Why do absolutists behave like relativists?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

As I observe the behavior of people a pattern is becoming increasingly clear to me. People very vocally insist that certain things are absolute but their actions with respect to those things suggest that those things are relative.

To me the behavior that has stood out the most is that of many of the defenders of empirical science. They insist that science and its findings are absolute but at the same time they fight political battles over the definition and social status of science and for resources to fund science, launch ad hominem attacks against followers of non-scientific worldviews, make ad nauseum self-congratulations for the accomplishments of science and how it has contributed so much to "human progress", etc., etc. They behave as if science and its findings is just another alternative worldview while talking like it is an absolute that all beings honestly seeking wisdom will arrive at.

Could it be that while relativism may not be true one backs him/herself into a corner by taking absolutist positions?

Could it be that while there may be absolutes no person can know them and the only path to wisdom is to treat all alternatives equally (not relatively), keep an open mind at all times, and never stop asking questions and seeking new ideas/views?

 

[Ken-1122]

To me the behavior that has stood out the most is that of many of the defenders of empirical science. They insist that science and its findings are absolute

I have never heard anyone make this claim. I don’t even think scientists themselves claim science to be absolute; especially when you consider how science has and continues to evolve over the years. The only “absolute” answers I see are the religious answers.

but at the same time they fight political battles over the definition and social status of science

I am not familiar with such political battles; can you give some examples?

K

 

[BelievingIsObeying]

I'm pretty sure that everything is relative....absolutely everything.

 

[quatona]

They insist that science and its findings are absolute

Citations needed.
AFAIK science has the goal of searching for the best explanations currently available. Doesn´t sound very absolute to me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think mose scientists regard themselves as fallible, so that humility might give the appearance of openess to multiple truths, whereas in fact it just means the grip we have on things is not absolutely sure. So metaphysically we might aim for the absolute (objective and perhaps universal truths, or at least objective truths about local phenomena), but epistemically never be absolutely certain.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why would promoting science make science just another worldview? It would seem to be the opposite instead.

How can being in favour of something looks like relativism.

 

[Cearbhall]

So people claim that the scientific method is more valid than religious logic. That doesn't mean we claim to have absolute answers (that would be religion). What's the big controversy?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am not familiar with such political battles; can you give some examples?

K

In Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller talks about--among other political and social conflicts--various school board elections and court cases, testifying as an expert witness in those court cases, and how the Intelligent Design movement's real agenda is not about evolution but about changing the defintion of science (and apparently destroying science in the process) and how they are using evolution as a smoke screen (they couldn't win the evolution battle, so they changed tactics). The title of the book itself shows that it is about politics. Specifically, the U.S.A.'s status globally, the things that make the U.S.A. unique--the American way of life, etc., etc. are at stake. Oh, and let's not forget that public opinion polls show that the people of Iceland believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection more than any other industrialized country.

That barely scratches the surface of the book. And that book is just one example.

Don't get me wrong, it is a good book, I enjoyed reading it, and I recommend it to everybody. I am not bashing the book--you asked for an example and that book is a very good example.

I can't believe that I have to show anybody that science is about power, prestige, social status, economic status, etc.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I have never heard anyone make this claim. I don’t even think scientists themselves claim science to be absolute; especially when you consider how science has and continues to evolve over the years...

I am sure that if I or anybody were to suggest that empirical science is nothing more than the latest fad in human thought that most of the defenders of science would vehemently disagree.

And why do people bring up the fact that science evolves? Philosophy does not evolve? Theology does not evolve? The study of history, literature, music, etc. does not evolve?

 

[Paradoxum]

I am sure that if I or anybody were to suggest that empirical science is nothing more than the latest fad in human thought that most of the defenders of science would vehemently disagree.

Of course, but I doubt any serious thinker in the developed world would say that. The effects of science are everywhere. You can't seriously claim it doesn't work while typing on a computer. It is nearly an absolute fact that science works... because we have technology that works than depends on it working.

I don't know why some Christians like putting themselves on the anti-science side of things, even if it is only slightly anti-science. Any Christian who really cares about the truth, no matter what it is, would know that you can be Christian and in favour of science.

 

[quatona]

I am sure that if I or anybody were to suggest that empirical science is nothing more than the latest fad in human thought that most of the defenders of science would vehemently disagree.

No, that´s basically what science has to and claims to offer: the currently best explanation.

And why do people bring up the fact that science evolves?

Science is able and willing to correct itself, to modify it´s exlanations, or to even abandon explanations upon new information and findings.
People mention this in response to your question because this demonstrates your premise wrong.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Why would promoting science make science just another worldview? It would seem to be the opposite instead.

How can being in favour of something looks like relativism.

The defenders of empirical science do not, as far as I can tell, simply promote science. On the contrary, they defend something very specific: the formal methods that have been developed in the West in recent centuries and that have been institutionalized under the name "science". In other words, we are talking about formal science.

If you listen to them enough you get the impression that such people believe that nothing outside of formal science deserves to be dignified, nothing outside of formal science has the same merit as formal science (pre-historic peoples, say, discovering agriculture could probably be considered science but because such a process did not have the rigor and "self-correcting" nature of formal science it seems unlikely that anybody is going to consider it worthy of being deemed "science"), that formal science is the be all and end all in human thought (nobody seems to suggest that there is anything beyond formal science), etc., etc.

If I was defending science I would try to show that what we now call science has always existed in one form or another (it may even exist in the behavior of non-humans) and that it will continue to exist in some form even if the formal, systematic methods and the social institutions and economic resources that we now associate with it cease to exist. That would be treating science like it is absolute.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Of course, but I doubt any serious thinker in the developed world would say that. The effects of science are everywhere. You can't seriously claim it doesn't work while typing on a computer. It is nearly an absolute fact that science works... because we have technology that works than depends on it working.

I don't know why some Christians like putting themselves on the anti-science side of things, even if it is only slightly anti-science. Any Christian who really cares about the truth, no matter what it is, would know that you can be Christian and in favour of science.

I do not think that you are listening to anything that I am saying.

I asked why absolutists behave like relativists. I used the behavior of "the defenders of empirical science" (notice that I did not say "scientists" or "science"; if I was to spend some time listing names of people in "the defenders of empirical science" a lot of them would be, say, journalists, philosophers, etc. who have never practiced science) as one example of the phenomenon. I could have also/instead used the behavior of religious fundamentalists, business gurus, sports coaches, moral philosophers, etc.

I then suggested that by taking absolutist positions one backs him/herself into a corner.

I then suggested that the relative/absolute dichotomy is the source of the problem--relativism may be wrong, but absolutes cannot really be known.

The solution, I suggested, is to treat all possible views equally (not relatively) and never be completely satisfied intellectually.

 

[KCfromNC]

The defenders of empirical science do not, as far as I can tell, simply promote science. On the contrary, they defend something very specific: the formal methods that have been developed in the West in recent centuries and that have been institutionalized under the name "science". In other words, we are talking about formal science.

If you listen to them enough you get the impression that such people believe that nothing outside of formal science deserves to be dignified,

I'd like to see some actual quotes of people saying this, rather than just you claiming people think it.

nothing outside of formal science has the same merit as formal science

The evidence is pretty strong that science is really good at the jobs is it used for. What do you think has similar or greater worth in those areas?

If I was defending science I would try to show that what we now call science has always existed in one form or another (it may even exist in the behavior of non-humans) and that it will continue to exist in some form even if the formal, systematic methods and the social institutions and economic resources that we now associate with it cease to exist. That would be treating science like it is absolute.

Showing that science has evolved to use better and better methods is treating it like an absolute? Strange.

Plus, who cares if anyone treats it as an absolute? It's a useful tool, not some idealized form of truth.

 

[Paradoxum]

The defenders of empirical science do not, as far as I can tell, simply promote science. On the contrary, they defend something very specific: the formal methods that have been developed in the West in recent centuries and that have been institutionalized under the name "science". In other words, we are talking about formal science.

You mean being in favour of the method that has proven to work? Why do you say that like it is a bad thing?

If you listen to them enough you get the impression that such people believe that nothing outside of formal science deserves to be dignified, nothing outside of formal science has the same merit as formal science (pre-historic peoples, say, discovering agriculture could probably be considered science but because such a process did not have the rigor and "self-correcting" nature of formal science it seems unlikely that anybody is going to consider it worthy of being deemed "science"), that formal science is the be all and end all in human thought (nobody seems to suggest that there is anything beyond formal science), etc., etc.

Well you can believe things about things like morals and relationships without science. But I'd agree that simply discovering something isn't science. Science is the method.

On the other hand, I'd agree with you that there is more to human thought than science... such as relationships, morals, and art.

If I was defending science I would try to show that what we now call science has always existed in one form or another (it may even exist in the behavior of non-humans) and that it will continue to exist in some form even if the formal, systematic methods and the social institutions and economic resources that we now associate with it cease to exist. That would be treating science like it is absolute.

I don't know what you mean by science being an absolute. What does it mean for it to be an absolute?

I do disagree with you though. Science is mostly the method. Perhaps it would be right to called 'science' before the scientific method 'pre-science'.

I could be wrong.

I do not think that you are listening to anything that I am saying.

I asked why absolutists behave like relativists. I used the behavior of "the defenders of empirical science" (notice that I did not say "scientists" or "science"; if I was to spend some time listing names of people in "the defenders of empirical science" a lot of them would be, say, journalists, philosophers, etc. who have never practiced science) as one example of the phenomenon. I could have also/instead used the behavior of religious fundamentalists, business gurus, sports coaches, moral philosophers, etc.

I then suggested that by taking absolutist positions one backs him/herself into a corner.

I then suggested that the relative/absolute dichotomy is the source of the problem--relativism may be wrong, but absolutes cannot really be known.

The solution, I suggested, is to treat all possible views equally (not relatively) and never be completely satisfied intellectually.

Well I agree that no truth is absolutely certain. It makes more sense to hold beliefs more or less strongly depending on the evidence or reasoning.

I'm still not sure what you mean by absolutists acting like relativists though, or how pro-science people or philosophers, etc, are like that, and why it is bad. Sorry I'm not understanding. XD

 

[variant]

The OP seems to have a lot of garbage blanket assumptions about people they disagree with.

GIGO

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[bricklayer]

As I observe the behavior of people a pattern is becoming increasingly clear to me. People very vocally insist that certain things are absolute but their actions with respect to those things suggest that those things are relative.

To me the behavior that has stood out the most is that of many of the defenders of empirical science. They insist that science and its findings are absolute but at the same time they fight political battles over the definition and social status of science and for resources to fund science, launch ad hominem attacks against followers of non-scientific worldviews, make ad nauseum self-congratulations for the accomplishments of science and how it has contributed so much to "human progress", etc., etc. They behave as if science and its findings is just another alternative worldview while talking like it is an absolute that all beings honestly seeking wisdom will arrive at.

Could it be that while relativism may not be true one backs him/herself into a corner by taking absolutist positions?

Could it be that while there may be absolutes no person can know them and the only path to wisdom is to treat all alternatives equally (not relatively), keep an open mind at all times, and never stop asking questions and seeking new ideas/views?

Equivocate all ideas? That's what you come down to? Equivocate all ideas?

Although truth exists, there is more than one way to look at anything, and nothing can be well understood from only one point of view. That is not to say that all points of view are of equal value. For example, hindsight is often so superior that it is considered cheating.

No, all perspectives are not of equal value.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I'd like to see some actual quotes of people saying this, rather than just you claiming people think it...

I would like to see some quotes of the defenders of formal science treating other approaches with the same dignity as formal science.

I am sure that without much effort one could find examples of formal science failing to find the cause of something and indigenous knowledge not derived from formal science finding that cause with no problem.

The evidence is pretty strong that science is really good at the jobs is it used for. What do you think has similar or greater worth in those areas?...

I have no idea where that came from with respect to this thread. I do not recall saying anything about anything being effective, strong, useful, etc.

The question is about absolute vs. relative, not good vs. bad, strong vs. weak, effective vs. ineffective, etc.

The only distinction that I have made with respect to science is formal science vs. informal science. That was to clarify what I think the people I refer to as "the defenders of science" have in mind.

Maybe an analogy would help. We call stone tools made by pre-historic peoples "technology". Well, technology usually means applying formal science. Therefore, we call cellular phones "technology". Yet, I doubt that any defender of formal science would call the knowledge and thought processes that pre-historic peoples applied to making stone tools "science".

To me science is science. It does not matter if it is formal with disciplines named physics, geology, etc. It does not matter if it is formal with a method that one must consciously follow. It does not matter if it is formal with public and private institutions charged with carrying it out. Science is science.

But the defenders of science seem to be too busy with self-congratulations and oohing and aahing over the recent phenomenon of formal science and its accomplishments to acknowledge the accomplishments of anybody not recognized as having the discipline and rigor of a "scientist". That is unfortunate. It weakens people's search for wisdom.

Showing that science has evolved to use better and better methods is treating it like an absolute? Strange...

You are distorting my words. I did not say anything about anything evolving or getting better. I said that if I was defending science--and I am assuming that no defender of science wants it to thought of as relative--I would show that people can defund and legally redefine science all that they want to and they can destroy contemporary institutions in which science is practiced (educational institutions, scientific organizations, scientific publications, etc.) all that they want to but it won't destroy science. That is because, I would show, the elements of science have always existed in some form (you know, pre-historic peoples discovering agriculture can probably be seen as informal science) and always will. The name "science" could even go away (like through state censorship) but the things that it represents will still be there.

When something is absolute it does not depend on anything else. When something is relative it depends on other things. Acting like science is threatened by some school board changing the legal definition of science or Congress or some other economic actor defunding science is behaving like science is relative.

Plus, who cares if anyone treats it as an absolute? It's a useful tool, not some idealized form of truth.

Being absolute and being an "idealized form of truth" are two different things.

Anyway, are you agreeing then with the assertion that science is nothing more than the latest fad in human thought? Will intellectual historians a million years from now be looking back talking about that episode in human thought known as science that came and went? Or is science--even if it isn't always what we today recognize as "science"--an absolute that does not depend on things like evolutionary psychology, culture, social structure, political and economic circumstances, etc.?

The same questions could be asked about the study of literature, history, music, etc. in the humanities disciplines. The same questions could be asked about not-so-scholarly things like the teachings of business gurus, pop-psychologists, etc. Why do people talk like something is absolute but act like it is relative?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

You mean being in favour of the method that has proven to work? Why do you say that like it is a bad thing?...

When at the expense of all others one source of knowledge/understanding is treated like it is in vogue everybody's search for wisdom suffers.

Wisdom is what it is all about, right? Or do we want to be fools?

But I'd agree that simply discovering something isn't science...

I would argue that a lot of things outside of formal science were not "simply discovered". There was a process of curiosity, inquiry, trial and error, etc. involved.

Science is the method...

The method is formal science. But just because that formal method is not being practiced does not mean that its elements are not present and not being practiced in an informal way.

I don't know what you mean by science being an absolute. What does it mean for it to be an absolute?...

When something is absolute it does not depend on other things. When something is relative it depends on other things.

I do disagree with you though. Science is mostly the method. Perhaps it would be right to called 'science' before the scientific method 'pre-science'.

I could be wrong.

I do not think that science spontaneously appeared out of nowhere a few centuries ago.

I would argue that it has always existed in one form or another.

I even sense that something like science is in the behavior of non-humans.

Well I agree that no truth is absolutely certain. It makes more sense to hold beliefs more or less strongly depending on the evidence or reasoning...

My point is that behaving like something is relative undermines everybody's search for wisdom. Alas, taking absolutist positions backs one into a corner and creates more targets to fuel relativism. The way to avoid and contain relativism is to respect everything equally (not relatively) as a guide on the path to wisdom (one does not have to agree with something, like it, find it useful, etc. to respect it).

I'm still not sure what you mean by absolutists acting like relativists though, or how pro-science people or philosophers, etc, are like that, and why it is bad. Sorry I'm not understanding. XD

The immediate response here seemed to suggest that I was bashing and or distorting science for religious reasons. I did not appreciate that. I apologize if I overreacted.

I am just seeking wisdom (this is a philosophy forum; doesn't philosopher mean "seeker of wisdom"?). I appreciate your contribution.

 

[Paradoxum]

When at the expense of all others one source of knowledge/understanding is treated like it is in vogue everybody's search for wisdom suffers.

Wisdom is what it is all about, right? Or do we want to be fools?

I agree there is more to life and wisdom than science. I'm not sure who would disagree with you though. Do you have some specific people in mind?

I mean, I can imagine there are a some strong empiricists who wont accept anything there isn't physical evidence for, but I don't know how common that is.

I'm just trying to clarify in my mind what your purpose is in this thread.

I would argue that a lot of things outside of formal science were not "simply discovered". There was a process of curiosity, inquiry, trial and error, etc. involved.

The method is formal science. But just because that formal method is not being practiced does not mean that its elements are not present and not being practiced in an informal way.

I agree. I don't know why I took too strong a position in my last post.

When something is absolute it does not depend on other things. When something is relative it depends on other things.

I know what the words mean on their own.

I just wasn't sure how you meant it in relation to science.

I do not think that science spontaneously appeared out of nowhere a few centuries ago.

I would argue that it has always existed in one form or another.

I even sense that something like science is in the behavior of non-humans.

Well it depends how wide a definition of science you want to have. Curious investigation into how the world works has probably always been in humans to some extent. I'm not sure if animals less intelligent than apes or dolphins could have anything we could call science though.

My point is that behaving like something is relative undermines everybody's search for wisdom. Alas, taking absolutist positions backs one into a corner and creates more targets to fuel relativism. The way to avoid and contain relativism is to respect everything equally (not relatively) as a guide on the path to wisdom (one does not have to agree with something, like it, find it useful, etc. to respect it).

I'm not sure if I understand why you think absolutism fuels relativism though. I don't know if I'm just being stupid and missing something.

Do you mean that if everyone takes an absolutist position, then two groups that disagree will likely never come together, and therefore create a sort of relativism between two groups claiming truth for themselves?

If that is what you mean, then I agree that dialogue with respect is better for finding the truth. I know I'm guilty of getting annoyed at people (online at least) for having really incorrect opinions though. Deep down I know they are simply misguided or biased (or I am wrong), so talking with respect is more helpful for truth.

The immediate response here seemed to suggest that I was bashing and or distorting science for religious reasons. I did not appreciate that. I apologize if I overreacted.

I am just seeking wisdom (this is a philosophy forum; doesn't philosopher mean "seeker of wisdom"?). I appreciate your contribution.

I did think you were bashing science, and I'm sorry if I was wrong. Your second paragraph in the first post still looks like it is bashing science to me though. Science is good, it should be funded, and it has contributed to human progress.

I hope you agree, but that paragraph sound strange for someone who is pro-science. I'm not trying to accuse you, just understand.