Scientific Arrogance

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

So whose voice would you like to balance out the scientific view when, for instance, we land a rover on Mars? I mean if the rover discovers water on Mars, does a non-scientist get to make a statement about the truth or falsehood about water on Mars? Should a non-scientific claim about the truth of this be taken seriously when the truth is founded on evidence?

If a clinical trial shows that smoking is a strong risk factor for stroke, which non-scientist should be challenging the truth of that evidence?

If a lab discovers that tetracycline resistance is mediated by an efflux pump, which non-scientists gets to challenge the truth of that finding?

Do you get my point? As far as I'm concerned, the people studying the chemical makeup of the Mars pole get to say whether it's true that there is water on Mars; and it's the microbiologists who get to tell us the mechanism of tetracycline resistance, etc.

Yes, I get your point. In fact, I completely agree with you! I haven't complained about scientists using a scientific worldview in regards to their field of science. (Although, sometimes a challange from outside might help some, just because we're all human, and science isn't perfect either.) Another question to think about is what happens when there is a field of study that is not 100% science, like psycology or sociology or even history of orgin? Who get's to be the authority? I'm not saying I have an answer or trying to get an answer, I'm just saying its a complex issue.

I think "scientific arrogance", if it was a problem, could happen when science (or those pretending to be science) are exersizing influence over society, or non-science. And I'm not saying that science shouldn't have any influence on society! I'm saying that if there's going to be a problem, it's going to be where the two meet. (Which of course can go both ways again.)

Personally, I think pushing out this idea of "what could scientific arrogance look like?", without trying to prove that it exists in the same breath, would be an interesting discussion on it's own, and maybe reduce the drama a bit. I'd think it would make a good subject because it's going to look different than, say, religious arrogance, which can be right up in your face and hard to miss. It's the objective/nuetral persona of science, or those pretending to be science, that makes it such a slippery thing.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Exactly my point. It's easy to levy a general objection against the arrogant voice of scientists when it conflicts with one's personal values. But the fact of the matter is that most people really don't care about 99.99999% of the issues that scientists study and are happy to let them have their authority. Thus, it's not the scientists and their arrogance but rather the issue itself that people get their hair raised about.

That's an interesting point. Sorry if I misread it.

Aedes wrote:

Oh for god's sake ...

This ... well, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and ruins what would otherwise have been a good post.

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Another question to think about is what happens when there is a field of study that is not 100% science, like psycology or sociology or even history of orgin? Who get's to be the authority? I'm not saying I have an answer or trying to get an answer, I'm just saying its a complex issue.

Of course. And it's not as if these are really one simple coherent discipline either. I mean psychology runs the gamut from behavioral science to analytic psychology to neuropsychology, i.e. from hard core bench science all the way to surveys and interviews. But the point I'd leave is that these are all empiric disciplines -- authority is vested in data, and data are only so good as the methodology that produced them.

Quote:

I think "scientific arrogance", if it was a problem, could happen when science (or those pretending to be science) are exersizing influence over society, or non-science. And I'm not saying that science shouldn't have any influence on society! I'm saying that if there's going to be a problem, it's going to be where the two meet.

Do you think it's scientists and science who have undue influence? Or do you think it's politicians and people with special interests who actually make policy happen? I'd argue that the ONLY way to have a society in which science is used responsibly is to have a society that is EXTREMELY well-educated in science!!

Quote:

It's the objective/nuetral persona of science, or those pretending to be science, that makes it such a slippery thing.

Hence my point above. Educate people well in science and they won't be as susceptible to nonsense that masquerades as science.

Resha Caner wrote:

This ... well, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and ruins what would otherwise have been a good post.

I think you've missed the point. Let's back up a bit. You've proposed in a general sense that there is a lot of arrogance in science. My response is that you are generalizing from some annoying things that you see in science, and you're not being fair in your judgement.

I've made a couple points that I think we're in agreement about. First, the loudest and most arrogant individuals are the main source of your judgement, with Dawkins being an example. Second, I made the point that the vast majority of the time the world is content to let scientists be authoritative about scientific things, and your judgement of arrogance mostly pertains to things that you DO care about -- so in the end the problem is less the way science is conducted and more the circumstance of your disagreement with science on this or that issue.

A third point came up. You talked about the "myopic" reports in science that concentrate so heavily on one finding as to obscure a potential counterargument, and give as your first example the potential health benefits of alcohol. It turns out that you're quite wrong on this point, and I brought that fact up solely to illustrate that you were willing to go out on a limb like this in an effort to support your thesis. You're even wrong about cigarettes, which are very well known to not only improve but prevent ulcerative colitis, and they may also have a beneficial effect in some hyperdopaminergic psychiatric disorders (like schizophrenia).

I'm not trying to pick on you for being wrong, and I'm sorry if my "oh come on" came off as snarky -- but I DO think that you have a fundamental bias in this argument that is causing you to assume the worst, even on subjects in which you're not sufficiently informed. I'm sure you CAN find examples that would support your argument, and I would have to acquiesce on those points -- but you were very quick to pass snap judgement on science for things that turn out not to be the case, and this illustrates my point that you're being unfair.

I hope my previous response makes more sense in light of this explanation!

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Yes, you've been clear that you think me unfair. It's been interesting both in what you've said and what you haven't said.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'd argue that the ONLY way to have a society in which science is used responsibly is to have a society that is EXTREMELY well-educated in science!!

Actually, that sounds like a very reasonable assertation. Smile

Of course, in some ways there would be just as much of an issue of deciding how to teach science nuetrally, without injecting the full naturalistic worldview that often accompanies science into the classroom, where it doesn't belong. But, we both know our differences of opinion on that particular idea... So I guess we can just agree that a society with a better understanding of science, both it's strenghts and limitations, would please us both.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Of course, in some ways there would be just as much of an issue of deciding how to teach science nuetrally, without injecting the full naturalistic worldview that often accompanies science into the classroom, where it doesn't belong. But, we both know our differences of opinion on that particular idea...

A fundamentalist creationist can do carbon dating and dig up fossils as well as any atheist. The difference is that this strange 'naturalistic' archetype of yours doesn't infuse his findings with unsupported claims about miracles which don't ever belong in a science classroom. Competing scientific theories belong there; NON-scientific ideas do not.

NeitherExtreme wrote:

So I guess we can just agree that a society with a better understanding of science, both it's strenghts and limitations, would please us both.

But we differ on which limitations. If I'm teaching a scientific subject, the limitations I feel are important are the reliability of the data, the validity of the method, and the generalizability of the findings. I think you feel the limitation is its inability to explain supernatural things that might be an alternative explanation. And frankly this latter idea, while a perfectly fine debate for our culture to have, is simply NOT science and should not confuse and contaminate the process of teaching science itself.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

You somehow keep forgetting that the METHODS in science are irrelevant to worldview. A fundamentalist creationist can do carbon dating and dig up fossils as well as any atheist. The difference is that this strange 'naturalistic' archetype of yours doesn't infuse his findings with unsupported claims about miracles which don't belong in a science classroom.

hehehe... Well, that's not really what I mean... Although worldview is relevant and always will be.

I've never asked that science infuse their findings with unsupported claims about miracles (so please don't accuse me of that). And I'm not arguing for "Creation Science" either, I don't even like that very much.

But, teaching in such a way that indoctinates a worldview that excludes the possibility of miracles (or knowledge outside of science in general) doesn't belong in a classroom either, because that naturalism- not science. Science should be "timid" about it's claims, while naturalism is deterministic in nature. I'm not sure you'll acknowledge the difference, but it's there. (Though I don't really want to debate it right now, maybe sometime we can start a thread just discussing if/how worldview can affect science, since we come around to this fairly often.)

Can such a foggy distinction, assuming it exists, really be made, especially given the culture wars and power stuggles going on? I'm not sure, but I think it would be worth exploring anyway. But it will only be productive if all parties are willing to let go of their preconceptions and feelings of superiority.

All that said, I still think a better science education would be extremely helpful to society, exactly as you said. So we agree on this!

2 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

teaching in such a way that indoctinates a worldview that excludes the possibility of miracles (or knowledge outside of science in general) doesn't belong in a classroom either

You're making the broad sweeping assertion that this has something to do with worldviews. It's not about worldviews. The fact that we can learn by observation is self-evident, because it's how we live. Everyone believes it except maybe very mystical Buddhists who believe all of existence is illusory.

The fact that we can infer things about observible phenomena by systematic observation and data collection is also self-evident -- and that is what science is. And this is so self-evident and so omnipresent in every waking moment of our lives that just intuitively everything that is observible MAY provide more information if observed or analyzed more closely. This is not a worldview, it's just common sense.

For instance, if I see you walk out of a room that I didn't know you were in, the fact that I don't know how you got there doesn't mean you were miraculously created there from thin air. It just means that you almost certainly got there in a way that's consistent with our understanding of the world, but we did not observe it happening.

Science is simply a methodology and the knowledge it produces. EVERYTHING in nature was a miracle before we had science, which is why pagan religions worshipped natural forces. Science allows us a way of understanding things without invoking black magic, curses, alchemy, witchcraft, or miracles. And based on the reliability of science in providing explanations for things that were once thought magical, I think it's grossly irresponsible to teach in a science classroom that something should be dismissed as witchcraft or a miracle without being scientifically investigated or explained. It's much more likely that yellow fever is spread by mosquitos than caused by moral vice, and yet before the Walter Reed commission to Cuba in ~1903 that's exactly what people thought.

I'll acquiesce to you on one point: I think science should tread lightly on scientifically investigating and explaining religious miracles that are important to people's tradition. That's not because the 10 plagues or the resurrection of Jesus can't be investigated -- but it's because the explanation is not worth the cultural war. And besides, if we found the body of Jesus himself and identified 1000 direct descendents of his who are alive today, it wouldn't change religion at all but the public discourse would be ugly.

As always, this comes back to evolution versus creation. As we established a few posts ago, you really don't care about 99.9999% of the stuff scientists study. You don't care about the molecular taxonomy of vascular plants. You don't care about 16s ribosomal subunit sequences among archaebacteria. You don't care about the physiology of eccrine sweat glands. You don't care about the thermodynamic properties of saturated hydrocarbons. You don't care about bicoid mRNA transport mechanisms in oviparous insect oocytes.

It's not that you don't care -- it's that you don't care enough to invoke miracles to explain the unknown in these fields.

But evolution, whoa, that's a different matter altogether. That contradicts religious teaching. Who cares about the fact that evolutionary biology doesn't use methods that appreciably differ from any other area of scientific study. It just so happens that the research questions strike a nerve when they directly contradict a Biblical story. So science is NOT being arbitrary when it talks about evolution and contradicts miracles -- any more so than calling it nonsense if someone asserted that the trafficking of bicoid mRNA in oocytes is a miracle.

So the only worldview at play here is the one that will ARBITRARILY complain about science when it contradicts a SPECIFIC religious belief. Science can be the master of all the things you don't care about, but suddenly it's a "naturalistic" religion when it addresses something you do.

Or miracles, like the story of your loved one who got better when prayed for. I named a bunch of other coincidences that seem silly -- and you had no problem with those being silly examples. But when it comes down to something you viscerally and emotionally find meaningful, then in THAT case you're again abitrarily annoyed with a contradictory scientific viewpoint.

Now there's no reason why science should dismiss the cultural and religious importance of religious beliefs, and I differ from Iconoclast in that I think it's healthy. While I personally don't believe in God, I will pray and observe religious holidays for reasons of personal and family importance even though I don't hold literal beliefs in the ritual or the theology.

Scientific truth is different than religious truth, and scientific meaning is different than religious meaning. But religious truth does not conform to scientific standards, and in a science classroom what is taught must always do so.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes,

You argue a number of points in this thread while refuting yourself on numerous occasions. I am sorry you did not reply in a serious manner to me previously. That would have prevented a lot of beating about the bushes I think. You have not once argued why science would not be arrogant. On top of that you sate that science is responsible (that cracked me up for about ten minutes by the way). You seem to think to be able to prove that by saying that people can only be responsible by being scientificly taught. In effect you are saying that one can only understand science by understanding science and since science is responsible it is responsible. That is what I would call a circulatory argument.

Contradicting your circulatory argument I would like to say that science is not nor can ever be responsible because that is outside it's realm. Responsibility requires a "rulebase" with which to judge. Responsibility is, therefore, always a circulatory argument. One would need to define what responsibility and then using those definitions to "judge" situations to see if they are responsible or not.

Claiming, without doubting it for a second, that science is the only way that will happen is well, quite extraordinary. I have pointed you to Hume's is-ought problem before, haven't I? I hope you will see what it is all about. I think it could help you in your reasonings.

Smile

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes, yes, worldviews are relevant. More on that in a bit...

Aedes wrote:

And based on the reliability of science in providing explanations for things that were once thought magical, I think it's grossly irresponsible to teach in a science classroom that something should be dismissed as witchcraft or a miracle without being scientifically investigated or explained.

Have I ever asked for this to happen? Absolutely not.

Aedes wrote:

As always, this comes back to evolution versus creation. As we established a few posts ago, you really don't care about 99.9999% of the stuff scientists study. You don't care... But evolution, whoa, that's a different matter altogether. That contradicts religious teaching.

This does not come down to evolution vs. creation, at least not for me. Evolution is not a religious problem for me, and I'm not scared of it. We take Biblical prophecy to be meaningful and truthful but not literal. I have no issue with seeing early Genesis the same way. So please don't assume you have my motivations all figured out. I do have some intellectual questions about evolution, but (especially after our first debate) I adopted this simple personal position on it: Evolution as a means for explaining complex life doesn't make sense to me, but there are many things that don't make sense to me, so I won't assume that just because I can't make sense of it that it can't be true. I'm ok if modern understandings are accurate, I'm ok if there not. That's not the issue at hand.

Aedes wrote:

Or miracles, like the story of your loved one who got better when prayed for. I named a bunch of other coincidences that seem silly -- and you had no problem with those being silly examples. But when it comes down to something you viscerally and emotionally find meaningful, then in THAT case you're again abitrarily annoyed with a contradictory scientific viewpoint.

Aedes, why did you bring this up? Did I ever present this as science? Did I ever ask for this to be taught? I think I was very clear that I did not see that as scientific evidence, and I posted that story in the relgion forum, rather than the science forum for a reason. I don't really appreciate it being taken grossly out of context and then used against me here.

But... now that we're on the topic, and we're in the science forum rather than the religion forum where I posted that story, I'd love to hear the "contradictory scientific viewpoint" over which I got "annoyed"... There was never a contradictory scientific viewpoint at all. This is a prefect example of how you're accidentally mixing up science and naturalism. Science has no explanation whatsoever as to what happened there, nor can they. It was once and done, and there wasn't any reasonable explanation (as attested to by many surpised and confused doctors). That's where science stops. From there worldviews take over. The theist can decide to believe it was a miracle, while the naturalist will believe that it wasn't. Neither of those beliefs are scientific any more, and if a scientist attempts to impose a naturalistic interpretation of these events, whithout any supporting science, then that is what will get called "naturalism".

If a scientist, for whatever reason, wanted to continue studying the event and looking for natural explanations, and if he finds out something relevant, that's fine, I've got no problems with that. But he should not make any premature "scientific" claims about it, without nuetral and substantial evidence, simply because he want's to support or defend his naturalist worldview.

On a larger scale, this is exactly what concerns me about "science" (or it's supposed representatives), and potentially the science classroom. The more naturalistic Acedemia and "Religion" have been at each others throats for a few hundred years now, and I wonder if that has created an acedemic culture which, probably unintintionally, opperates in "defence mode". This could provide a somewhat universal, but not necessarily scientific, motivation for (1) attacking religion where they can, and (2) promoting naturalism.

A good example of Edward B. Tylor's theory (from the early 1900s I believe) on the evolution of relgion. It, while really only an intellectual rationalization, apperantly was quickly and happily accepted by accedimia as valid science. On the other hand, the well documented refutation, based on volumes of observations by a few former proponents of the theory, took a lot of work to find acceptance, and certainly never recieved the happy welcome Tylor's theory had. Of course, realizing the theory didn't match with the facts didn't prove that religion hadn't evolved naturally... But accedemia had been quite happy to have the matter of relgious evolution settled neatly, and didn't appreciate the subject being re-opened.

How much could things like this affect modern science? I don't know, maybe less than I think. But, then again, maybe more than most suspect.

Aedes wrote:

Now there's no reason why science should dismiss the cultural and religious importance of religious beliefs, and I differ from Iconoclast in that I think it's healthy.

I have noticed this, appreciate the respect which you show towards such vastly diferent, and sometimes antagonistic, worldviews.

By the way, if we haven't already gotten as far as we're going to get, I wouldn't mind starting a new thread soon, so I don't have to keep this conversation going under the heading of "Scientific Arrogance", which I don't think really has much to do with our current discussion, and adds a bit too much of an antagonistic feel to it, IMO.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Aedes, yes, worldviews are relevant. More on that in a bit...

Except that naturalism isn't a world view or a philosophy.

Quote:

This does not come down to evolution vs. creation, at least not for me.

But it's worth mentioning since it's central to most religion vs science conversations.

Quote:

Aedes, why did you bring this up? Did I ever present this as science? Did I ever ask for this to be taught? I think I was very clear that I did not see that as scientific evidence, and I posted that story in the relgion forum, rather than the science forum for a reason. I don't really appreciate it being taken grossly out of context and then used against me here.

It's just an example, I'm not "using it against you." If you'd like to provide other examples worthy of discussion that's fine.

Quote:

Science has no explanation whatsoever as to what happened there, nor can they. It was once and done, and there wasn't any reasonable explanation (as attested to by many surpised and confused doctors). That's where science stops.

That makes no sense, I mean medicine isn't pure science to begin with. It's a multidisciplinary field that employs a lot of science but it ISN'T science per se. Unless we're going to go do an autopsy on every single patient (live or dead) there will be a lot of clinical scenarios that we don't understand. In fact we avoid lots of diagnostic tests because they're expensive or low yield or can potentially cause harm, or can yield findings that we can't explain -- and by doing this we operate very probabilistically and using mainly pattern recognition in medicine. So we don't even attempt a scientific explanation most of the time. And there is so much we don't understand in medicine that to have surprised and confused doctors is not particularly unusual. No science there, no naturalism, just skepticism about the scientific 'omniscience' of doctors -- and seeing as I am one myself (and I love the profession) I'm not just speaking as a pure cynic either.

Quote:

If a scientist, for whatever reason, wanted to continue studying the event and looking for natural explanations, and if he finds out something relevant, that's fine, I've got no problems with that. But he should not make any premature "scientific" claims about it, without nuetral and substantial evidence, simply because he want's to support or defend his naturalist worldview.

So you mean that it would be a "premature scientific claim because I want to support or defend my naturalist worldview" for me to say that you PROBABLY walked into the room, rather than indulge the idea that you appeared there because someone cast a spell? Exact same phenomenon, just a different scenario. There's nothing wrong with assuming that most things that happen conform to our repeatedly experienced understanding of the way the world works.

Quote:

I wonder if that has created an acedemic culture which, probably unintintionally, opperates in "defence mode". This could provide a somewhat universal, but not necessarily scientific, motivation for (1) attacking religion where they can, and (2) promoting naturalism.

Who is more defensive? I'd argue it's the people who forced Galileo to retract his treatise, the Kansas school board, William Jennings Bryant and his clients in his case against Scopes, and people who generalize about 'scientific arrogance' based on their annoyance with a few individuals. You seldom -- in fact virtually NEVER see science commenting on (let alone contesting) religion in classrooms, symposia, or journals. Sure, Dawkins and Sagan and others will become culturally identified with science, but they're hardly representative of it.

Quote:

How much could things like this affect modern science? I don't know, maybe less than I think. But, then again, maybe more than most suspect.

I'm interested in examples, not generalizations. Those are worthy of discussion. You didn't seem to want to take on the journal articles I posted before from PLoS. Feel free to find articles in Scientific American, the Science Times (from the Tuesday NY Times), Discover, National Geographic, or Smithsonian, which are all written for a lay audience. We can look at them and try to tease out evidence that supports your ideas. Maybe then we'll see eye to eye a bit more.

Quote:

I have noticed this, appreciate the respect which you show towards such vastly diferent, and sometimes antagonistic, worldviews.

It's because I think in the end most of us have the SAME worldview. We feel, love, and fear the same way, for the most part. It's these abstract intellectual spheres where we get a Kant vs Mill or a Leibniz vs Spinoza issue -- and in the end they don't matter that much, because we are social and empathetic beings deep down and our priorities are similar.

Quote:

By the way, if we haven't already gotten as far as we're going to get, I wouldn't mind starting a new thread soon, so I don't have to keep this conversation going under the heading of "Scientific Arrogance", which I don't think really has much to do with our current discussion, and adds a bit too much of an antagonistic feel to it, IMO.

Either way is fine -- I think it's appropriate to the subject, but I always enjoy discussing it with you. You are very patient with me, and I try to do likewise for you, and this is the style of interaction that makes a site like this worthwhile. Even when we take exception, we don't resort to accusations of "self-refutation" and fallacy and attack one anothers' education -- as others in this thread will do.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

I've never asked that science infuse their findings with unsupported claims about miracles (so please don't accuse me of that) ... But, teaching in such a way that indoctinates a worldview that excludes the possibility of miracles (or knowledge outside of science in general) doesn't belong in a classroom either, because that naturalism- not science.

It would be nice if science could be neutral, but I'm not sure it can be. Isn't that the point? To make a conclusion. One idea is accepted, and another is rejected.

I know the people I work with don't think any philosophy is involved. They've accepted the "it is what it is" line. They try to be objective, but philosophy is involved whether they see it or not. Many scientific endeavors certainly seem to be morally neutral, obvious, self-evident, etc. Even I think so at times.

Then someone comes along with a great new idea, and I see how blind I was.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Except that naturalism isn't a world view or a philosophy.

Well, I'm still not sure what you're driving at here. I've read about naturalism in textbooks, found it in numerous dictionaries (thanks to our discussions), and heard it used in converstations. Of course I'm willing to listen to any objections, but I think its up to you show me why all those sources are wrong.

Aedes wrote:

That makes no sense, I mean medicine isn't pure science to begin with....

I believe I have clearly pointed out that my example wasn't science quite a few times now, from the very begining in fact. But a couple of posts ago you said that I was annoyed at a contradicting scientific viewpoint. I was pointing out that (1) there is no contradicting scientific view point, which I can now assume you agree with, and (2) that I think you bringing it up in such a way showed how you were confusing naturalism with science, which I'm not sure that you'll agree with. Anyway, you brought the topic into this discussion, and I'd be more than happy to set it aside, unless you think it has further relevance.

Aedes wrote:

There's nothing wrong with assuming that most things that happen conform to our repeatedly experienced understanding of the way the world works.

Agreed. A belief in the general orderliness of the universe in the West grew hand in hand with Theism. I don't find them at odds whatsoever.

Aedes wrote:

Who is more defensive?

That's a good question, though I think to ask who is more defensive is kind of irrelevant, because to whatever degree one side or the other is simply reacting is the degree to which they are failing at their own job. Certainly "religion" has a lot to answer for, and I probably blame them(us) as much or more for the antagonism we have now than anyone else.

Aedes wrote:

I'm interested in examples, not generalizations. Those are worthy of discussion. You didn't seem to want to take on the journal articles I posted before from PLoS.

Well, as far as the jounals and such, I don't think I'd get very far. But, even if I was qaulified to citique such things, I don't think that's where I would be raising questions. I don't think that scientists are doing "bad science" within the plausability-structure that's in place, in fact I think they're doing a great job. If you want a more specific event for us to discuss, we could talk about Tylor's theory and Wilhelm Schmidt's later refutation to see how vastly different "objective" conclusioins can be based on fundumental worldview differences and/or vested interest. I just ran into these two guys while reading a book recently, and found them interesting. I've still only checked out a few sources of info on the subject, so if we discuss it it'll be a learning experience for me at least.

Aedes wrote:

It's because I think in the end most of us have the SAME worldview. We feel, love, and fear the same way, for the most part. It's these abstract intellectual spheres where we get a Kant vs Mill or a Leibniz vs Spinoza issue -- and in the end they don't matter that much, because we are social and empathetic beings deep down and our priorities are similar.

Well, I do think we share a lot of the same values, though certainly very few if any of them are universal. But that's a little different from the idea of worldviews, which govern many important aspects of our lives and societies, and vary greatly from place to place and from person to person.

Aedes wrote:

Either way is fine -- I think it's appropriate to the subject, but I always enjoy discussing it with you. You are very patient with me, and I try to do likewise for you, and this is the style of interaction that makes a site like this worthwhile.

Agreed.

I'm fine with sticking with this thread, but I do want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to prove that science is arrogant, and I'm certanly not trying to argue that you or anyone else on this forum is.

Resha Caner wrote:

It would be nice if science could be neutral, but I'm not sure it can be. Isn't that the point? To make a conclusion. One idea is accepted, and another is rejected.

I know the people I work with don't think any philosophy is involved. They've accepted the "it is what it is" line. They try to be objective, but philosophy is involved whether they see it or not. Many scientific endeavors certainly seem to be morally neutral, obvious, self-evident, etc. Even I think so at times.

Then someone comes along with a great new idea, and I see how blind I was.

Yeah, it's a tricky business for sure. I never realized just how tricky it is till I started hanging out around here. I think the thing I take issue with is the indirectly but forcefully communicated ontology and epistemology that permeates accedemia, which also leaves "science" as the only legitimate authority. So, realizing how complex and integrated it issue is, I'm starting to wonder if "nuetrality" is even an option. And honestly, I have no idea what would ever motivate acedemia to attempt it, as the current situation leaves them in charge, and any "signs of weakness" would probably be exploited by some frustrated Christians. What a mess.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel rather tired of the subject. But maybe that's just cause I didn't get much sleep last night... We'll see how I feel tomorrow. Wink

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

More than anything, I find people in science to be nearly giddy about the subject they study -- they think it is the coolest thing in the world. And the other predominant viewpoint is that people think they're studying something very important.

These are the two attitudes that I think are common in science. And among those who teach science I think both attitudes are held.

This is a degree of investment in a subject, but it is not a 'worldview' or 'philosophy'. A worldview by my reckoning takes on a lot more than mere epistemological and methodological debates. Most other things that you'd deem a worldview will take on social, ethical, moral, and perhaps metaphysical attitudes too. The schema that you call 'a naturalistic worldview' in my opinion (for what it's worth) pertains only to epistemology -- not a holistic worldview. This is important, because labels aside my contention all along has been that your idea of a worldview is virtually synonymous with my idea of sheer scientific epistemology -- and scientific epistemology does NOT choose to ascribe phenomena to "supernatural" forces.

But still, if you truly mean a worldview, then you're looking at a tiny minority of people like Iconoclast who seems indeed to have a worldview grounded solely in scientific discussions -- and who does derive nonscientific beliefs directly from the discipline of science.

Most people, however, keep the discussions centered around epistemology -- and even condescension to creationism or miracles or whatever doesn't constitute a worldview. It just constitutes a negative attitude towards a contrasting epistemology, and this is often stripped of any 'worldview' aspects (of course unless you're David Hume or Richard Dawkins).

1 Reply

@Aedes,

It seems we use the word "worldview" a bit differently, but that's not surprising. I recently read the book "Naming the Elephant" by James Sire, which is a study of worldview as a concept. One of the interesting things about it is how nebulous the word has been since it's introduction many years ago. It's meant many things to many people, so I'm not surprised that we might get confused over it.

Anyhow, I agree that naturalism is not a complete worldview, it is just a small, but influential, slice of any given persons worldview. Anyhow, I'm happy with the discussion so far, and I'm sure we'll be back here agaiin before we know it. Wink

Till next time,
Luke

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

In defence of science, I would say that the amount of positive things that science has contributed has been massive.
A belief that I have about science and scientists is that it is a form of peaceful leadership if you think about it.
Take Newton for example, the work he accomplished especially with regards to calculus may not have led anybody at the exact time to something obvious, but nobody can deny today the massive influence his written work has been, & the extent to which it has contributed massively to science. From his work there have been many new advancements in science & I'm just talking about calculus alone here. This is a philisophical debate in itself, not that I want to hijack this thread, but I am not yet allowed to open a thread.

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

A quick note: Nationalism has a very strange aftertaste in Europe because it is the prime motivator for civilians to follow their governments into war. Such blind obedience is ludicrous (to me).

Ontopic:
I think Russell makes a very good point. Aedes and I had a similar discussion not too long ago. I do not think Aedes was really able to let go of the "authority" science has in his eyes (but perhaps that is only true from my point of view). If scientists view things in quite such a way as Russell points out is a question I wish to leave for a moment in favor of the question of the scientific method

Yet despite its flaws, the scientific method is the best method there is for understanding the world around us. It's not perfect, of course, but then no form of a posteriori knowledge is. Perception can always be tainted. To borrow another quote from our dear Mr. Russell (I'm definitely a fan of most of his work) "Domestic animals expect food when they see the person who feeds them. We know that all these rather crude expectations of uniformity are liable to be misleading. The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken."

Kant even calls into doubt the value of synthetic a priori knowledge, "The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that it's flight would be still easier in empty space." I never did finish the book, but that particular line has always stuck with me. He was referring to logic and reason alone being used to determine truth, without being grounded in observations. Granted, argument by analogy is a flawed method, but he does have his point. Reason alone cannot prove that reason alone provides truth. My god, I would have a tough time refuting those who tell me that the proof of the truth of Christianity is the words of the Bible if I were to believe the same thing of reason.

If all but reason is flawed, and reason has no check on it's accuracy; if both a priori and a posteriori knowledge are suspect, then we must simply accept that we have no true knowledge of anything. All we have are varying degrees of certainty. In this instance, truth must be a threshold of certainty, for nothing can be 100% certain. To this end, the scientific method is the fastest method of achieving truth (as a threshold) that we have to date. Arrogance is, I think, the due of the best. Until a better method for truth-finding is devised, I can think of no reason to not accept the findings of the scientific method; relying on it is, after all, giving yourself the best chance to know the truth in any situation.

(Sorry for the necro, but this was interesting)

0 Replies

Scientific Arrogance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know