maybe he intended to refer to "methodological" naturalism which is what the NCSE (formerly headed by atheist Eugenie Scott) would support.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Ok. Thanks for adding that bit, but just be aware that the NCSE would support Methodological Naturalism, so you need to cite and quote from them with that in mind (which means their position will militate against the epistemic assumptions of the Intelligent Design movement).

 

[stevevw]

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

I'm talking before the hypothesis is even made. Do you ever think a scientific hypothesis would be about consciousness being caused by something beyond the physical brain or by a supernatural cause. I don't think so. Any hypothesis will be about something physical and thats the restriction it assumes beforehand.

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.

Like I said if its a scientific hypothesis thats not going to find that cause. I don't know how this can be done, but the point is not how non-physical causes can be found but that there are non-physical causes and they need to also be considered. Perhaps the first step is for science to realise that the physical/material is not the only cause of reality.

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.

Yes its accepted as new physics. The word physics gives it away. Its accepted as new information about the physical world. This still keeps things all about physical stuff. The moment anyone poses something other than physical stuff it is shot down as woo.

 

[stevevw]

Ok. Thanks for adding that bit, but just be aware that the NCSE would support Methodological Naturalism, so you need to cite and quote from them with that in mind (which means their position will militate against the epistemic assumptions of the Intelligent Design movement).

OK. Though I don't want to bring ID into this specifically but doesn't ID say that they rule out the supernatural. Though I agree that the NCSE will class ID as creationism I think it is better to use creationism per se which does promote supernaturalism. But religion is not the only ones who support the supernatural or non-physical is probably a better term as this can include a raft of other ideas like panpsychism, dualism, Bayesianism ect.

I used the NCSE because they support Methodological Naturalism which was to show that the science method takes the position of naturalism so the method is premised on finding only physical stuff which is taking a position on reality that is about metaphysics in the overall scheme of what reality is or is not.

 

[Landon Caeli]

That is a change in the concepts of the philosophy of epistemology. The writers of scripture used a different basis for determining a truth: If two or three persons were willing to die in declaration of an event, that event was considered true. That's why there was no concerted effort in the 1st century to secure physical evidence of Christ's existence, or His birth, or His death, or His resurrection. The testimony of martyrs (witnesses) was sufficient within their epistemology.

I'm just not sure if that physical method you mentioned faded over time as the advent of science came to be. Where then, textual proof became the universal gold standard, whether it be through documentation by proto-scientific type thinkers, or documentation via Bible.

 

[stevevw]

Well, yes - if you can explain how, as a practical matter, science can utilize explanations other than those that involve operationally definable quantities, I'd be interested to hear it.

I don't know, what do other scientists do who step outside the physical view of things. Surely there are ways. I mean we know in other areas that there is more than one way to find truth so maybe this is where philsophy comes in.

As before, the scientific method is not capable of metaphysics.

But if the science method is about methodological naturalism isn't that a metaphysical position because it is ruling out all other possible ways of seeing the world apart form naturalism.

Yes; yes, it is. It's a philosophical position.

Sorry I meant to say methological naturalism. So logicaly if methological naturalism restricts explanations to physical stuff and rules out the supernatural isnt that taking a position that there is only physical stuff. Isnt that making a statement that reality is material and therefore taking a metaphysical position as well.

You're confusing or conflating metaphysical and methodological naturalism. Science is methodologically naturalist; it has no choice - unless, as I keep asking, you can describe some means by which it can investigate the non-physical.

Yes I agree science has no choice. That is what I have been saying when I say science method restricts things to the physical stuff. But I am talking philosophically when I say that if we take a step back to look at the bigger picture of what is reality (not just about the science method) the scientific method is taking one position among others as to what reality is made up of. So in that context science is taking a metaphysical position on reality.

Because science permeates our society and people almost have a faith like view of science as the answer and guider of everything its easy to see how its methodology can become metaphysical and science is then telling us what reality is. If you see a new story put out by Scientific America or similar you read science has discovered a new particle that makes up reality ect its easy to see how this happens. But in some ways its ineviatble because science assumes this and science is in a position to make claims about reality.

You're saying science should be investigating the non-physical, so put your money where your mouth is - how do you propose to investigate the non-physical? Any example will do to start.

Like I said I don't know. Perhaps you could give some idea. All I know is if there is non-physical stuff and it has an effect on reality then wouldn’t science want to know. Wouldn’t it have an effect on the current and future scientific findings? wouldn't it skew things and give false findings. How do we know science is not explaining non-physical causes in physical terms and getting it wrong.

The paper by Fowler was about this problem but he didn’t come up with an answer. Rather he was pointing out how it is hard to draw the line between the physical and non-physical stuff but that we could in theory make more of an effort to determine that line and find ways to test the non-physical.

Maybe its inviting philosophy into science more to find ways. Maybe we still have the science method and come up with an additional way to determine non-physical stuff. Or maybe the scientific method can determine non-physical stuff by not assume everything is physical.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I tend to count those things as non-physical and label them "real". But I dont count them as non-natural, as they seem to be capabilities of consciousness which itself appears to have emerged from entirely physical processes.

What I dont see is any sort of non physical reality that precedes the emergence of consciousness from its physical process constituents.

I guess that depends on how you see things. There are those who support panpsychism where everything is conscious, Bayesian which puts the observer (mind) apart frm the physical brain as creating reality or even ideas like the simulation hypothesis which makes our relaity like a computer simulation rather than physically real.

But from what I understand isn't there are few ideas about consciousness being non-physical like a seperate thing from the physical brain along the lines of dualism. Consciousness can go on when the body dies and therefore even in life it is a seperate thing that exists from the physical brain.

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe its inviting philosophy into science more to find ways. Maybe we still have the science method and come up with an additional way to determine non-physical stuff. Or maybe the scientific method can determine non-physical stuff by not assume everything is physical. That way they wouldn't keep trying to explain things that don't conform to the materialist paradigm as a physical cause and this opens the way for the non-physical causes to be investigate more.

Your mind has been clouded by the dark side (of too much Philosophy), Luke Skywalker.
“Is the dark side stronger?” you might ask.
“No, no, no” .. “Quicker, easier, more seductive.”
..
“A Jedi scientist must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing.”

(- or something like that, anyway)..



I think I just discovered my missing Avatar(?)

 

[stevevw]

Your mind has been clouded by the dark side (of too much Philosophy), Luke Skywalker.
“Is the dark side stronger?” you might ask.
“No, no, no” .. “Quicker, easier, more seductive.”
..
“A Jedi scientist must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing.”

(- or something like that, anyway)..

View attachment 302838

I think I just discovered my missing Avatar(?)

I must have the force as my diction is similar to Yoda's. The force is a non physical state anyway, like spiritual force.

 

[durangodawood]

I guess that depends on how you see things. There are those who support panpsychism where everything is conscious, Bayesian which puts the observer (mind) apart frm the physical brain as creating reality or even ideas like the simulation hypothesis which makes our relaity like a computer simulation rather than physically real.

But from what I understand isn't there are few ideas about consciousness being non-physical like a seperate thing from the physical brain along the lines of dualism. Consciousness can go on when the body dies and therefore even in life it is a seperate thing that exists from the physical brain.

But I dont find the slightest evidence that would compel me to consider panpsychism. The best I can say for it is it sounds more fun.

Same with a disembodied consciousness. It appeals to my ego's desire for continuity. But where's the evidence?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK. Though I don't want to bring ID into this specifically but doesn't ID say that they rule out the supernatural. Though I agree that the NCSE will class ID as creationism I think it is better to use creationism per se which does promote supernaturalism. But religion is not the only ones who support the supernatural or non-physical is probably a better term as this can include a raft of other ideas like panpsychism, dualism, Bayesianism ect.

No, I don't think that the position of ID rules 'out' supernatural causation. It merely states that it detects 'design' but then leaves the question open as to what kind of intelligent brought that about. One option can be 'god,' the other option leaves open the door for all of the 'spaghetti monster' jokes of alien intelligence residing within the space-time structure of our universe. So, it could be a Supreme God, gods or aliens ....

I used the NCSE because they support Methodological Naturalism which was to show that the science method takes the position of naturalism so the method is premised on finding only physical stuff which is taking a position on reality that is about metaphysics in the overall scheme of what reality is or is not.

Actually, Methodological Naturalism is taking a neutral position on metaphysics, unlike the epistemic position that is involved in either I.D. or its compliment, Philosophical Naturalism.

How am I familiar with this? Well, I studied these positions for my Master's degree over a decade ago.

Just be careful with asserting the extent that metaphysics is represented within any one particular scientific angel where Naturalism is concerned.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Scientific angel?