Science – what to do with it

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

Post Reply
User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:
Science – what to do with it

Post by QuantumTroll » Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:11 am

I'm replying to a question that was raised in another thread that I think deserves an answer. First, the question (split into paragraphs for readability. Come on Tiny, your mother would be ashamed if she saw your lack of structure!)
tinythinker wrote:
QuantumTroll wrote: I think science is a valid form of knowledge. One of the better sources, because it (by definition!) yields truth derived from multiple perspectives and no matter who's doing the investigation. So I accept scientific facts as things that are known to be true. If I believe something, and science suggests me to be wrong, then I change my mind (after evaluating the science, of course!).
Just curious: how much from science do you evaluate before accepting it, and what is entailed in such validation? It is certain that no one could be well trained enough and have a sufficient background let alone have the time, materials and access to thoroughly evaluate something someone claims to be true.

Many things have been scientific facts that are now considered wrong, and correcting such facts wasn't strictly a matter of recursive testing and data sifting in a self-correcting set of mechanisms. People had a cultural and personal biases which led them to think certain ways, propose certain ideas, and identify particular observations as reliable and meaningful (i.e. facts). This is especially problematic when there are competing ways of explaining something within the scientific community in terms of deciding what is or isn't true or accurate for a given area of study.

Some people reject prevailing scientific ideas and investigate other kinds of scenarios and facts with a scientific approach even before there is any legitimate reason from the viewpoint of the scientific model to seriously doubt or challenge the conventional view, and these people are often ridiculed. Yet some of them are later "accepted" and lauded for their insights.

None of this is to trash the reliability of science, but I know too much to think that merit via logic and evidence are the sole drivers of scientific opinion or consensus. Arguments from popularity, appeals to authority, peer pressure from cliques within a particular field of study, attempting to define problems and evidence in a way that favors one view over another (i.e. privileging some models or data sets a priori), cultural and historical influences, personal experiences and psychological disposition. These are all involved. Too often I have found that it is presumed that science is immune to such influences, or is influenced by them only minimally. This is problematic because it then allows such biases to hide under the popularized image of science as always being objective, impartial, and self-correcting. Minority views and views frowned on by the mainstream opinion are almost automatically presumed to be flawed with inferior evidence or logic (else why wouldn't they be more popular and more widely accepted?).

In another recent thread I gave a couple of examples, of the number of species of hominid (Ernst Mayr insisted there could be only one so that "rewrote" the commonly accepted taxa for decades) and the observation of what used to be referred to as continental drift, which eventually led to the idea of plate tectonics (continental drift was opposed by Simpson, who felt his biogeographic models made more sense). There are of course many more. And these at least are more reasonable examples with some compelling arguments. Some arguments "seemed" to fit so well within a larger framework of scientifically compatible or established assumptions that for a time they cut off serious speculation or investigation of alternatives. As someone who works in science I hope I am not presuming too much that you will find at least a ring of truth in what I write here.
I'm only human, so I have my prejudices and blind spots. My strength lies in good reading comprehension combined with a wide interest and (for my age) a lot of experience reading scientific articles and popular science critically. I can't really support this opinion of myself online, so you can take it with a pinch of salt if you like. I can try to convince you by saying that people tend to seek out and trust my judgment — people sometimes come to me when they've read about something in the newspaper and want to know what it's about. So I usually understand things very quickly, and I've made it my business to learn a little about everything. Okay, so what?

The universe is coherent. Puzzle pieces fit together. Things that do not fit are either wrong, or the puzzle has been laid wrongly in the past. I'm good at laying this scientific puzzle and can usually spot things that do not fit.* I can often spot poorly done statistics and claims that go beyond the evidence as well, which is a good skill to have when reading articles. What's more is that I tend think critically about these things even when I agree with the conclusion of the articles. Probably less, but still enough that I've criticized people I've agreed with. So I'm pretty confident that I can determine correctly whether a puzzle piece fits or not.

But what if a whole patch of the puzzle is wrong? What about paradigm shifts? Can I base a worldview on what is essentially an opinion that can change completely in a decade? Here, I like to bring up history of science, and the historical fact that science doesn't work the way it used to. It used to be that people believed one thing without sufficient cause, and then a scientific discovery overthrew the old paradigm. People believed Lamarckism not because they had evidence, but because they had no way of determining if it was a good theory. Ditto Hobbe's Plenism. If you examine the history of paradigm shifts, they've only occurred when ignorance is replaced with new data and a theory to explain it. We've never really overthrown a previous known, just a previously adored belief. And we're running out of those, quite frankly. I try to be open-minded about open questions, but I can't help but look at the entire puzzle as a whole and extrapolate to the areas that aren't covered.

Thus far, I've discussed only science and scientific questions. Keeping the puzzle analogy, we can see science as an image of a game board, describing the rules and playing field for existence. Everything we do is done within the confines of this board, and everything that happens is a result of the rules defined by the board. What we don't get by examining the board is an answer to questions like "what should we do", "what do we want to do", "what is it like". Questions like "what can we do", which seem to be theoretically answerable by looking at the game board, can be so complex that we only get the vaguest of answers from that quarter. For these kinds of questions, we need something that isn't science.

*(This is a game I've played, actually. Someone picks a surprising scientific fact that they suspect nobody else knows, and says a topic (e.g. mammals or sex chromosomes or particle physics). The other participants invent "facts" that sound plausible but are false. Then we guess at which "fact" is the true one. Very fun and often very funny stuff! Anyway, my experiences playing this game gives me confidence in the breadth and accuracy of my scientific erudition.)

QuantumTroll wrote:I do not think that science is the only valid form of knowledge. I think that's a patently ridiculous assertion, because I know lots of unscientific things. I know that I love the flowers in the spring, the berries in the summer, and the mushrooms in the fall. I know that my wife is beautiful and that having a baby would be wonderful. I know how to explain math and computers to interested young people. I know something ineffable about people. I know that the universe is consistent, and I believe that a good and omnipotent God with a personal interest in humans is not consistent with the way the universe appears. These are various forms of unscientific bits of knowledge and a belief.
Do you think it is possible for someone to be mentally coherent or to function without beliefs?
Hmm, I'd say "yes" and "no". "Yes", in the sense that someone might be able to distract himself from ever thinking about the big questions in life that yield beliefs. "No", in the sense that someone opening the door into a dark room will automatically believe that the room is empty. Is that a satisfactory answer? I'm not sure I understood the intent of your question...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by Metacrock » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:43 am

But what if a whole patch of the puzzle is wrong? What about paradigm shifts? Can I base a worldview on what is essentially an opinion that can change completely in a decade? Here, I like to bring up history of science, and the historical fact that science doesn't work the way it used to. It used to be that people believed one thing without sufficient cause, and then a scientific discovery overthrew the old paradigm. People believed Lamarckism not because they had evidence, but because they had no way of determining if it was a good theory. Ditto Hobbe's Plenism. If you examine the history of paradigm shifts, they've only occurred when ignorance is replaced with new data and a theory to explain it. We've never really overthrown a previous known, just a previously adored belief. And we're running out of those, quite frankly. I try to be open-minded about open questions, but I can't help but look at the entire puzzle as a whole and extrapolate to the areas that aren't covered.

this is one of those funny moments when the atheist becomes the foundationalist and the theist becomes the relativist; backwards to the way it should be.

When I argue that God makes the puzzle fit atheists tell me we humans just impose such order. When the puzzle forms a picture that suits you then (by "you" I mean that atheist who said, or the editorial "you" not you, QT) then it's reflecting truth. When the puzzle shows a picture the atheist doesn't wan then it's humans imposing order on an chaos that is not really ordered.

That's the point at which scinece ceases to be a clue to the truth of the world and becomes a construct; that is the point at which we all become philosophers.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by QuantumTroll » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:57 am

Metacrock wrote:
this is one of those funny moments when the atheist becomes the foundationalist and the theist becomes the relativist; backwards to the way it should be.

When I argue that God makes the puzzle fit atheists tell me we humans just impose such order. When the puzzle forms a picture that suits you then (by "you" I mean that atheist who said, or the editorial "you" not you, QT) then it's reflecting truth. When the puzzle shows a picture the atheist doesn't wan then it's humans imposing order on an chaos that is not really ordered.

That's the point at which scinece ceases to be a clue to the truth of the world and becomes a construct; that is the point at which we all become philosophers.
I'm a weak atheist. I don't think that a God-less universe is the only possible interpretation of the puzzle. All I demand from theists is that they don't believe in a God that is inconsistent with what science says about the universe (e.g. Biblical literalists) and that they respect me when I say that I don't need God for a meaningful and deep existence. What I hope for is that a theist some day actually understands my view. Of course, what we mean with the word "God" is an issue we can discuss (angrily or calmly) for ever and a day (maybe I'm a theist if I had a different concept of "God"), but this is it in a nutshell.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts:1331
Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by tinythinker » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:49 am

QuantumTroll wrote:I'm replying to a question that was raised in another thread that I think deserves an answer.
tinythinker wrote:
QuantumTroll wrote: I think science is a valid form of knowledge. One of the better sources, because it (by definition!) yields truth derived from multiple perspectives and no matter who's doing the investigation. So I accept scientific facts as things that are known to be true. If I believe something, and science suggests me to be wrong, then I change my mind (after evaluating the science, of course!).
Just curious: how much from science do you evaluate before accepting it, and what is entailed in such validation? It is certain that no one could be well trained enough and have a sufficient background let alone have the time, materials and access to thoroughly evaluate something someone claims to be true.

Many things have been scientific facts that are now considered wrong, and correcting such facts wasn't strictly a matter of recursive testing and data sifting in a self-correcting set of mechanisms. People had a cultural and personal biases which led them to think certain ways, propose certain ideas, and identify particular observations as reliable and meaningful (i.e. facts). This is especially problematic when there are competing ways of explaining something within the scientific community in terms of deciding what is or isn't true or accurate for a given area of study.

Some people reject prevailing scientific ideas and investigate other kinds of scenarios and facts with a scientific approach even before there is any legitimate reason from the viewpoint of the scientific model to seriously doubt or challenge the conventional view, and these people are often ridiculed. Yet some of them are later "accepted" and lauded for their insights.

None of this is to trash the reliability of science, but I know too much to think that merit via logic and evidence are the sole drivers of scientific opinion or consensus. Arguments from popularity, appeals to authority, peer pressure from cliques within a particular field of study, attempting to define problems and evidence in a way that favors one view over another (i.e. privileging some models or data sets a priori), cultural and historical influences, personal experiences and psychological disposition. These are all involved. Too often I have found that it is presumed that science is immune to such influences, or is influenced by them only minimally. This is problematic because it then allows such biases to hide under the popularized image of science as always being objective, impartial, and self-correcting. Minority views and views frowned on by the mainstream opinion are almost automatically presumed to be flawed with inferior evidence or logic (else why wouldn't they be more popular and more widely accepted?).

In another recent thread I gave a couple of examples, of the number of species of hominid (Ernst Mayr insisted there could be only one so that "rewrote" the commonly accepted taxa for decades) and the observation of what used to be referred to as continental drift, which eventually led to the idea of plate tectonics (continental drift was opposed by Simpson, who felt his biogeographic models made more sense). There are of course many more. And these at least are more reasonable examples with some compelling arguments. Some arguments "seemed" to fit so well within a larger framework of scientifically compatible or established assumptions that for a time they cut off serious speculation or investigation of alternatives. As someone who works in science I hope I am not presuming too much that you will find at least a ring of truth in what I write here.
I'm only human, so I have my prejudices and blind spots. My strength lies in good reading comprehension combined with a wide interest and (for my age) a lot of experience reading scientific articles and popular science critically. I can't really support this opinion of myself online, so you can take it with a pinch of salt if you like. I can try to convince you by saying that people tend to seek out and trust my judgment — people sometimes come to me when they've read about something in the newspaper and want to know what it's about. So I usually understand things very quickly, and I've made it my business to learn a little about everything. Okay, so what?

The universe is coherent. Puzzle pieces fit together. Things that do not fit are either wrong, or the puzzle has been laid wrongly in the past. I'm good at laying this scientific puzzle and can usually spot things that do not fit.* I can often spot poorly done statistics and claims that go beyond the evidence as well, which is a good skill to have when reading articles. What's more is that I tend think critically about these things even when I agree with the conclusion of the articles. Probably less, but still enough that I've criticized people I've agreed with. So I'm pretty confident that I can determine correctly whether a puzzle piece fits or not.
Yet again, you don't know enough to rigourously evaluate every scientific claim. Nor do you have the time or resources. Mostly you trust others to be honest, accurate experts. Knowing a little about everything is nice but it doesn't qualify one to really be able to seriously evaluate most (and I use that word to its fullest) of what is out there in anything other than a fairly superficial way. That is, as a non-specialist. I am not unfamiliar with excellent reading comprehension or the skill of seeing the larger picture, though I am probably a bit rustier at spotting iffy stats on first glance. I am at heart a systematist/integrator of different knowledge streams. I am not suggesting you can't predict things or see flaws from your perspective which others who are "too close to the data" or a particular model cannot see from theirs. But that puzzle picture and sense of fit, again, comes from faith in the people who gave us the pieces as well as those who put that picture together.
QuantumTroll wrote:But what if a whole patch of the puzzle is wrong? What about paradigm shifts? Can I base a worldview on what is essentially an opinion that can change completely in a decade? Here, I like to bring up history of science, and the historical fact that science doesn't work the way it used to. It used to be that people believed one thing without sufficient cause, and then a scientific discovery overthrew the old paradigm. People believed Lamarckism not because they had evidence, but because they had no way of determining if it was a good theory. Ditto Hobbe's Plenism. If you examine the history of paradigm shifts, they've only occurred when ignorance is replaced with new data and a theory to explain it. We've never really overthrown a previous known, just a previously adored belief. And we're running out of those, quite frankly.
People believed Larmarckism because it fit their observations. It seemed consistent with how the world appeared to work. Darwin himself made strenuous appeals to ideas such as use/disuse even while he was introducing the idea of natural selection. He would later use it more and more as people poked holes in his early formulations of selection. I would be greatly amused to ask someone from 200 years in the future what they think of many of our paradigms. I suspect that if they were to use your conception of ignorance, knowns and beliefs that they would have to conclude that our biologists, chemists and physicists were believing things without sufficient cause, caught in the throws of ignorance and the adoration of cherished beliefs. All scientists have evidence for their models which are based on their basic assumptions about how things work, and these three aspects (evidence, models, and a basic idea of how things work) are constantly in flux and tension, rubbing against one another and producing friction. Some folks try to smooth over the rough edges with exceptions and special pleading, others pull at the untidy or frayed threads and unravel a portion of the patchwork. I don't hold to the notion that we are somehow more clever than our predecessors, or that our models, or how we decide what is evidence (or how to describe and use it), or our basic assumptions about the world, are one day going to appear any more or less brilliant or ridiculous than those who came before us. Just because some feel comfortable promoting what they see as proper evidence to the status of "knowns" or beliefs (as represented by their models) to the status of knowledge doesn't mean others won't come along and demote them in the future. The idea that we are running out of beliefs is almost incomprehensible to me. Paradigm shifts can involve any three of the key elements in the process becoming unsatisfactory.
QuantumTroll wrote:I try to be open-minded about open questions, but I can't help but look at the entire puzzle as a whole and extrapolate to the areas that aren't covered.

*(This is a game I've played, actually. Someone picks a surprising scientific fact that they suspect nobody else knows, and says a topic (e.g. mammals or sex chromosomes or particle physics). The other participants invent "facts" that sound plausible but are false. Then we guess at which "fact" is the true one. Very fun and often very funny stuff! Anyway, my experiences playing this game gives me confidence in the breadth and accuracy of my scientific erudition.)
That's cool, but it is relying on working with evidence in a system based on the working assumptions of that system. What about things that are ambiguous, or which lie on the margins. What about evidence, models and basic assumptions that are not (entirely) congruous with the prevailing paradigm? And how do you verify your answers to these trivia challenges? Of course, by consulting an expert, either in person or publication. Not that this is wrong, but again, it doesn't deal with the foundations of knowledge but rather as you said an extrapolation of what is already assumed.
QuantumTroll wrote:Thus far, I've discussed only science and scientific questions. Keeping the puzzle analogy, we can see science as an image of a game board, describing the rules and playing field for existence. Everything we do is done within the confines of this board, and everything that happens is a result of the rules defined by the board. What we don't get by examining the board is an answer to questions like "what should we do", "what do we want to do", "what is it like". Questions like "what can we do", which seem to be theoretically answerable by looking at the game board, can be so complex that we only get the vaguest of answers from that quarter. For these kinds of questions, we need something that isn't science.
I would generally agree. I would also add there are many part of the game board that are, by science's own self-imposed limitations, beyond its scope.
QuantumTroll wrote:
tinythinker wrote:
QuantumTroll wrote:I do not think that science is the only valid form of knowledge. I think that's a patently ridiculous assertion, because I know lots of unscientific things. I know that I love the flowers in the spring, the berries in the summer, and the mushrooms in the fall. I know that my wife is beautiful and that having a baby would be wonderful. I know how to explain math and computers to interested young people. I know something ineffable about people. I know that the universe is consistent, and I believe that a good and omnipotent God with a personal interest in humans is not consistent with the way the universe appears. These are various forms of unscientific bits of knowledge and a belief.

Do you think it is possible for someone to be mentally coherent or to function without beliefs?

Hmm, I'd say "yes" and "no". "Yes", in the sense that someone might be able to distract himself from ever thinking about the big questions in life that yield beliefs. "No", in the sense that someone opening the door into a dark room will automatically believe that the room is empty. Is that a satisfactory answer? I'm not sure I understood the intent of your question...
Yes, it is sufficient. It gets back the big broohaha that was at the heart of a the disagreements people were having with Bigthinker. The context of my question was whether or not we can have any coherent relationship of our inner and outer worlds without presuming or generating beliefs. It seems like your answer in that context leans towards "no".
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by fleetmouse » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:51 am

These epistemological defenses of religion seem to boil down to "how do you really know that anything is true?"

This defense is rarely mustered on behalf of robust ideas that welcome and withstand criticism. It and its analogous forms are the province of global warming denialists, conspiracy theorists, astrologers, speakers to the dead, tobacco industry apologists, antivaxxers, and so on. Rather than producing reasoned accounts or evidence that supports one's position, people defending these fields like to attack empiricism, reason and reasonableness in general - or attempt to separate the critic from the use of those tools and traits - delegitimizing, in effect, critical thinking. It's a tactic that smells of panic.

When someone "goes epistemological" I smell a rat.
Last edited by fleetmouse on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts:1331
Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by tinythinker » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:55 am

fleetmouse wrote:These epistemological defenses of religion seem to boil down to "how do you really know that anything is true?"

This defense is rarely mustered on behalf of robust ideas that welcome and withstand criticism. It and its analogous forms are the province of global warming denialists, conspiracy theorists, astrologers, speakers to the dead, tobacco industry apologists, antivaxxers, and so on. Rather than producing reasoned accounts or evidence that supports one's position, people defending these fields like to attack empiricism, reason and reasonableness in general - or attempt to separate the critic from the use of those tools and traits - delegitimizing, in effect, critical thinking. It's a tactic that smells of panic.
Defenses of religion?
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by fleetmouse » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:01 pm

tinythinker wrote:Defenses of religion?
Sure. Isn't this discussion an offshoot from criticism of bigthinker's admittedly hamfisted science vs. religion posts?

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts:1331
Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by tinythinker » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:14 pm

fleetmouse wrote:
tinythinker wrote:Defenses of religion?
Sure.
Umm, if that is the case, then why are there no references to words such as "religion" or "spirituality" in the exchanges here between myself and QT? (The only reference to God comes from something he said in response to Metacrock in the original thread and which I included in my reply there because it was part of a larger quote in which he was discussing the idea of beliefs; that it, is was incidental. He included it with the rest of what I quoted from him in that other thread when he started this one.) Everything we have discussed so far falls under the heading of history and philosophy of science. Your feelings for epistemology aside, our discussion so far has not been not about religion. I had the same kinds of discussions when I was a hardcore atheist and participating in graduate seminars on topics like evolutionary theory. Metacrock briefly interjected something about religion by relating it to part of what QT said , but it was not a defense of religion, and that topic has so far had no bearing on my conversation with QT.
fleetmouse wrote:Isn't this discussion an offshoot from criticism of bigthinker's admittedly hamfisted science vs. religion posts?
It was an offshoot from QT's thoughts on the Bigthinker fiasco, but an offshoot based on a statement he made about science and how science affects what he believes is true. This raises for me questions about the nature of science, how it works, what limits it has, etc. Anyone who works in or cites knowledge produced by science ought to be concerned with such issues regardless of their attitudes towards or degree of participation in religion.
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by fleetmouse » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:29 pm

Like it or not this discussion is taking place in a context. I'm not sure if it's true for you, or to what degree, but for many religious people pointing out that science is fallible, socially constructed, not 100% verifiable, etc. functions as a soporific and faith-balm.

Going back over some of what you said -
Just curious: how much from science do you evaluate before accepting it, and what is entailed in such validation? It is certain that no one could be well trained enough and have a sufficient background let alone have the time, materials and access to thoroughly evaluate something someone claims to be true.
I don't see how that's a problem unless you think of science as a factory that produces apodictic, incorrigible truth.
Do you think it is possible for someone to be mentally coherent or to function without beliefs?
Could you explain a little further what you mean by this question? I have a hard time not seeing this as a presuppositionalist style trope attempting to equivocate all types of belief, reasons for belief and degrees of adherence.

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Science – what to do with it

Post by mdsimpson92 » Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:01 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:I'm a weak atheist. I don't think that a God-less universe is the only possible interpretation of the puzzle. All I demand from theists is that they don't believe in a God that is inconsistent with what science says about the universe (e.g. Biblical literalists) and that they respect me when I say that I don't need God for a meaningful and deep existence. What I hope for is that a theist some day actually understands my view. Of course, what we mean with the word "God" is an issue we can discuss (angrily or calmly) for ever and a day (maybe I'm a theist if I had a different concept of "God"), but this is it in a nutshell.
You know I remember Tillich actually said that we may have to abandon the word "God" due to the fact that it comes in so many variations that it may have lost any strict meaning.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

Post Reply