Science, atheism, and public relations stunts
by KrauzeCritics of intelligent design often present themselves as a unified front, merely interested in protecting good science. But it's becoming more and more obvious that there are really two camps among the critics' crowd. On the one hand, there are the moderates, who believe that evolution is readily compatible with theism, and who claim that the problem is simply fundamentalist religion. On the other hand are the hardliners, who thinks evolution is incompatible with theism, and who see the discussion over evolution as simply the latest battle in the war between theism and atheism.
The disagreements between these two camps are usually downplayed, but sometimes tempers flare. The most recent spate started when Daniel Dennett, professor of philosopher at Tufts University, accused moderates such as Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education, of "evasiveness" on the subject of evolution and religion, thus contributing "to ongoing confusion in the US." Confusion about the fact that evolution is incompatible with theism, he might as well have written.
Ed Brayton, co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb, wrote a post in defense of Eugenie Scott. Speaking for the moderates, he was infuriated that Dennett "would take potshots at our sincerity", and noted: "I've talked to Genie [Scott] about this, in private. I've also talked to many others who take the same position, like Rob Pennock. I can assure you that none of them says anything different in private. Our position that the two are compatible is a sincerely held position, and it makes me quite angry that people like Chapman [an ID supporter who repeated Dennett's accusations] would throw around such an accusation with no evidence whatsoever to support it."
Writing on the libertarian blog Positive Liberty, hardliner Timothy Sandefur fired back, writing that although "Brayton surely has grounds to complain about people accusing him and his fellows of lying", the moderates are nonetheless engaged in "a public relations stunt of the sort that the Wedge Strategy typifies":
[Let's] be perfectly honest here. The compatibilist attempt to avoid discussing the conflict between science and religion is not a pure intellectual position. It is a PR ploy – an attempt to avoid offending people who don't know evolution well enough to have a position on it, but who have been frightened about it by the propaganda of religious authorities. If this were a serious intellectual dispute between compatibilists and incompatiblists about the relationship between religion and science, we would see an open and honest discussion about it. Instead, what we see is an attempt by one side – the compatibilists – to persuade everyone else to keep quiet about the potential conflicts, lest we frighten students away. And that is simply not honest intellectual disagreement.
In a later post Sandefur stressed the importance of the hardliners' position, saying that getting people to understand that science itself is incompatible with religious belief is far more important than getting them to be embrace evolution:
Either you believe that things must be established as true based on reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena, or you think it's okay to believe in things on the basis of no reason at all. Of course, as Eugenie Scott says, there are lots of people who profess both epistemological positions. But these people are simply bigamists of the intellect.
To me, this is a far more important issue – far, far more important – than the issue of whether children come to believe in the fact that natural selection designed the human physical structure. In the end, who cares whether they believe the latter? What we ought to care about, however, is whether our children are raised to think critically, and to demand reasons, or whether they are content to believe in things in the absence of reasons (i.e., faith). These are the real stakes at issue in the controversy between evolution and creationism. This is the real gold that everyone's fighting about.
One can wonder, if Sandefur thinks this message is so important, why doesn't he argue for it at the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb, where he's a contributor? The Panda's Thumb is the receiver of a web award from The Scientific American and has the ear of scientists and policy-makers around the world. So why does Sandefur choose to instead make his plea at some blog devoted to libertarian issues?
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:08 pm
"Either you believe that things must be established as true based on reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena, or you think it's okay to believe in things on the basis of no reason at all."
Interesting comment. I mean I know he embraces the "no reason at all" position based on his worldview, but to come out and say it like this is surprising.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 23, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:01 pm
When you read Dennett, you can almost sense the glee he feels that people might read about Darwinian evolution and lose their faith. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 23, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
It's not surprising to me that Dennett would lash out like that. Recall that he has also accused Michael Ruse of being "enlisted on the side of the forces of darkness." Beneath the veneer of all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo lies the heart of a fundamentalist. And let us not forget that Dennett attached his reputation to the laughable idea of re-inventing atheists as "˜Brights.' What's behind all this silliness? Perhaps it's something Jaron Lanier wrote:
It may be hard for some to swallow, but it is just possible that Jerry Falwell and Daniel Dennett are cut from the same cloth. They are out to convert the world.
Comment by MikeGene — May 23, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
May 24th, 2006 at 4:40 am
I side with the moderates on this issue.
Anyone who states 'that evolutionary biology disproves the idea of a creator God' like Dennett does is talking from a position of 'belief', not from a position of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove anything. 'Proof' is not what science is about.
I agree with Mike Gene's point that there is not much to choose between the likes of Falwell and Dennett. They are both evangelicals, and neither are helping the debate.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 24, 2006 @ 4:40 am
May 24th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"Anyone who states 'that evolutionary biology disproves the idea of a creator God' like Dennett does is talking from a position of 'belief', not from a position of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove anything. 'Proof' is not what science is about."
But Sandefur has a more subversive argument:
"Either you believe that things must be established as true based on reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena, or you think it's okay to believe in things on the basis of no reason at all. Of course, as Eugenie Scott says, there are lots of people who profess both epistemological positions. But these people are simply bigamists of the intellect."
Comment by Krauze — May 24, 2006 @ 6:39 am
May 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Hi Odd Digit,
Perhaps we have a litmus test for hardliners here. Simple question – Do you think that science, as it is currently understood, is incompatible with religion and belief in God. Those who answer 'yes' would be the hardliners and those who answer no would be the 'moderates.' Like you, I answer 'no.'
Comment by MikeGene — May 24, 2006 @ 9:13 am
May 24th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Hi, MikeGene,
Glad to hear that, Mike. A lot of IDists claim the hardliners are right and evolutionary theory really is incompatible with belief in God.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 24, 2006 @ 9:25 am
May 24th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Hi Krauze, I think Sandefur's argument is too generally applied.
I think that if you're practicising science in a lab then it's been shown to be extremely useful to base your experiments on "reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena". Outside the lab I can't see any particular reason why people shouldn't believe what they like, providing they are not causing harm to others. If people would like to believe (for example) that God's chosen tool is evolution, then there is no evidence out there that I know of to contradict that position.
The only time I will take a stand is when people are trying to teach non-science (or even unsubstantiated science) in classrooms, or are deliberately spreading lies and/or misconceptions about science.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 24, 2006 @ 9:36 am
May 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Hi Mike,
Maybe the better litmus test is the question – 'do you believe that science proves that God does not exist'.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 24, 2006 @ 9:44 am
May 24th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Aagcobb:
Hi Aagcobb. Yes, there are many hardliners on both sides of the aisle. In the past, I have pointed out the hardline positions of people like Dawkins, not to validate them, but in order to correct the false claim that the hardline position was dreamed up by the IDists to scare their flocks.
Like I mentioned before, hopefully as time proceeds in the post-wedge world, some of us moderates on both sides of the aisle can begin to tune out the hardliners and talk to each other. If an ID critic agrees that religion/God are not incompatible with science/evolution, the critic is not trying to advance atheism. If an ID proponent agrees that religion/God are not incompatible with science/evolution, the proponent is not trying to advance theism.
Comment by MikeGene — May 24, 2006 @ 9:47 am
May 24th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Sandefur's position strikes me as a rather simplistic, binary choice framed in a rather extreme manner. In reality, we are faced with all kinds of decisions about what to believe that concern matters that are neither established to be "true based on reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena" nor "on the basis of no reason at all." In fact, it is this binary choice that Sandefur insists on that again reeks of fundamentalism.
Richard Dawkins again provides the helpful illustration. He says:
Dawkins' black-and-white perspective of the world is consistent with his fundamentalist mindset, but note the inherent problem. Because Dawkins views himself among the saved, where the saved are those who supposedly rely solely on "a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questioning with logic, evidence, and reason to draw conclusions," Dawkins is blind to the areas where he relies on faith. It would likely cause him too much cognitive dissonance to admit reliance on faith (especially if he lives in an echo chamber of like minded people). As a result, he peddles stupid ideas such as the notion of a religious upbringing being an example of child abuse. That's a belief of his that was not arrived at with the scientific method. In fact, it is a belief that requires the positive suspension of critical faculties. Yet because he thinks of himself as A Man of Science, he thinks all of his ideas stem from the same fountain.
Comment by MikeGene — May 24, 2006 @ 9:49 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Hello Mike,
I think you're falling into the same trap as Sandefur and being a bit too general in your statements. You say:
It depends on what context you are using the word 'incompatible', which is why I don't think you should be using that as your 'litmus test' (as I mentioned earlier). In the context of doing science in a lab then strongly held religiously inspired beliefs could indeed be incompatible with doing science. For example, if you truly believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, yet you are supposed to be dating rock samples containing pre-cambrian fossils, then your beliefs are incompatible with the science you are trying to do.
So, in the context of the lab at least, science and religion have the potential to be incompatible.
I think that Faith and Science are only 'deeply opposed' if you try to do both at the same time.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 24, 2006 @ 10:19 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Hi Mike,
And thats what confuses me. I get the DI folks, their motives are transparent. What I don't get are IDists who don't think evolutionary theory is an atheistic cult and the source of evil in the modern world. What is it that has sent MikeGene on a quest to detect an undesigned intelligent agency behind the diversity of life on earth?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 24, 2006 @ 10:20 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Let me add my voice to those who think that science, as it is currently understood, is not incompatible with religion and belief in God. Likewise, science does not prove that God does not exist. But then it is also important to recognize the importance of theology or 'religious studies' to helping balance the equation when science is elevated beyond its righful position/function.
No, this does not logically follow. He or she could still be trying to 'advance theism' if he or she believes it to be true. And Mike Gene could still be (trying to advance or) advancing agnosticism by not ever speaking about the theistic/religious relevance of ID. Though one probably shouldn't speak a wink about Mike's motives here.
The antagonism between science and religion, when it appears, is not nearly so dogmatic in Eastern countries. Orthodoxy is largely compatible with scientific thought, since the two spheres of knowledge, science and religious, contribute different things to the integrity of humanity.
Fixation on Dennett and Dawkins reveals enough by its own.
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 24, 2006 @ 10:20 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:23 am
That last sentence didn't work well! I'll try again:
I think that Faith and Science only have the potential to be 'deeply opposed' if you try to apply both to the same situation at the same time.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 24, 2006 @ 10:23 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Hi Odd Digit,
I hate to bring Dover up but… It seemed to me that the effort wasn't to teach unsubstantiated science although you might argue that was the first step. This is a cultural issue not just an issue of scientific purity. I don't think anyone wants lies or misconceptions taught to students. But there is already enough polarization in our country and I know of a lot of Christians who have taken their children out of public school. I think this is bad for public school. These are people we want behind public education and whose children we want in the schools. Throw the fundies a bone. Unless schools have changed a lot since I attended, the chance of any student reading a book on biology outside the curriculum is as good as self replicating molecules forming in pre-biotic soup. I can hear the question, "is this going to be on the test?"
Comment by samohth — May 24, 2006 @ 10:33 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Sacrificial anodes? True altruism, or selfish atheism?
Comment by Mung — May 24, 2006 @ 10:37 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Hi samohth,
Which is exactly why students need to be taught science properly in class.
I did use to read biology (and chemistry) books outside the curriculum, but then I went on to become a scientist. So I guess the chances of those self replicating molecules forming is pretty high
They would only insist it was created in a flood
Comment by Odd Digit — May 24, 2006 @ 10:45 am
May 24th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Aagcobb:
But I am not on a quest to detect an undesigned intelligent agency behind the diversity of life on earth. I'm genuinely curious about the possibility that life itself was designed and the evolutionary implications of such possible design. I entertain such a hypothesis even though I acknowledge there is a good chance I am wrong. To me, these are truly open-ended possibilities that have been neglected and exploring them has helped me to uncover novel perspectives on things. If you pay close attention, my involvement in this issue over the years has not been that of one who repeats and defends other arguments, but as one who learns and comes up with his own arguments. Bottom line "“ the hypothesis is interesting and fun. Like I've said for years, it's a true intellectual hobby for the spare time. Do you think I am making this up?
Comment by MikeGene — May 24, 2006 @ 10:49 am
May 24th, 2006 at 11:33 am
I am not proud of this, but in true Darwinian fashion, I would have been one of the gang that beat you up and took your lunch money.:cool:
Comment by samohth — May 24, 2006 @ 11:33 am
May 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I agree with Mike that Sandefur's argument is too black-and-white. Take culture. Many people observe some customs, not on the basis of "reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena", but simply because the surrounding society observe them as well. Sometimes this results in people doing stupid things, such as bull running in Spain. But this doesn't mean that we should divide all human inquiry into "reasonable" vs. "cultural", nor that getting people to choose between the two should be of very high priority (if a priority at all).
Comment by Krauze — May 24, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
May 24th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Hi Mike,
Lots of people have unusual hobbies. Mine is managing fantasy baseball teams; one of my favorite websites is The Hardball Times where geeks publish dense mathematical analyses of baseball stats.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 24, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
May 24th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Krauze, I think we can take the criticism of Sandefur and Dawkins to a much deeper level than culture. Science rests upon a metaphysics that it can never prove by scientific means. Since most scientists are ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of their profession, they have no idea how foolish they sound when they talk about science being the only means to truth, or God being incompatible with science.
Comment by Bilbo — May 24, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
May 25th, 2006 at 3:43 am
Bilbo says:
All most scientists would do would be to laugh at you for talking rubbish.
Only a very small – and often vocal – minority of scientists talk about 'God being incompatible with science'. The majority of us state no such thing. You shouldn't make such sweeping statements when they are clearly false.
There are no metaphysical or philosophical underpinnings to science, there are methodological underpinnings. Science uses methodological naturalism as it's starting point for a very simple reason – because it works. Because it allows us to increase our understanding of the natural world around us.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 25, 2006 @ 3:43 am
May 25th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Bilbo makes a fine point. The "nobody here but 'us' scientists fallacy" makes a weak argument. Whether or not philosophers (and let's add theologians) are capable of discussing 'science' better than scientists are capable of discussing 'philosophy' (and 'theology') is a legitimate concern.
There appears to be a 'hierarchy of knowledge' that most (natural) scientists have been pushing for some time. Re-legitimizing the relevance of natural philosophy and even theology as valuable for society is important for returning to a more balanced situation, where science is not elevated into Science = absolute, universal knowledge/relevance, Truth.
It may be accurate what Odd Digit says, that only a minority of scientists (in America?) believe science and theology are incompatible. Nevertheless, it is the inherent ideology of a scientific (belief) system that promotes methodological naturalism, and thus ignores the relevance of non-natural, non-material or non-physical things as valid topics of scholarly discussion.
It may be true that philosophers and theologians are far more able to be integrative instead of fragmentary in their thinking than natural scientists, the latter who are amongst the most specialized (e.g. narrow) thinkers in the contemporary academy. Many natural scientists could certainly do with widening their disciplinary languages by studying outside of their professional fields.
Perhaps Odd Digit qould argue the same is true of philosophers.
Of course, many people already do read across the disciplines in their free time, which helps for interdisciplinary discussion. Unfortunately, with words such as Odd Digits', it appears other scientists are perfectly content to condescend upon those whose spheres of knowledge are supposedly 'inferior' to natural science. In such cases, properly contextualizing the elevation (inflation) of R.Dawk into professor of public understanding of Science becomes more clear for its priorities.
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 25, 2006 @ 6:39 am
May 25th, 2006 at 7:33 am
I disagree, and I find the notion that philosophers or theologians might know more about science than scientists to be absurd.
Maybe we should let cooks write our medical textbooks, or policemen build bridges or shepherds build space shuttles as well?
There's a reason why scientists know a lot about science. It's called study. Many years of it. It's also the reason why scientists get a bit exasperated when some complete amateur comes along and trys to tell them that they don't know what they're doing.
But you're going to ignore this and carry on projecting your beliefs onto others in a gross and inaccurate generalisation anyway, aren't you? Here we go:
Ta-da! Thought so.
Actually science is not a belief system. Nor is it an ideology. You're opinion that it is does not make it so I'm afraid. And you should rewrite the second half of sentance: "and thus ignores the relevance of non-natural, non-material or non-physical things as valid topics of scientific discussion".
There is a difference between scholarly discussion and scientific discussion. Scientists are – believe it or not – often capable of both.
I don't think my original post was condescending. Please point out which bit you thought was. Who is saying that natural science is 'superior'? It's not me. What scale of comparison are they using? I'd be interested to know.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 25, 2006 @ 7:33 am
May 25th, 2006 at 10:43 am
It seems Odd Digit is going to take the "no one here but 'us' scientists" approach, so the issues I raised will go unaddressed. Just one thing to point out that the 'philosophers discussing science' and 'scientists discussing philosophy' sentence appears to have been misread. It was a comparative theme. And now there are philosophers and historians of science on the margins or in between 'real science' and 'real philosophy,' so the categories are not so cut and dry.
Are social scientists and political scientists, actual 'scientists' in OD's pov?
There's a third group (and probably a fourth and fifth), which believes evolutionary theories are generally compatible with theism, but that not all varieties of evolution are compatible with theism. When/where certain varieties of evolution are incompatible with theism, moderates should be willing to identify the boundaries of evolution instead of promoting it as a worldview, as Dennett, Dawkins, and even those following de Chardin, have done. The idea that 'everything evolves,' an idea Dennett is comfortable with, is surely an extremist position.
Otoh, I thought this "˜everything evolves' idea was also MG's position – everything evolves because everything (apparently) changes. It is this universalization of a theory originally formulated by a naturalist, who studied botany, biology, zoology, geology, etc., when it is elevated into a natural philosophy or worldview that leads to problems.
Are these the words of a moderate?
Comment by g arago — May 25, 2006 @ 10:43 am
May 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Odd Digit said:
Whoa! You say you're a scientist, so we may presume some years' worth of formal education in science. Did you honestly never encounter the Philosophy of Science in all that time?
Actually, science uses curiosity as it's starting point – 'how does this occur?' – and observation as its leading edge – 'what causes this and is the effect causal of subsequent effects?'. Then it mostly proceeds by reduction to attempt to quantify the pieces-parts of cause and effect. It excludes by fiat addressing final causation because it is ill-equipped philosophically to even try.
The job description is "FAPP" – For All Practical Purposes. Science is thus a tool for understanding cause-effect relationships between physical structures and processes by which we (as inventors of science) can exert willful control over structures and processes for our own practical purposes.
Science addresses questions of 'what' and 'how'. It does not address general questions of 'why', because humans have other systems of knowledge for those types of questions.
Didn't they teach you that in school either?
Comment by Joy — May 25, 2006 @ 11:06 am
May 25th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Hi Krauze,
If you want some more fodder along these lines I'd recommend Leonard Susskind's essay "The Good Fight" in "Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement." Susskind, a professor of theoretical physics, appeals to sociobiology to explain (ha!) the "us v them" mentality in which, for some strange unexplained reason, the them is in the majority and has come down on the opposite side of "science."
I wonder if he means it is something to be avoided by any means necessary, and what those means might include.
Comment by Mung — May 25, 2006 @ 11:08 am
May 25th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Hi Mung,
I indeed have decided to read Intelligent Thoughts at some point. The explosion of interest in intelligent design has created a market for books like this, and the microphone seems to have been passed to some scientists not schooled in the PR tactics of the professional ID critics. So we might have been given a window into the minds of the "scientists on the street".
However, it'll be some time before I get a chance. I'm finishing up Stephen Jay Gould monster, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, and after that, I have promised myself to read Susan Oyama's The Ontogeny of Informatin.
Comment by Krauze — May 25, 2006 @ 11:22 am
May 25th, 2006 at 11:55 am
g arago says:
I didn't notice any issues being raised. All I saw was a lot of projection and opinion.
Let me know when you actually raise one, or actually answer a point of mine.
You could start by showing this 'inherent ideology of science' you seem to believe exists, and demonstrating some evidence other than "that's what I believe".
Comment by Odd Digit — May 25, 2006 @ 11:55 am
May 25th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Joy spouts:
Of course I have. It also has nothing to do with my point, which is that there are no philosophical underpinnings to science, only methodological.
Science doesn't require me to be a philosophical materialist, only to practise methodological naturalism (spot the emphasis). The closest you'll get to any other of your philosophical 'isms' having any relevence to actually doing science is empiricism, because science works with empirical data.
Note the little emphasis I added, just for you.
Where did I say that science was about the 'why'? Er… I didn't. Keep flailing away at that strawman though… try not to hurt yourself.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 25, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
May 25th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
How droll.
Comment by Joy — May 25, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
May 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
With all due apologies to Krauze (As this isn't terribly topical"”or maybe it is?), but often when words bother me, for whatever reason, I do a few tests on the word to see what difference it makes if I eliminate or substitute. E.g., making a substitution in this quotation (Not "picking on anyone in particular, but only because this statement is "generic") : "There are no metaphysical or philosophical underpinnings to science, there are methodological underpinnings. Science uses methodological [design] as it's starting point for a very simple reason – because it works. Because it allows us to increase our understanding of the natural world around us."
Of course, there is no possible way to render the first sentance in the statement uncontentious. But what about my edit to the second sentance?
Works for me! But I suspect it would be bothersome to others. Anyone object to my substituting the expression "methodological design" (Dembski) for "methodological naturalism"? If it is bothersome could it be that, despite the quoted statement (and my edit), that the words "design" and "naturalism" are philosophically laden terms to use, at least in the contexts of these discussions.
I think the eliminative approach works better, e.g.: "Science uses [methods] as it's starting point for a very simple reason – because it works. Because it allows us to increase our understanding of the [] world around us."
By elimination the statement now reads rather uncontentiously, doesn't it?
(Actually I would contend with the statement and agree with Joy. It doesn't make sense to say that science begins with "methods" (and certainly not "methodological naturalism," since its not even the inventiion of science, but in its modern incarnation, the product of Christian theosophers), but is more sensible to say science begins with natural curiosity. LOL
Comment by Rock — May 25, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
May 25th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Sorry for not being clear in my statement. I don't think most scientists believe that God and science are incompatible. But I think most scientists are ignorant of the metaphysical underpinnings of their profession, as Odd Digit demonstrates with remarkable ability.
Comment by Bilbo — May 25, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Bilbo pontificates:
So demonstrate them then. Demonstrate these metaphysical underpinnings. With evidence please (your opinion 'oh they are definitely there' is not evidence). Put up or shut up (please).
Comment by Odd Digit — May 26, 2006 @ 5:42 am
May 26th, 2006 at 6:12 am
Bilbo:
Metaphysics, literal meaning 'beyond science'.
Also defined as: "A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."
And: "the term won a ready acceptance as denoting this part of philosophy because it conveyed the purpose of metaphysics, which is to reach beyond nature (physis) as we perceive it, and to discover the "true nature" of things, their ultimate essence and the reason for being."
Also: "A commonly employed usage of metaphysics includes a wide range of controversial phenomena believed by many people to exist beyond the physical."
Start with that lot and now explain to me again what you think the metaphysical underpinnings of science are.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 26, 2006 @ 6:12 am
May 26th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I'm interested in (Not being ignored!) what the IDers or TelicThinkers have to say about my substitution of "methodological design" for "methodological naturalism."
Huh?
Comment by Rock — May 26, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I like it, Rock! It always seemed to me that since the subject material science deals with – by design – is natural, it's redundant to call the method of doing science "natural." Does that mean they're not reciting "Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble…" over a cauldron of bat wings and newt eyes? Waving willow wands around while shouting "Abracadabra?"
And how the heck can ANYTHING any human being does be certifiably "unnatural?" Sure, some acts are labeled such by moralists and lawyers, but humans can't really do anything that can't naturally be done. Even fly by designing and building airplanes. If we can do it, it's natural.
The methodology of science is strict about design. Omit any of the required experimental design elements and see how far you get with peer reviewers!
Comment by Joy — May 26, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Rock,
O agree that "science uses [methods] as it's starting point for a very simple reason – because it works. Because it allows us to increase our understanding of the [] world around us.""
The funny thing is that science has no patent on those methods.
Comment by MikeGene — May 26, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Before I get to Odd Digit's challenge, let me first correct myself again, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot. I remembered that what I originally meant to say was that "most scientists who think God and science are incompatible, are ignorant of the metaphysical underpinnings of their profession." Now it could be that most scientists, in general, are fully aware of the metaphysical underpinnings of their profession, and that Odd Digit is just an exception.
Okay, OD, before I can demonstrate the metaphysical underpinnings of science, I wonder if you could help me out, by giving me your definition of "science."
Comment by Bilbo — May 26, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I'll try to get back to the library tomorrow (Saturday). If not, I may not be able to get back to this until Tuesday (due to holiday and all).
Comment by Bilbo — May 26, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 9:52 am
So, does evolutionary theory acutally have a structure? I started a thread over at ARN attempting to create a taxonomy of the theories of evolution. It didn't even get off the ground.
Does Gould tell us what "the theory of evolution" is?
Comment by Mung — May 27, 2006 @ 9:52 am
May 27th, 2006 at 10:09 am
What is funnier is that, even though "science" (whatever that is) has no patent on [methods], ID rejects [methods] as a way to explore reality. IOW, ID proponents act as if "science" in fact has a patent.
Go figure…
Comment by Art — May 27, 2006 @ 10:09 am
May 27th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Hi Art,
So you say. Of course, over the years, I have inquired about the [methods] that very smart critics would have us employ. For a large number, it's about first detecting and confirming the existence of a designer. Without such a proof, for them, there can be no [method]. The other option is to demonstrate something that evolution could not possibly explain (a [method] that Art calls, "ID = evolution NO!"). So yes, it will be up to the ID folks to come up with better [methods] than these.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2006 @ 10:29 am
May 27th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Have you read Feyerabend, Mike? Even the 'everything evolves' method is not safe in Paul's case.
Wow, i hear 'intelligently designed' fireworks outside my window now!@#%
Everything's designed, didn't you know? (While Eddie Vedder/Pearl Jam sings "It's Evolution [errr...ID], baby!)
Comment by g arago — May 27, 2006 @ 10:36 am
May 27th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Bilbo says:
I am not in the 'incompatible' category, by the way. What you actually said was this:
And now you are asking this:
Why don't provide a definition, seeing that you appear to be the expert. I will wait with great anticipation you telling me what it is I do for a living.
I'm particularly interested in these words of yours: "Science rests upon a metaphysics that it can never prove by scientific means." I would also be interested in some examples of something that you do think can be "proven by scientific means" as well.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 27, 2006 @ 10:43 am
May 27th, 2006 at 10:53 am
[Method] = hypothesize, test, revise, using controlled and repeatable experimental approaches. ID proponents reject this approach.
"Science" hasn't the patent, but even if it did, ID isn't interested in a license.
Comment by Art — May 27, 2006 @ 10:53 am
May 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Art:
What makes you say that?
Comment by Guts — May 27, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
OK, OD, I'll give you my definition of science: The systematic investigation of God's creation.
I buy the argument first put forward by Alfred North Whitehead, that the birth of modern science came about because of centuries of a widespread belief that Nature was the creation of an all-powerful, rational Creator. Because of this belief, people came to expect Nature to be intelligible and that systematic investigation would reveal how God had created and designed Nature.
If this view is correct, then modern science rests upon the belief that Nature is intelligible. If scientists didn't believe this, they would cease doing science. Saying that scientists do science because "it works" isn't completely true. Very often it doesn't work. But scientists don't give up. Why? Because of a deep-seated belief that Nature, in the end, is rational. That is a belief that cannot be proven. It is an a priori belief that scientists bring with them, when they do their work.
On what, then, can the belief that Nature is intelligible or rational be grounded? As far as I know, only a Theistic or Deistic view of the world will work.
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Guts:
Experience – with years of appeals to analogies, "it looks that way to me", "it helps me think about …", and the like. Fact is, the ID toolkit doesn't have much more than these approaches, let alone anything that includes controlled and repeatable experiments.
Comment by Art — May 27, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
First, ID supporters "rejected" the scientific method. Now, they don't "have much more than these approaches". Looks like Art is doing some back-peddling there.
Comment by Krauze — May 27, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Art:
Not only does that not answer my question, it's simply not true. Wells, for example, an ID advocate, has proposed a controlled and repeatable experiment. What is your justification for saying that ID advocates reject the experimental approach?
Comment by Guts — May 27, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
He's done no such thing, at least as far as the question "this aspect of life is designed" is concerned.
Krauze, I suggest that you review your lessons on reading and comprehension. (A hint – just whatever might I have meany by appending the phrase "let alone anything that includes controlled and repeatable experiments" to the sentence you misrepresent?)
Oh yeah, Post Wedge World rules. I'm not allowed to point out that Krauze's statement is a misrepresentation. He knows much better than I what I said and meant.
Sorry 'bout that.
Comment by Art — May 27, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
May 28th, 2006 at 2:25 am
That is laughably irrelevant even if correct, if ID advocates employ an experimental approach at all, your claim is false. But Wells experimental approach did in fact stem from his ID inference, which you admit is based on analogy. In Wells case, the connection to turbines, in Behe's case, the inability of natural selection and random mutation to generate something like the flagellum, as well as the countless experimental results referenced in ID literature ranging from Bradley to Krauze. Once again, what is your justification for saying that ID advocates reject the experimental approach? Or is it just something that you "believe in your heart"
Comment by Guts — May 28, 2006 @ 2:25 am
May 28th, 2006 at 4:00 am
I thought it might be something like that. Which god? Because there are lots to choose from…
So people didn't start trying to understand nature until monotheism was invented? Riiiiight…. Or maybe people have just always been interested in how things work, even before they invented religion.
Nature is intelligible. It's been demonstrated to be intelligible. Scientists have confidence that it's intelligible because it's been demonstated over and over again to be intelligible. That doesn't require belief, only experience.
Nope. Because every time we've set out to understand something in the past we've eventually got there. Past experience has shown that we will understand it if we keep studying it. No belief, just experience and the benefit of a body of scientific work that has already been done.
You seem to be projecting your need for belief onto scientists. Science is a method, not a belief. That's why it can be done by people of all beliefs or none, it makes no difference to science what you believe as long as you follow the method.
Well if you keep on projecting your requirement for theistic belief onto everyone else then it would seem obvious to you that only theistsic belief will work. If you stop projecting then you might notice that there are other things that will work too.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 28, 2006 @ 4:00 am
May 28th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Bilbo says:
(I was going to mention this earlier, sorry for multiple posts)
This also shows that you don't really know what science is all about. It's not possible to 'prove' anything in science. A scientific explanation is the best one we have that fits the known evidence. If it shown to be the best explanation repeatedly after multiple experiments then it can be termed a 'scientific theory'.
If you want 'proof' you need math. If you want certainty you need math or religion. Science is not about either proof or certainty. Just about the last thing science is about is trying to 'prove a belief'.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 28, 2006 @ 5:42 am
May 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Finally, it's Tuesday, and the library is open. Sorry for not being able to carry on our discussion sooner.
OD writes:
But you see, OD, that scientists really do have a belief — a very important one: The sum of our past experience of success in science justifies our continuing to do science.
Now this is a very reasonable belief. But it depends upon a deeper belief: The Uniformity of Nature — that Nature will continue to act in the future (and in other places) the way we have found her to act under rigorous experiments.
And that is a very reasonable belief, also. However, it is a belief that scientists cannot justify from science or past belief. They must just assume that it is true.
The question is: Is there anyway to justify a belief in the Uniformity of Nature? The only way to justify such a belief is by metaphysical reasoning. And the only metaphysics I know of that will justify it is Theism (or Deism).
So when some scientists claim that Science and God are incompatible, they've just cut off the branch of the tree they're sitting on.
Comment by Bilbo — May 30, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Perhaps a good way of understanding my point is comparing ancient Greek science with modern science. The Greeks really were doing science as we understand it today: looking for explanations for natural events, and then testing them, as best they could.
But ancient Greek science didn't last. Why not? Because of a lack of confidence that Nature would always act reasonably. They had no metaphysical ground that let them confidently continue to do science, even when there theories ran into trouble. Did the prediction fail because our theory was incorrect? Or did the prediction fail because Nature is at bottom irrational?
It wasn't until after centuries of widespread belief that Nature was rational, because her Creator was rational, that science could be reborn and thrive. If our prediction failed, it's because our theory is wrong. Nature is rational, and intelligible, and if we just continue to look, we'll figure her out.
Comment by Bilbo — May 30, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
May 30th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Bilbo,
Are you advocating a type of metaphysical theism (or deism), perhaps in an attempt to combat metaphysical naturalism? It has been said that some in the i+d camp are interested in promoting a new kind of theistic science. I wonder if you're tapping into that stream.
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 30, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 3:20 pm
So, IDers, what might be the difference between "methodological design" and "methodological naturalism"
If there is no real difference then its just an exercise in word-play.
I think there are subtle but significant differences (to be found if one chooses to explore).
I think all the differences are to be found in "philosophy," not science.
Which is why I said that "methodological naturalism" is just a euphemisim for "philosophical naturalism"…
Neither the same as "methodological design"…
Comment by Rock — May 31, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Arago writes:
If my argument is correct (and it isn't really "my" argument. It's been stated by many other philosophers of science), then it isn't a "new" kind of theistic science. It's just realizing that science, pure and simple, must have a proper metaphysical ground. And it seems that Theism is that proper ground, both conceptually and historically.
Admitting that Theism is the proper ground for science does not entail that ID is true. Nor does it entail that science can include God in any scientific theories (personally, I don't it can, which is why I restricted science to the investigation of God's creation, and did not include God in that investigation).
All it does is rebuff those who think science offers some sort of proof or evidence that God does not exist, or that science conflicts with Theistic belief.
But my last answer to OD left me wondering how good my argument really is. I probably need to do a whole lot more thinking and reading about this, before I go spouting off as if I really know what I'm talking about.
Comment by Bilbo — May 31, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
A few parting remarks:
1) One of the advocates of the argument I've presented is John Polkinghorne, a Fellow of the Royal Society and former Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University; now Dean and Chaplain of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
So he used to be a scientist. A little bit from his book, Science and Creation:
(p.22)
So at least former professional scientists can be persuaded that science rests upon a Theistic metaphysic.
2) Nevertheless, I'm no longer satisfied that it is a good argument. So let me retreat to a weaker position: If there is incompatibility between science and a metaphysical position, then Atheism or Naturalism would be the likely candidates.
3) Perhaps, instead of requiring that scientists practice Methodological Naturalism, perhaps we should insist that they practice Methodological Deism: Assume that Nature has been created by a Rational God, but that this God doesn't interfere with Her/His Creation.
Comment by Bilbo — June 1, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I guess that means I'm advocating for a DEOCRATIC TAKEOVER!!!
Comment by Bilbo — June 1, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 8:13 pm
That's an interesting idea, but I'm wondering how it would work in practice.
Let's try a quick example: Smith and Jones were on the golf course when a sudden thunderstorm started. Smith was struck by lightning and died. Why did the lightning strike Smith instead of Jones?
A methodological naturalist would say, "I don't know. Lightning travels the path of least resistance, but I don't know of any reason why that path happened to include Smith's body."
A philosophical naturalist would say, "I believe that there was no reason. Smith was just unlucky, that's all."
A deistic naturalist would say, "No, a Rational God engineered that event when he created the universe. Maybe he was punishing Smith for some sin? Or maybe Jones was the sinner and God wanted to send a strong message reminding him of his mortality? That would have been hard on Smith, but maybe he was a virtuous man and got to go straight to Heaven."
I think the methodological naturalist would say, "What an interesting idea! Let's run the experiment. We can rank people according to their good/evil ratio, and count the number of times they get struck by lightning. If we can find any kind of correlation then we'll know that people get struck by lightning for a reason, and we'll be able to figure out what that reason is.
Is that a fair description of Deistic Naturalism? I'm assuming that God is rational in human terms. Some people say that God possesses a higher brand of rationality such that his actions are incomprehensible to humans. But in that case there's no practical difference between Deism and Materialism. If we can't understand any of God's plan then we can't use it to do science.
Comment by chaosengineer — June 1, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Bilbo says:
That looks more like an opinion than a faith based "belief" to me.
It's certainly my opinion that "the sum of our past experience of success in science justifies our continuing to do science".
Comment by Odd Digit — June 2, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Hey Odd,
This is neither here nor there but I was a little bored here.
Isn't it faith to assume that past success will guarantee future success? I could imagine a graph of scientific success progressing along one of them thar little curves I larnt about where it starts off quickly, peaks early and then decays slowly approaching 0 but never quite getting there. I've heard some argue that the scientific method is the only way to knowlege. Do you think this is true? If you don't mine me asking.
Comment by samohth — June 2, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:31 pm
chaosengineer writes:
I think (notice the emphasis) Methodological Deism (not "Deistic Naturalism") is really what scientists practice, even though most of them probably don't admit it. They believe that Nature is rational and intelligible, which I think is metaphysically grounded in Theism or Deism. I don't think Methodological Naturalism give us justification for thinking Nature is rational or intelligible.
But when it comes to understanding the problem of evil, which is beyond the scope of science, I don't think either methodology will help us.
But as far as figuring out why
Comment by Bilbo — June 2, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Oops. Gotta remember to preview my posts.
Comment by Bilbo — June 2, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:36 pm
samohth writes:
Now that hurts. But I think you're right. OD may not want to admit it, but his opinion is probably more like a very strong faith — and I think a very reasonable faith.
Comment by Bilbo — June 2, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Bilbo,
Heh, sorry about the "Deistic Naturalism" thing. I got it turned around in my head because "Methodological Deism" makes me think of Apologetics, and "Deistic Naturalism" makes me think of studying nature from a Deistic perspective.
As to the universe being rational and intelligible…this seems like a variation on the Anthropic Principle.
We instinctively know that intelligence helps us survive, so we instinctively know that at least some parts of the universe are intelligible. This could be considered an act of faith, but it might make more sense to call it an axiom.
The strong anthropic form is that the universe was constructed in order for intelligent life to exist.
The weak anthropic form is that intelligence happens to exist because the universe happens to be intelligible. (If the universe weren't intelligible, then intelligence-as-we-know-it wouldn't have any survival value, so it wouldn't exist for long assuming it could form in the first place.)
Without some knowledge of conditions outside the universe, there's really no good way to choose between those alternatives.
Comment by chaosengineer — June 2, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
chaosengineer writes:
Extrapolating from "some parts" to all parts is what science does. Whether we want to call that faith or an axiom makes no difference. It certainly goes far beyond whatever survivor value we got from the "some parts."
Now what justifies our making such an extrapolation?
Comment by Bilbo — June 3, 2006 @ 3:46 pm