Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Ophiolite]

That might describe people's desired, subjective motivations for doing science, but that's not what I meant there.

My generalised definition of science is that it is a process of mental activity involving the acquisition and assessment of empirical objective observations, often quantitative data, and efforts to idealize, understand, and predict under controlled conditions, those types of objective outcomes. The process generally involves iteration between mental models that use mathematics, geometry, and other such syntactic structures to generate successful predictions, and observations that test those predictions.

All this is a perfectly standard meaning of the term 'scientific thinking', and you can notice quite easily that no subjective beliefs, in the sense of something that is not an inference based on objective evidence, appears anywhere in the process .. including beliefs in the existence of some mind independent reality, or beliefs in methodological or metaphysical naturalism.

None of which sustains your notion that the purpose of science is practical, nor is your spurious harking back to your obsession with dissing "methodological naturalism" in any way relevant.

SelSim, making posts that have the structure and vocabulary of logical, rational thinking does not mean they contain logical, rational thinking. A proportion of your posts fall foul of that truth.

 

[SelfSim]

None of which sustains your notion that the purpose of science is practical,

Point taken. However, I wasn't attempting to engage in some silly argument over non-acknowledgement of science's obvious track record of demonstrating practical utility. The argument relies to a certain degreee, on some semblance of scientific thinking and a recognition of science's practical achievements.

nor is your spurious harking back to your obsession with dissing "methodological naturalism" in any way relevant.

It is relevant to the topic of the thread we're posting in, however. (Ie: take it as an attempt to bring the thread on track, following an apparent attempted derail/aside matter).

SelSim, making posts that have the structure and vocabulary of logical, rational thinking does not mean they contain logical, rational thinking. A proportion of your posts fall foul of that truth.

I'm a foul poster then(!?) I'm overjoyed at seeing your true post intention there, FWIW(?)
My goal has been acheived. Life goes on ..

(Oh and FYI, my name here is: 'SelfSim')

 

[Ophiolite]

Point taken. However, I wasn't attempting to engage in some silly argument over non-acknowledgement of science's obvious track record of demonstrating practical utility.

Your record of reading comprehension disinclines me to waste time answering, or reading, more than this first response. I fully acknowledge that science has a practical application. I simply corrected your absolute assertion that it only has a practical application. If you wish me to address your other points send me a pm.

 

[SelfSim]

I simply corrected your absolute assertion that it only has a practical application.

I can see that .. and I was aware of it when I posted it.

If you wish me to address your other points send me a pm.

Thank you for your generous offer. I'll decline it.

 

[stevevw]

Yep. Go look at the widely published textbooks and taught scientific method. It says nothing about assumptions of 'what nature is'.

Ok I doubled checks and it seems that many scientific articles describe the scientific method as holding many assumptions before testing. One of the main assumptions is that nature is physical and even of a material nature.

This makes sense because the science can only test for physical stuff. It has to see, hold, measure physical stuff. It describes nature in terms of mass, particles, chemicals and genes etc. so it is implicitly saying that nature/reality is physical/material stuff.

Anyway here are some examples beginning with an article from the National Centre for Science Education where they equate the scientific view of nature as being material.

Science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations. This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter, energy, and their interactions (materialism). Scientists use only methodological materialism because it is logical, but primarily because it works.
Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism | National Center for Science Education

One popular plea for metaphysics rests on the idea that for the good of science, scientists must start with provisional realism -- there are unobservable causes for all observable phenomena or some such thesis -- and presumptive materialism -- matter is all there is, so those causes are all material mechanisms of some sort.
Science, Materialism, and False Consciousness

Wikipedia says more or less the same
"The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science.
Methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed.
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Temporal relates to worldly things as opposed to spiritual things and naturalism assumes that only natural physical things exist.

Why do you cite examples about the scientific method by quoting references about philosophy?
You really need to stop reading the junk you're reading and get into some science .. rather than stuff which just pontificates about it.

The only way to cite what the scientific method is or is not is by using philosophy. Science cannot make claims about itself is it’s purely a mythological tool. It would be like math or a hammer describing itself.

Science's only purpose is to be of practical use. The descriptions it produces and its method target consistency. There is no need for 'correctness'.
Science isn't some exercise in pure Logic.

That’s my point. What science represents and can claim go beyond methodology and into stating what reality/nature is about. Saying the scientific method is the only way to determine reality/nature or that natural cause is reality or that empirical findings are reality and nature.

This is done implicitly by saying that we can only measure stuff like particles, chemicals, mass etc. to determine reality/natural world. Even the name applied ‘methodological naturalism’ is claiming something about reality that it’s based on naturalism. Naturalism is about the physical world that we can see and touch. This is all beyond the method and stepping into metaphysics.

More irrelevant articles on philosophy .. just ignore 'em .. its quite simple, really.

As far as I understand we can only determine scientific status by philosophy. Even so I have already linked scientific sources earlier to support this. Even when a scientific source makes claim about status it’s still a philosophical claim because science cannot make such claims about itself if its just a method. It’s like a tool like math or a hammer claiming a certain status. But yet inherent within the scientific method is a claim to the status of reality and nature.

Meh .. just their own opinions. Reality is whatever we want that word to mean. Science uses its own method to produce testable/repeatable/independently verifiable 'objective reality' models.

You’re not seeing the forest through the trees. Science has paradigms which give it a certain view/position about what the scientific method represents in the overall scheme of reality/nature and about what science is doing which all science follows.

Saying that reality has to be objective and verifiable is a philosophical and metaphysical position and view. It is restricting reality to what science thinks it is by saying we can only test it this way. Reality may be something else that is not verifiable or objective by science. That’s why I say its circular reasoning because its claims and restricts reality/nature to its own measuring criteria of what its claims reality/nature is i.e. (methodological naturalism).

No .. its the assumptions of what science is doing when seen through the cloudy fog of methodological naturalistic and metaphysical naturalistic beliefs .. that's all.

Actually as explained above it is what the science method claims itself by what it is doing. Methodological naturalism makes a certain claims about what reality/nature is which is naturalism. Thats a metaphysical claim because naturalism claims a certain view of reality.

The notion of 'reality is only independent of mind' is a belief, sometimes adopted for the sake of simplicity in conversation. Its a kind of short-cut .. but it never makes any difference on its conclusions. Science tests everything .. and never relies on any assumptions about what truly exists, before those tests are carried out.

Science first assumes that the mind is physical and discounts all non-physical ideas like consciousness in the subjective sense. So its testing for what it already has assumed consciousness is (physical). So of course it’s going to verify its assumptions because it can only test that which is physical. But its still based on an assumption that there is only physical stuff.

Stop reading philosophy .. 'Its clouding your mind, Luke Skywalker'.

lol, may the force be with you.

From Wiki on Lewontin

Yes I agree that science without philosophy is blind to what it is actually doing, is all about. Philosophy is needed to help give direction, checks and balances to science. Method is one thing which is a tool but it is how the tool is used, what it measures and what is then claimed about those measurements as well which is more in the philosophical and metaphysical side of things.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And so, by what means do you know that then, (ie: just for clarity purposes)?

You told me: it was your statement or proposition: "Different people experience things in different ways and then hold those experiences as being true..." I accept that, both for the purpose of discussion, and because I think it's a reasonable description.

And that process there, is typically referred to as what, then, (ie: just for clarity purposes)?

If you mean the verification process, that would be science.

Also, in general, the 'world' and 'reality' there, are either testable or untestable perceptual models. There is no way, thus far, to produce the objective evidence which supports that they exist truly independently, (as material things), from the human mind, which is either a nonsensical proposition or a belief, without it.

Sure, there are no certainties. But it's a simple model that generally works, and our language is largely built around it, which although potentially constraining, means it's easy to talk about our experience in those terms.

its worthwhile emphasising, (IMO), that of the two respective bases for making assumptions, the majority will make them based on the belief way. Often those people are unaware that they've made any assumptions at all, (eg: 'it is what it is'), and because of that, their assumptions will be focused on the baggage of the 'truth' of their life's accumulated beliefs, such as the truth of the belief in the existence of some mind independent 'material' reality, which (for eg), then 'had' to have been caused by some other intelligence, etc. Truth is not the issue .. how that truth is arrived at, is.
IMO, this is the more significant distinction for them to get their heads around, and not so much the truth of their assumptions (somehow) exceeding someone else's, in some silly argument.

OK. This may be where some education in philosophy and critical thinking could help. But I doubt that most people would be interested. Most of us live our everyday lives as if there is a mind-independent reality and as if we have free will - until we encounter specific situations that call those assumptions/beliefs/habits into question, which, for most people, is not very often.

The presumed existence of a mind-independent reality may be used to justify god beliefs, but I'm not so sure that it's the primary reason for them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you sure. It seems what I have read the science method has morphed into not just methodological naturalism but also metaphysical naturalism in that it makes claims about what nature is with the assumptions it holds. For example
Science Assumes That Nature Exists
The existence of the external world is assumed by science yet it is not possible to know with complete certainty whether or not our senses are deceiving us as to the true nature of reality.
Science Assumes the Existence and Applicability of the Laws of Logic
Scientists borrow from philosophy and use the laws of logic to discuss their own experimental observations, inferences, and conclusions about what is true of the world. Since knowledge of the world itself is questionable, then the status of scientific statements about the world is also questionable.
Science Assumes the Reliability of Our Senses to Deliver Truth about the World
How do we know that our senses are reliable indicators of objective truth?

"The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science.

Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way "prove" the validity of induction
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

This is the circular reasoning I am talking about in that science has to assume that its method is correct to be able to support itself.

The following article points out how the science (methodological naturalism) in describing how nature works in terms of particles, matter, genes ect is telling people something about what reality is and there is a fine line between descriptions of 'how'and claims about what nature is (metaphysical naturalism. Yet the 'how' is based on assumptions so science has no claim to knowing what nature actually is. I think we have seen a growing number of scienctists making stronger claims that science is the only way to determine what reality is.

But science does seek to tell us something about reality; and metaphysics, defined as thought or explanation about reality in the deepest sense, is not easily marginalized. In fact science does sometimes deliver new reality to us: we now know about elementary particles, genes, quasars, black holes, and dark matter because of science. Partly because of this, it is but a short step from claiming that science must be based on naturalism or naturalistic statements, to saying that only naturalistic phenomena exist. So if science cannot explain or describe something, it does not exist.

This is metaphysical naturalism, because it draws conclusions about reality, about what exists. Metaphysical naturalism goes far beyond methodological naturalism and states that only “natural” things exist. As usually interpreted, it states in effect that the “supernatural” does not exist, and that all explanations of phenomena can be made by means of explanations that fall under the category of methodological naturalism.

This metaphysical assertion cannot be a result of science; it is a distinctly philosophical position which must be justified on non-scientific grounds. It is, in fact, a radical form of reductionism, the doctrine that all phenomena and the underlying reality can be reduced to whatever it is that particle physics studies. Unfortunately metaphysical naturalism is often proffered as a scientific conclusion or an inference from science, without explicit acknowledgment of its philosophical—not scientific—status and pedigree.
Naturalism and Science - Metanexus

So science is then seen as a mixture of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism which steps beyond descriptions of how nature works into what nature is. This is the unspoken assumtion of science.
Not sure why you think that. I haven’t said anything along those lines.

But according to science there is. It may claim neutrality but it is hard to draw the line and easy to slip into claims that reality is only independent of mind.
ccording to the above articles and this seems to be a common finding that science does step beyond just testing and does have preconditions or rather presuppositions about what reality is before it even tests things which seem to fall within the materialist view. Otherwise it cannot even do what science does.

On an ontological level, philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Sciences commitment to meterialism is best summed up in a quote from Richard Lewinton

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Quote by Richard C. Lewontin: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims tha...”

It would be refreshing to occasionally hear you making your own arguments instead of a piecemeal assemblage of quotes, articles, and opinion pieces - often out of context, often misinterpreted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes but science as a paradigm goes beyond the individual description and lays claim to a naturalistic description of reality and consciousness. That is everything is of a material nature measured by mass, particles, chemistry ect and there is nothing else.

No. You need to distinguish between science and scientists.

But isnt science (science method) making a claim through the assumption that consciousness is physical in the first place to be able to test it according to a method that can only test things physically.

No. A hypothesis is not an assumption.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you have just answered your own question. It is the claim that consciousness can reasonably be assumed to be of a physical nature which is the issue. It is the assumption that everything must be measured in physical terms which is a metaphysical claim about what nature is and goes beyond the science. At least thats how I understand it.

If that's how you understand it, you've misinterpreted it. A reasonable (provisional) conclusion based on reliable evidence is not an assumption.

An assumption is something that you accept as true without question or proof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not really, it could be that everyone is in a similuation where they think they are experiencing physical reality. There is no way to determine that reality when one is immerced in it as a subjective mental state to be able to step outside yourself and determine its objectivity.

Maybe you need to think more deeply about what 'reality' means to experiencers (observers).

 

[durangodawood]

.....Most of us live our everyday lives as if there is a mind-independent reality and as if we have free will - until we encounter specific situations that call those assumptions/beliefs/habits into question, which, for most people, is not very often...

I suppose my mind could be producing the reality I think I apprehend, including all of @sjastro math presentations here, plus all the math he doesnt know, while my consciousness can't grasp but a fraction of it.

Its sort of frustrating to think I'm so close to that knowledge... yet so far away.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suppose my mind could be producing the reality I think I apprehend, including all of @sjastro math presentations here, plus all the math he doesnt know, while my consciousness can't grasp but a fraction of it.

Its sort of frustrating to think I'm so close to that knowledge... yet so far away.

Yeah, but are you sure it's real knowledge?

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, but are you sure it's real knowledge?

Well every time I dig into a bit its coherent and applicable to the other models in my mind. I expect that pattern to continue all the way out, Godel notwithstanding.

How could my mind have all that at hand for me yet I dont know it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well every time I dig into a bit its coherent and applicable to the other models in my mind. I expect that pattern to continue all the way out, Godel notwithstanding.

How could my mind have all that at hand for me yet I dont know it?

Why would you know it?

 

[durangodawood]

Why would you know it?

Because its already in my mind, already worked out to the full state of the art. At least that a good inference from every time I consciously investigate it.

I mean, I can look into a wikipedia article on any topic and find my mind ostensibly producing reams of verifiable knowledge there that I'm not consciously aware of. What a deep well is my mind! But if my mind knows it, why dont I know it?

 

[SelfSim]

You told me: it was your statement or proposition: "Different people experience things in different ways and then hold those experiences as being true..." I accept that, both for the purpose of discussion, and because I think it's a reasonable description.

It can also be framed more rigourously as an objectively testable model (with no assumptions or syllogisms) .. and it tests out well.

If you mean the verification process, that would be science.

With the exception that any inference drawn in a conclusion following some test, would only ever go sa far as 'is consistent with' some model which is under test.
'Verified' is kind of a short hand version of that.

But it's a simple model that generally works, and our language is largely built around it, which although potentially constraining, means it's easy to talk about our experience in those terms.

Believing it is ok .. so long as one recognises that its a belief (by operational definition) and not an inference ever drawn based on objective testing of 'the thing itself' .. which 'really exists independently of the mind of the experimenter'.
(Whereas the mind dependency couldn't be more objectively obvious).

OK. This may be where some education in philosophy and critical thinking could help. But I doubt that most people would be interested. Most of us live our everyday lives as if there is a mind-independent reality and as if we have free will - until we encounter specific situations that call those assumptions/beliefs/habits into question, which, for most people, is not very often.

Fair enough, (IMO) .. and probably testable.

The presumed existence of a mind-independent reality may be used to justify god beliefs, but I'm not so sure that it's the primary reason for them.

Its certainly at the core of just about every Creationist (and Faith holding) conversation in these forums and is obviously held as being 'a physical truth' .. Rather intriguing, no?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because its already in my mind, already worked out to the full state of the art. At least that a good inference from every time I consciously investigate it.

I mean, I can look into a wikipedia article on any topic and find my mind ostensibly producing reams of verifiable knowledge there that I'm not consciously aware of. What a deep well is my mind! But if my mind knows it, why dont I know it?

Ah, OK, I get you... The reason is that the part of your brain that has conscious awareness is just a small part of the whole - I've seen neuroscientists estimate 5% or less. Most of the thinking that goes on is not consciously aware. Salient items are brought into conscious awareness on a 'need to know' basis. Most of what happens when you are consciously thinking, i.e. deliberative cognition, is delegated to processes below conscious awareness - when a concept 'comes to mind' it is brought into conscious awareness, and when you remember a name, that name is retrieved by processes below conscious awareness, and so-on. It may well be that the train of thought itself is produced by processes below conscious awareness and as consciousness becomes aware of each stage, it assumes agency.

The analogy is often made of a large company with many departments, each of which reports to the board, and the board basically makes all the decisions. There is a figurehead CEO who represents the company, and who the board will update with important information. The CEO has a PA and a lawyer at his side that continually give advice on how to spin the story, what to say, and what not to say. The CEO has little influence on the company but thinks he runs it. He takes credit for the good board decisions and tries to avoid responsibility for the bad ones - his PA & lawyer help him with this. The CEO thinks he controls the company that he represents to the media and the other figurehead CEOs he meets, but really, he's just there to project a positive image.

Guess who the CEO is

It's not an entirely accurate analogy, but it provides strong imagery of one version of the kind of role conscious awareness is thought to play; there are other versions with a more participatory role for consciousness, e.g. where it helps coordinate the board's activity, but I think the figurehead one can help get used to the idea that the conscious part of you is far less 'at the wheel' than it thinks it is.

Since I was introduced to this view of brain activity, I keep finding confirmations in myself - when I'm thinking hard about a problem, I 'find myself' pacing about the house - not 'deliberately', it just happens. Often my attention will drift, and when it comes back to the problem, I have new ideas - I've apparently been thinking about it 'behind my own back'! When I try to remember a name while talking, it all goes quiet - the name won't come. When I stop trying to remember the name, it 'pops into my consciousness'. I have a sense of humour, but the quips and witticisms 'pop into my consciousness' unbidden - all I have to do is filter them for suitability - but even then it's some process I'm not aware of that flags the ones that are unsuitable (I 'just know')... I also notice linguistic tells, phrases like, "I couldn't help myself", "I found myself doing X", "I didn't mean to say Y", "Before I realised what I was doing...", etc.

 

[SelfSim]

Because its already in my mind, already worked out to the full state of the art. At least that a good inference from every time I consciously investigate it.

I mean, I can look into a wikipedia article on any topic and find my mind ostensibly producing reams of verifiable knowledge there that I'm not consciously aware of. What a deep well is my mind! But if my mind knows it, why dont I know it?

Try on: your mind constantly updates your knowledge with new meaning(s) for what it perceives. Its quite a useful conceptual process for describing how our minds 'acquire knowledge'.
Its like a mind constantly exploring itself and assigning meanings .. We're meaning-making machines!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its certainly at the core of just about every Creationist (and Faith holding) conversation in these forums and is obviously held as being 'a physical truth' .. Rather intriguing, no?

It's so inconsistent... the distinction between material and immaterial seems important to put the heavenly realm out of reach of 'limited' science, beyond verification; but there's a constant complaint that science ignores it, and the problem of interaction is never clearly addressed.

Yet when I suggested that an all-powerful, all-benevolent God could have reduced suffering in his creation by creating disembodied creatures, the idea was scoffed at - and yet the heavenly host (Satan too) glides on... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[SelfSim]

Ah, OK, I get you... The reason is that the part of your brain that has conscious awareness is just a small part of the whole - I've seen neuroscientists estimate 5% or less. Most of the thinking that goes on is not consciously aware. Salient items are brought into conscious awareness on a 'need to know' basis. Most of what happens when you are consciously thinking, i.e. deliberative cognition, is delegated to processes below conscious awareness - when a concept 'comes to mind' it is brought into conscious awareness, and when you remember a name, that name is retrieved by processes below conscious awareness, and so-on. It may well be that the train of thought itself is produced by processes below conscious awareness and as consciousness becomes aware of each stage, it assumes agency.

And that's a (maybe) testable model designed for some neuroscientific research purpose.

Footnote: Ie: it doesn't necessarily have to be a claim on how our minds 'really' work, when viewed (by our minds) from some hypothetical, yet supposedly 'mind independent' viewpoint.

It's not an entirely accurate analogy, but it provides strong imagery of one version of the kind of role conscious awareness is thought to play; there are other versions with a more participatory role for consciousness, e.g. where it helps coordinate the board's activity, but I think the figurehead one can help get used to the idea that the conscious part of you is far less 'at the wheel' than it thinks it is.

So the underlined is the stated purpose of the conceived (and perhaps testable) model? Ie: its a logical test of the assumed truth of that model?

Its also possible, seeing as you introduced it as an analogy to explain how the model designed for scientific research purposes works .. but not as a claim on how it really works from some mind independent viewpoint(?) Please clarify, because there's ambiguity there, I think(?)

Since I was introduced to this view of brain activity, I keep finding confirmations in myself

That's the logical part of your brain tracking logical dependencies back to the 'assumed truth' of that model .. that's all. (There is circularity there).

- when I'm thinking hard about a problem, I 'find myself' pacing about the house - not 'deliberately', it just happens. Often my attention will drift, and when it comes back to the problem, I have new ideas - I've apparently been thinking about it 'behind my own back'! When I try to remember a name while talking, it all goes quiet - the name won't come. When I stop trying to remember the name, it 'pops into my consciousness'. I have a sense of humour, but the quips and witticisms 'pop into my consciousness' unbidden - all I have to do is filter them for suitability - but even then it's some process I'm not aware of that flags the ones that are unsuitable (I 'just know')... I also notice linguistic tells, phrases like, "I couldn't help myself", "I found myself doing X", "I didn't mean to say Y", "Before I realised what I was doing...", etc.

So you've now found affirmation of the assumed truth originally posited then?
Do you now believe this is how consciousness really works? (Just a question .. not an accusation here .. I'm still grappling with the ambiguity).