Don't take science for an answer... « Unreasonable Faith Forum

Unreasonable Faith Forum » Introduction » Announcements

Don't take science for an answer...

(85 posts) (26 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Yossarrian
Latest reply from UrsaMinor

Tags:

12 3 Next »

Yossarrian
Member

I wrote an article questioning the assumptions of scientific reasoning.

So many people critique religion while refusing to aknowledge the foundations of scientific thought and assumptions on which it rests:

"Critique of religion is easy to find. The (pseudo)intellectual alternative that is promoted in its place is a scientific narrative and the attempted objectification of the world. In the place of creation it inserts evolution, in place of the soul it inserts the brain, in the place of everlasting life it appeals to human mortality, in the place of faith it has inherited ‘truth’."

"John Gray writes: ‘like the church in the past, it [science] has the power to destroy, or marginalize, independent thinkers…From the standpoint of anyone who values freedom of thought, this may be unfortunate, but it is undoubtedly the chief source of science’s appeal. For us, science is a refuge from uncertainties, promising – and in some measure delivering – the miracle of freedom from thought, while churches have become sanctuaries for doubt.’"

Full article:-
http://nojobnohopenofuture.blogspot.com/2011/04/taking-science-for-answer.html

Critique should not selectively choose its targets without questioning the values closest to ones own heart. Critique should not be about taking sides or about being right or wrong.

What do you think?

Posted 2 years ago #
Yoav
Member

The "science" you target your critique at doesn't really exist. Science is a method for the understanding of the natural world not an ideology.

"Critique of religion is easy to find. The (pseudo)intellectual alternative that is promoted in its place is a scientific narrative and the attempted objectification of the world. In the place of creation it inserts evolution, in place of the soul it inserts the brain, in the place of everlasting life it appeals to human mortality, in the place of faith it has inherited ‘truth’."

There is no insteads, Evolution and the brain are observable, measurable facts while creation and the soul have no evidence that support their existence and a lot of evidence against it, the same go for everlasting life.

A walk around a forrest: once with a geologist and the second time with a naturalist, imagine the different repertoire of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’ that flavour each separate outing. Norwood Hanson, is also right to claim that the very act of ‘seeing is theory-laden’.

This statement is complete nonsense, the geologist may pay more attention to the rocks put it doesn't mean that he claim the trees and animals don't exist.

The simple observation is to note how Science is far from unified and stable. What is accepted as the standard can be radically overthrown as paradigms are shifted (Newton – Einstein). Or even more simply, even at one position in time, there is no single united scientific outlook;

That's a strength rather then a weakness of science, it's ability to change and adapt as new information become available.

Yet, rather than asking ‘what is science?’ it is far more important – on an ideological level – to question ‘where’, specifically, where do these ideals lead? It could be explained as a search for truths in the world, but where does it stop? Where is the endgame? This point is the crucial one, that science is progressive and streamlines itself to the ideals of a politics that marches forwards everyday, incrementally. It is a cumulative approach that heralds a more detailed understanding of ourselves and the world. Thus, what we have in the rise of science is a stalwart conservatism, an appeal to the status quo.

Science have no "endgame" and your jump from the concept of accumulating knowledge to a stagnation is dependent on ignoring the important point that it's not just the addition of knowledge but also the discarding of ideas that were shown to be false.

John Gray writes: ‘like the church in the past, it [science] has the power to destroy, or marginalize, independent thinkers…From the standpoint of anyone who values freedom of thought, this may be unfortunate, but it is undoubtedly the chief source of science’s appeal. For us, science is a refuge from uncertainties, promising – and in some measure delivering – the miracle of freedom from thought, while churches have become sanctuaries for doubt.’

That's the best joke I've heard in a long time.

Posted 2 years ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

I wrote an article questioning the assumptions of scientific reasoning.

I have read the essay, and you do not actually question the assumptions of scientific reasoning in it. You don't even state what those assumptions are.

You make two disturbingly contradictory statements about science:

"The simple observation is to note how Science is far from unified and stable. What is accepted as the standard can be radically overthrown as paradigms are shifted (Newton – Einstein)."

followed a couple of paragraphs later by:

"Thus, what we have in the rise of science is a stalwart conservatism, an appeal to the status quo."

Overall, the essay is poorly organized and rambling. Quite possibly you have something to say, but whatever your thoughts and opinions are, they are not coherently articulated. It is abundantly clear, however, that you are conflating the concepts of scientific facts and scientific theories.

Critique should not selectively choose its targets without questioning the values closest to ones own heart.

I can't quibble with this. No values should be exempt from examination or questioning.

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

The (pseudo)intellectual alternative that is promoted in its place is a scientific narrative and the attempted objectification of the world.

Ty's rule?

Posted 2 years ago #
Nox
Member

The fact that Einstein had better data than Newton is not something that's wrong with science. It actually illustrates the main reason why science is more reliable than religion.

Posted 2 years ago #
Nox
Member

"But the purpose of this is essentially asking ‘what is Science?’ And this argument eventually leads to some kind or relation to the fact/value distinction. For example, what can science say about love, friendship, ambiguity? Yet, rather than asking ‘what is science?’ it is far more important – on an ideological level – to question ‘where’, specifically, where do these ideals lead?"

Before you can have a productive discussion about where science leads, you should at least be able to answer "what is science". Without knowing what science is, it would be impossible to predict where science leads. It wouldn't even be possible to form a coherent opinion on this second, less important question if the first has not been properly addressed.

So before I can tell you what I think about your article I must ask you to tell me one thing:

What is science?

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

I don't think he's coming back.

Posted 2 years ago #
Yossarrian
Member

There are so many problems here I don't know where to start - you are all coming from a stance that the scientific model is on some level a superior approach, and are therefore overlooking the philosophical assumptions of Science. So my first question would be this, what can science tell us about human consciousness? The hard problem of 'qualia'? For decades scientists and philosophers have puzzled over this problem so I ask you to give me an answer. You will not escape the slippery issue, that we are dealing with the fact/value distinction, while science can tell us 'facts' what can it tell us about our values? what it means to be human? The subjectivity and richness of life? Love? Friendship?

Kodie was the last to leave a post I will give it some attention - like the other posters you really write from an angle entrenched in liberal western thought, like the power of numbers can overcome an idea, for isn't that the essence of democracy.

Type in 'philosophy of mind' or 'philosophy of science' into your favourite search engine, and you will discover the convoluted history of the 'science' (which is far from unified) you are arguing for. These are not my arguments but the powerful ideas of great thinkers.

"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us."

Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted 2 years ago #
Yossarrian
Member

Yoav - you misunderstood almost everything. So, let me ask you this, what do you make of social vs. evolutionary approaches? (they often diametrically oppose/don't even acknowledge one other) Or for that matter, what is your 'rational' understanding of behaviourist approaches vs neuro-psychological approaches? There are different schools of science that say very different (often contradictory things), you need to throw out this antiquated idea that science is a stable force.

The history of science has shown that there is no certainty, there are not stable truths. So what is it working towards?

URSAMINOR - YOU WROTE That

"You make two disturbingly contradictory statements about science:

"The simple observation is to note how Science is far from unified and stable. What is accepted as the standard can be radically overthrown as paradigms are shifted (Newton – Einstein)."

followed a couple of paragraphs later by:

"Thus, what we have in the rise of science is a stalwart conservatism, an appeal to the status quo."

******
You are confusing the fact that paradigm shifts (within science) are quite separate to the overall ideological conservatism that remains in spite of those transitions. A king can die and another king might replace him, but the idea of monarchism remains.

A great friend of mine told me, that when it comes to people discussing science and religion, it often turns into dogma vs dogma.

I am disappointed to say he his absolutely right.

If you take anything from this, read again the quote I have posted below - from an extremely influential thinker:

"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us."

Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted 2 years ago #
Lucavii
Member

Oh man. I love days like these where my constant forum lurking pays off. I unfortunately have no skill in the art of debate, but there be a shitstorm a brewin'. Can you smell it?

Posted 2 years ago #
Yoav
Member

Yoav - you misunderstood almost everything. So, let me ask you this, what do you make of social vs. evolutionary approaches? (they often diametrically oppose/don't even acknowledge one other) Or for that matter, what is your 'rational' understanding of behaviourist approaches vs neuro-psychological approaches? There are different schools of science that say very different (often contradictory things), you need to throw out this antiquated idea that science is a stable force.

The history of science has shown that there is no certainty, there are not stable truths. So what is it working towards?

I assume you talk about approaches in biology there, so there are different approaches by which people look at different problems why is that a problem? behaviorists and neuroscientists look at things from different angles these are complementary not contradictory. Once again, science is not a force, stable or otherwise, it's a method. You need to get a better understanding of what you're arguing against before you start arguing. Our knowledge and understanding are far from complete but science is by far the best method we have to improve that and the facts that there are still gaps in our understanding is not a reason to just accept some supernatural mumbo-jambo as an explanation.

Posted 2 years ago #
Nox
Member

I love how much he extrapolates about Kodie's worldview based on "Ty's Rule" and "I don't think he's coming back".

"Gott ist tot"
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted 2 years ago #
Sunny Day
Member

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7X9XtTIcWo

Posted 2 years ago #
LRA
Member

"So my first question would be this, what can science tell us about human consciousness? The hard problem of 'qualia'? For decades scientists and philosophers have puzzled over this problem so I ask you to give me an answer. You will not escape the slippery issue, that we are dealing with the fact/value distinction, while science can tell us 'facts' what can it tell us about our values? what it means to be human? The subjectivity and richness of life? Love? Friendship?"

LOL! Why don't you do some research on PubMed about what science has to say about consciousness. Believe me, there is plenty (and I know because I did graduate work in molecular bio and neuroscience in Eric Kandel's lab).

Next... neuroscientists don't seem to care much about qualia because that is a philosophical issue and not a scientific one. So why do you want science to speculate on philosophy? Science doesn't care what it is like to be a bat. It cares about describing bat-ness in terms of epistemology.

Fact/values? Really? What does science care what it "means" to be human? What does science care about the richness of life? Science may study such problems in terms of factual representations of societal trends, but really, you are conflating two different projects here.

I'm sure philosophy is interesting to you and all, but stop trying to criticize science when you clearly don't fully understand or appreciate it. Also, read up on some Popper. It will do you some good.

"Type in 'philosophy of mind' or 'philosophy of science' into your favourite search engine, and you will discover the convoluted history of the 'science' (which is far from unified) you are arguing for. These are not my arguments but the powerful ideas of great thinkers."

I have degrees in neurobiology, psychology, English, philosophy, and minors in French and special education. I think I have a pretty good idea of the history and philosophy of science as well as the history and philosophy of mind (seeing as how I took philosophy of mind from Michael Tye, and I just spent an evening drinking wine with Paul Churchland), but thanks for playing.

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

I just spent and evening drinking wine with Paul Churchland), but thanks for playing.

You are one lucky gal. That man is the closest thing to a God that I have. It's a shame he retired just before I'm going to grad school. It would have been cool to have him as an active faculty who could at least lend an eye to a developing thesis.

Posted 2 years ago #
LRA
Member

Ohh! Are you going to UCSD?

(ps. I totally told Paul Churchland that Michael Tye is a jerk... in vino veritas, huh? But he was really cool. Very cool and very laid back. I got to talk to him for several hours. It was really great!)

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

Oooh didn't mean to make it sound like that! I'm applying this fall, and I'll definitely still apply to UCSD because of Cohen & Bechtel who are in my area of interest, but I would have loved to have at least thought about working with him. Hilarious about Tye.

Do you know a lot about the school?

Posted 2 years ago #
LRA
Member

My current advisor is a graduate of that program and has taken me under his wing. His wife is a graduate of Columbia (where I did my neuroscience work), so I'm in good company. They had me over for a dinner with Paul. I'm going to apply to UCSD's phil and hist of sci program. I think I'll get a good rec from my advisor! (yay!)

:D :D :D

I'm also looking at Wash U's PNP program and Duke's lit and sci program. I'm still researching schools. I'm still narrowing down interests. I'm still figuring out finances.... such is grad school life!

Posted 2 years ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

Absolutely! It seems like you are a leg ahead of anyone else, after having dinner with Paul & co. My friend actually just got accepted into Wash U's neuroscience PhD program, he chose it over some fairly prestigious schools that also accepted him, he was very impressed with their faculty.

Posted 2 years ago #
LRA
Member

Well, tell your neuroscience friend that you have a friend on UF that worked for Kandel. Principles of Neuroscience is a standard textbook just about everywhere... and then there is the 2000 Nobel Prize.

;)

I totally enjoyed working for Eric. A very nice man with a totally DORKY laugh!! But he was very kind and tried to keep up with all of us, personally.

Of course, I lived in NYC during a difficult time... 9/11 etc. was hard on everybody.

Posted 2 years ago #
Len
Member

Skimming this quickly, it looks like Yossarrian is trying to go for the "science is just another religion" argument.

Posted 2 years ago #
WarbVIII
Member

Actualy, I think..he may be taking a slightly different view on the subject. He(she?) is suggesting that since science aims to find answers, and wants to find them all..it will censor thought and lead to us knowing everything which will become(or acording to yossarian is already) conservative thoughts and behaviors leaving no room for growth...a point I think science is not even within many parsecs of for many life times. Then there is equating and asking about that science doesn't touch upon...which LRA demolished so well and with many degrees to back it up. His real point is,or seems to be that science doesn't matter but philosophy does..which is probably true for Yossarian wether it is the same for everyone I doubt highly.

Posted 2 years ago #
Len
Member

...it will censor thought and lead to us knowing everything which will become(or acording to yossarian is already) conservative thoughts and behaviors leaving no room for growth

Sounds like religion to me ;-)

Posted 2 years ago #
JonJon
Member

"Also, read up on some Popper. It will do you some good."

Umm, no thanks. I'm happy to say that Popper has fallen out of favor in the philosophy of science. The man was kind of a toolbag.

Posted 2 years ago #
Custador
Moderator

I read the essay, and to save everybody else the pain, I'll translate:

"HELLO! I know nothing about science and I've not bothered reading around theist/atheist debates enough to realise how stupid the God of The Gaps argument is, plus I'm really, really annoyed at all these scientists whose work I have not even the most basic understanding of, because every time they say they can explain something, that means that God din't do that thing after all, and that's mean! We should just accept religion and never question what it says (unless it says something really stupid, then we'll just pretend it didn't say it), and in order to help with this, I've projected all of religion's faults onto science even though science doesn't actually have any of them".

Save yourself the hassle, folks. Yossarian (ironic name much?) has no clue and no desire to get one.

Posted 2 years ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

You are confusing the fact that paradigm shifts (within science) are quite separate to the overall ideological conservatism that remains in spite of those transitions. A king can die and another king might replace him, but the idea of monarchism remains.

Perhaps this would make sense if you would stop handwaving and make a clear statement about what you think is being conserved ideologically, and how this is not undermined by a radical shift in one's theories.

I will readily grant you that conservatism tends to creep into every human organization given enough time. This is a social phenomenon. It is not an integral part of science; rather, it interferes with science when it happens. If you need a concrete example, look at the history of the field of Mayan linguistics.

The history of science has shown that there is no certainty, there are not stable truths.

I'd have to disagree. Stable truths:

Objects of different masses fall at the same speed in a vacuum.

Infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms.

The English and Russian languages share a common ancestor.

The instructions for building and maintaining an organism are encoded by nucleic acid-sugar phosphate polymers.

Again, you are conflating observed fact with scientific theory. It is possible that our conceptions of why these things happen will be modified, but a changing mental model does not invalidate the observed facts. It does not matter whether you think gravity is a field force or a curvature of space or if you are right or wrong about it; you can still apply Newton's and Einstein's equations to put that interplanetary probe right where you want it.

@Custy: I enjoy picking apart poorly formed arguments just for the mental exercise.

Posted 2 years ago #
Yossarrian
Member

LRA - Your kind of thought is most typical and it's great to make an example out of it

"I have degrees in neurobiology, psychology, English, philosophy, and minors in French and special education. I think I have a pretty good idea of the history and philosophy of science as well as the history and philosophy of mind (seeing as how I took philosophy of mind from Michael Tye, and I just spent an evening drinking wine with Paul Churchland), but thanks for playing."

1. It's amusing that you had to list out your degrees subjects, what is this, a resume? A place where the best list of subjects and qualifications wins? haha, do you realise how entrenched in your own culture you are, I will judge you on your ideas not your 'skills' or how well you can name-drop.
2. That brings me to my next point; you claim to have studied all though subjects, but what have you learned? Your style of argument is incredibly anti-intellectual. You are seeing this as a conversation as right(s) and wrong(s). For example - you claim to have studied philosophy and yet your approach towards discussion makes it worse! 'Thanks for playing' - what an informed comment that was.

"Fact/values? Really? What does science care what it "means" to be human?"

What you wrote here is extremely depressing. This reveals everything I need to know, the disparaging about it is, your viewpoint is the common one, one which I encounter everyday. But because it's the common, and because it's the established one, doesn't vindicate it, or alleviate it from critique, it doesn't preclude it from being interrogated.

Finally, these are not my ideas - but as I said before, the ideas of great thinkers.

I came on here to see if someone could engage with my ideas, sadly no one has taken that feat.

"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us."

Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted 2 years ago #
Yossarrian
Member

ps
The original article is here:-

http://nojobnohopenofuture.blogspot.com/2011/04/taking-science-for-answer.html

Posted 2 years ago #
Custador
Moderator

Yossarian, I'm going to say this gently:

You're not arguing against science. You're arguing against what you think science is.

This is something we see a lot, usually when debating Creatards. Before you can argue against it, learn what it is. Except, the thing is, people who've learned what it is? They don't argue against it anymore.

Posted 2 years ago #
Custador
Moderator

ps

You're not the first person to fail utterly to grasp Neitzsche and then totally misrepresent his views.

/Godwin's Law

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 3 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Don't take science for an answer...

Reply »