The Evolution of Naturalism and Scientism Toward Authoritarianism
by BradfordPhilip Pettit, Richard Sylvan, and Jean Norman on Naturalism appears at the Keith Burgess-Jackson blog. The author notes that naturalism "is a philosophical doctrine about science." He also observes scientific limits with respect to empirical inferences about broader philosophical and religious issues. While believers in naturalism will acknowledge the distinction between it and science, the distinction is blurred when cultural issues are the focus and an attachment to naturalism becomes a potent influence on non-scientific matters.
Scientism is the ugly step-child of naturalism. Acceptance of scientism brings one a step closer to building a philosophical foundation needed for authoritarianism. The building process is fraught with logical slights of hand, subtle insertions of straw men and intellectual arrogance; all tools in the process of shaping young minds and a broader societal agenda.
HT: Clare, Paul and Joseph
Pernicious effects of scientism are detectable at the boundary of solid science and the philosophical ramifications of it. Emergence is a potential entry point. Physical phenomenon alluded to by emergence are clear. The concept is useful and necessary. Emergence offers a conceptual gateway to understanding even as its causal nuances and applicability offer opportunity for mischief. The linked article cites this quote of P.W. Anderson:
The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts.
Psychology is not applied biology but hazy understandings allow for weak speculative linkages and at times trouble. Also from the same link:
Emergence helps to explain why the fallacy of division is a fallacy. According to an emergent perspective, intelligence emerges from the connections between neurons, and from this perspective it is not necessary to propose a "soul" to account for the fact that brains can be intelligent, even though the individual neurons of which they are made are not.
Observe the entry point for mischief and scientism. The first sentence cites the fallacy of division. The following one advances the fallacy. That understanding brain function is advanced by a connections perspective is not disputed. But let the reader beware of the insufficiency of that perspective to demolish anything more than straw men. Human intelligence is not explained by vast numbers of neural connections. One could cite analogies between the mechanical connections in a machine and understanding the machine's function. But even that is only partially useful as laws of physics governing the interaction of machine parts are understood. Physical laws applicable to reasoning processes are not. Gapping is not even the issue. The unaided flight of jet engines and an association of a vast complex of neural connections with a capacity for human reason is.
The soul is a concept outside science. But direct implications stemming from it, like that of free will, touch on the boundary lines between empirically determinable and philosophically based beliefs. In fact a scientific explanation for free will may not even be possible. The very existence of free will can be evidence for the supernatural and a refutation of both naturalism and scientism.
C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism, Part 3 appears at the patheos site. Lewis gets to the heart of the pernicious application of scientism. It advances the cause of authoritarianism. If a virtue of science is a revelation of the truth of the natural world, the vice of scientism lies with its false linkage to that notion to concepts that are inherently political in nature. Reason is constricted by acceptable inferences of it. People of reason are defined by their acceptance of some philosophical pathways to the exclusion of other rational ones. Smug arrogance, rather than reasoned exchanges, become the currency by which scientism is propagated. The results are evident in a review of modern history. C.S. Lewis:
Under modern conditions any effective invitation to Hell will certainly appear in the guise of scientific planning — as Hitler's regime in fact did. Every tyrant must begin by claiming to have what his victims respect and to give what they want. The majority in most countries respect science and want to be planned. And, therefore, almost by definition, if any man or group wishes to enslave us it will of course describe itself as "scientific planned democracy". All the more reason to look very carefully at anything which bears that label.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I'd say that naturalism is a philosophical doctrine about how science should be applied. Is that what he means? The way he puts it, it sounds like he might be falling into the typical trap of thinking that science can change depending on how you look at it. Science is what it is in the same way that arithmetic is what it is. The question is what you do with the information science produces. Naturalism says that that information should be considered very important.
Comment by don provan — August 24, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
It is true that "Human intelligence is not explained by vast numbers of neural connections," but it is just as true that human intelligence is not explained by "the soul", either. There are two positions here. One is that human intelligence is the result of unidentified supernatural mechanisms that we know nothing about but will nevertheless call "the soul". The other is that human intelligence is the result of unidentified natural mechanisms that we do not name because we know nothing about them.
I have no problem with anyone believing or even advocating either position, just as long as no one, in their enthusiasm, loses sight of the fact that we cannot explain human intelligence. An example of this mistake is, "The very existence of free will can be evidence for the supernatural and a refutation of both naturalism and scientism." Nope. Sorry. Science can't explain it. Period. Science's failure is not evidence for your favorite unsupported explanation, nor even evidence that the explanation is beyond the realm of science. Nor does science's failure in this specific area refute naturalism's more general point that what science can explain should advise our decisions more than traditional standards such as religions.
Comment by don provan — August 24, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
dp:
Would that the world were that simple. Science is what science is; or science is what most scientists practice; or science is what the writers of curricula say it is; or science is what the National Academy of Sciences or Royal Academy say it is; or science is what the current administration says it is. Or it is all of those, and more.
There are a goodly number of scientists who say that naturalism is essential to science. Within their sphere of influence, that's what science is.
Now, that's not to say that all of those are accurate views of science, but they are de facto views, and realistically they must be treated as such.
Comment by TomG — August 24, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I appreciate your willingness to keep intelligence a mystery. But I'm not sure you understand the implications here:
Granted that we do not fully know what soul is (though I would argue that we know more about it than you probably think). We do know something about physical things, and what we know about them is specifically problematic for human intelligence. It can be argued persuasively that physical things are by nature incapable of producing the phenomena of human intelligence (see Reppert's C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea, for example). If that is true then we have an unequal situation here:
We don't understand how soul can lead to intelligence, but we know of no reason it couldn't;
and
We don't understand how physical things can produce intelligence, and we have reason to doubt it could do so in principle.
Comment by TomG — August 24, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
dp:
I believe that is the argument of scientism rather than naturalism. But how does learning how x functions inform us of the traditional concern of religion i.e. moral behavioral standards?
BTW, good to hear from you Tom.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
TomG wrote:
Science has no more to say about the soul than it does about Russell's teapot.
Whether neuroscience will be able to shed light on "intelligence" remains to be seen. However, the science of brain has already been much more useful to man than philosophy of mind.
Comment by olegt — August 24, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Olegt:
Brain function discoveries can be useful. But as C.S. Lewis indicates, the ethical and moral values one has are paramount. His heyday coincided with the rise and fall of the Third Reich which was home to some impressive technological breakthroughs in its day. Science is an approach, a tool, which can be used for good or shady ends. To the extent that philosophy bears on morals, it is of great significance.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
And which of those does naturalism cite? None, of course. Naturalism stresses the importance of scientific results. The things you list here are merely ways to evaluate scientific results, and to the extent they disagree, we have a fundamental problem of practice that is not specific to naturalism, but not any kind of metaphysical confusion over what science is.
Is the philosophy that what science says should be the most important thing essential when investigating what science says? Of course: it's tautilogical. That's a matter of definitions, not influence.
None of these things suggest any disagreement about what science is, only the potential of disagreement about what is science. And even at that, the difference between them is miniscule compared to the different between what they all agree is science and ID, for example.
Comment by don provan — August 24, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I have to admit, I was simply trying to adopt the meanings implied by the OP. From that, I was taking "naturalism" to be the metaphysical position that what is natural is all that matters, while "scientism" is its more militant cousin that say, in addition, that we should run our society based on that philosophy. I'm sorry if that caused any confusion.
One example is by stressing identifiable results instead of revealed results. So, for example, allowing same sex marriage because observations show it doesn't hurt anyone instead of forbidding same sex marriage because of a religion's traditions.
Comment by don provan — August 24, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I'd be very interested to hear what you think we know about the soul.
It has also been argued that human intelligence in computers is just a matter of time. But arguments are not proof, so no matter how much we argue, the fact is that we still don't know. And you thinking that the arguments you favor win the day is a good example of the problem of ethusiasm for one position or the other resulting in a mistaken belief that the favored position has been demonstrated.
Comment by don provan — August 24, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
There is still much to be learned about psychological and other effects related to sex and relationships. The following study bears on the question of premarital and casual sex. We have not heard the final word on such things.
http://www.mercatornet.com/fam...
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Yes, of course: if the scientific results showed the oppposite, naturalism would point another way. What's important about my example is that you recognize how naturalism would inform us about those traditional concerns. It actually kinda sounds like you agree that naturalism is the standard by which this moral issue should be decided, since you seem to be saying that the only question is what the actual impact of same sex marriage is.
Comment by don provan — August 24, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I would like to see DP's studies showing that same sex marriage does not hurt anyone.
I’m not sure how it’s is even possible to have done such studies given that the first modern same sex marriage was less than 25 years ago.
I would think it would take a few more years to come up with an objective “scientific’ observation
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 24, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
The current advocacy of homosexual marriage in the U.S. is almost definitive of authoritarianism.
A small group of "authorities" have decided that a cross-cultural institution that has not fundamentally changed in thousands of years must be radically altered to suit another minority that it favors. In doing so it is overriding the expressed will of the majority.
Now I sit back and wait for the obvious rebuttal I've set up. The question is, should I hold the line for a frontal assault, or feint a retreat to draw the opponent in further? Bah, to hell with chivalry; it's for chumps. Let their own arrogance pull them in and finish them off with their own cruel blades, I say.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 24, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Everyone agrees that that the only question is what the actual impact of same sex marriage will be.
Where we disagree is in the contention that only the empirically detectable impacts are important.
Only those who hold to naturalism are willing to take that leap of faith.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 24, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
fmm's point about the adequacy of empirical data is a good one but there is more to this. Families include children and their welfare must be factored into assessments. So far this is all common ground. But there is a causal element in this dynamic only recognized by the theistic side. Divine mandates come with consequences. God is not a passive bystander but a participant able to reward and punish in the short and long terms. I know this is not something dp will accept but God's will is critically important to believers.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
August 24th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
angryoldfatman:
This is a good example of authoritarianism in action. Time and time again we see the will of the majority expressed in favor of traditional marriage concepts at the ballot box and almost as often we witness a single judge imperiously overruling the people based on a "right." But when you argue a cause as a right rather than use the hold harmless position advanced by dp and linked to experimental data for support, you undercut empirical claims. Rights are not forfeited based on test results. The "wrong results" would not lead to the dissolution of the gay marriage movement. Like abortion this is one of those issues where never the twain shall meet.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Predictably, the thread has switched from the tyranny imposed by science to the tyranny imposed by activist judges. Time to discuss David Limbaugh's new book Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama.
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 7:59 am
August 25th, 2010 at 10:28 am
There is no switch. Science results from the application of an investigative methodology. That's impersonal. It's also productive. It inspires respect and even awe among the public at large. As C.S. Lewis has pointed out it is precisely because of productive results and the consequent admiration and respect that science engenders, that science is used to advance "social justice" causes. Scientism is a misuse of science. That's the theme of the thread.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 10:28 am
August 25th, 2010 at 10:45 am
From the Wikipedia article linked by Bradford in the opening post:
What can I say? Sounds very much like sour grapes: philosophers and social scientists feel irrelevant and blame scientists for that.
As to Rutherford's quote, it goes like this: All science is either physics or stamp collecting. He was sneering at biologists.
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 10:45 am
August 25th, 2010 at 11:47 am
I suspect you need to go beyond the realm of academia and analyze how the larger world works. The "social scientists" you allude to who impact our society are lawyers, legislators (primarily a subset of the former group), high ranking bureaucrats, organizations representing social causes and the media. It is mostly from this pool that changes are effected. Rarely do you encounter one in this group with a science background. Yet you can find social causes which link to the authoritative influence of science to further their ends.
You may feel relevant and I think you are. But your relevance rarely extends beyond a technical impact. Policies, which cite science, are not made by scientists.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 11:47 am
August 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Bradford,
I'll try to get my point across again.
The term scientism was invented and used initially by philosophers and social scientists. I ventured a theory of its origin. That is all.
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 11:57 am
August 25th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Really? You think Hayek and Popper felt irrelevant?
Comment by chunkdz — August 25, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
There are two main views: Theism, which claims a deity dictated the laws of nature and bends them when it suits His purpose – and Atheism which sees the laws of nature as popping into existence, for no particular reason, to create a perpetual motion machine, a deterministic, mechanical reality that only changes by accident. There is supposed to be a third view, agnosticism, which insists such knowledge is unknowable. However the human mind seems unable to resist speculating about such things, and my agnostic speculation is that the entire universe is alive and conscious, with some small degree of free will everywhere. The laws of nature are entrenched habits, and the laws of the inanimate universe are so entrenched that they appear fixed. Life, on the other hand, is not only still evolving, the very laws governing what we define as life seem to be still evolving. I didn't think up the concept; it is similar to what Rupert Sheldrake writes. Science will probably never be able to prove or disprove any such hypothesis about ultimate reality, but for the moment that is the explanation I find the most satisfying.
http://30145.myauthosite.com/
Comment by Bert — August 25, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
chunkdz:
I suspect they would have correctly labeled global warming policies and debates about them as non-scientific. Moreover Popper would have had an instinctual feel for the deliberate blurring of data with ideology. The former is irrelevant to identifying the underlying values which determine priorities.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Bradford wrote:
Great! Now we have covered all of the conservative talking points in this thread alone.
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
It was an example, not an argument. But, as with Bradford, I'm glad to see that you, too, acknowledge that the facts of the case are what's important to deciding this moral issue, not some historical ban dictated by religion.
Comment by don provan — August 25, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Perhaps. It's a sure thing that the ban of homosexual marriage in the U.S. was driving by religious authority.
Comment by don provan — August 25, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
You don't need to worry about what I will accept. The question is what our society requires any individual to accept. Apparently you would like it to require everyone to accept your religion's pronouncements, but I suspect you would not be so interested in it requiring you to accept my religion's pronouncements. Naturalism suggests that such conflicts should be resolved by ignoring all such pronouncements.
Anyway, that's another topic. You asked, "But how does learning how x functions inform us of the traditional concern of religion i.e. moral behavioral standards?" I think we've seen now that you already knew the answer.
Comment by don provan — August 25, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
What our society requires is conformity to the law. In theory at least laws are influenced by the will of the people. If your side has more votes you win. The alternative is authoritarianism.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
This is simply false. In pagan societies and in societies where there is no Christianity, marriage has been historically defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is the redefinition of this that was driven by secular authorities in contravention to the will of the people.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
dp, you asked what I think we know about the soul. That's a tall order; it's a long list.
I would start with what we all know by introspection: that each of us has a unified identity; that we have the ability to assess options, to reflect on information and ideas, to imagine, to project, to decide, and therefore to act as rational agents; that we have dignity and worth, each one of us; that in our moral, rational, and agent natures we are not the same as the animals; that our actions have real moral implications; and so on.
These are properties of the soul. You will probably still ask, just what is the soul, and how do we know these are not properties of the brain?
Taking the second first, if the brain is just physical, then it is not the kind of thing that can have those properties. That's the end of a long argument that I will not bore you with here.
Then what is the soul? Here I can tell you what I think we know, and on good authority: it is the image of God in humans, an immaterial substance that is the real you and the real me, interacting with the physical world in a two-way connection through the physical body, immortal by God's sustaining power and decree, and of infinite worth in his eyes.
Comment by TomG — August 25, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
TomG,
You start with a long list of things we know about ourselves, and assign those things the term "the soul". Then you get to the meat, which you try to brush off:
It won't bore me at all, since it is crucial to your claim. It based on this assertion that you claim that these facts you list are characteristics of "the soul" rather than something else.
(Of course, another way to look at this is that you and I can agree to call this "the soul", and then debate whether the soul is supernatural or simply an emergent property of nature. I don't think you mean to make this a simple matter of definitions, but I wanted to mention it just to make sure.)
So we don't really know any of those things, we are just trusting the authority that tells us it knows them. Right?
Comment by don provan — August 25, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Bradford,
There's a difference between a tradition and a ban.
Comment by don provan — August 25, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Uh-oh.
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
And this catfight between WorldNutDaily editor Joseph Farah and Ann Coulter is even more entertaining:
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Right. And there is no ballot unless an authoritarian redefinition of marriage takes place. And there is no approval of the redefinition unless the vote is overturned- authoritarian style.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Here's an interesting passage from Olegt's link which he did not quote:
The reason gay voters never formed common cause is they do not want to be known as Islamophobes- a fashionable word with the Maddow/Olberman types. Conservatives ought to adopt the phobe verbiage just to mirror its intent. Are you a free enterprise phobe if you hate big business? A middle Americanphobe if you are unable to conceal your contempt for working class Americans? An attractive womanphobe if you hate Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Dana Perino, Monica Crowly and Michele Bachman? A Christophobe if you're a New Atheist?
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
From the article:
It's strange that a simple answer has eluded him. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. The most vocal anti-islamic slogans come from the conservative wing of the GOP. Conservatives don't seem to like gays.
Comment by olegt — August 25, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Olegt:
You could learn from Mehlman. He knows that Bush was not anti-gay despite not sanctioning gay marriage. He knows that is not the defining issue when it comes to determining whether one is anti-gay. He also knows that in many Islamic countries identified homosexuality means possible death, or at the very least, legally sanctioned discrimination- real discrimination. The type that endangers one's health. So why would one hate an American conservative who opposes state sanctioned homosexual marriage while ignoring real threats to gays which keep them in tight Sharia closets?
Conservatives rightfully question the wisdom of ignoring a large segment of Islam intent on furthering Sharia compliance. The obsession the left has with pseudo-tolerance for all types of Islam, while feeling free to regularly bash evangelical Christians, is a good illustration of hypocrisy.
Opposition to gay marriage is not a litmus test for liking gays. If you're looking for a litmus test try the legal system of Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist Islamic states. And by the way, opposition to hatred of homosexuals, when it comes from Muslims, is not evidence of Islamophobia. Right MSNBC?
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
August 26th, 2010 at 7:51 am
O, come on, Bradford! You're denying the obvious. Conservatives don't like gays, period. Here are results of a 2003 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press: Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality. 25% of conservatives expressed a favorable opinion of hays, while 65% unfavorable. Moderates were evenly split, 43% to 45%, and liberals leaned the other way, 57% to 33%.
Comment by olegt — August 26, 2010 @ 7:51 am
August 26th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Oh c'mon Olegt. Your link alludes to the obvious fact that homosexual behavior is biblically proscribed. On the other hand you and your fellow libs need to get past the Islamophobia phobia and condemn real discrimination.
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2010 @ 9:14 am
August 26th, 2010 at 9:27 am
So, Bradford, if I understand you correctly, it's OK for conservatives to dislike gays in this country because conservatives in the Middle East hate them even more? Maybe I'm missing your point, feel free to correct me.
Comment by olegt — August 26, 2010 @ 9:27 am
August 26th, 2010 at 10:17 am
"So, Bradford, if I understand you correctly, it's OK for conservatives to dislike gays in this country because conservatives in the Middle East hate them even more? Maybe I'm missing your point, feel free to correct me."
It's not OK to dislike people although it is OK to dislike behavior. It's also hateful to typecast conservatives based on single issue litmus tests like gay marriage while ignoring true abuse in the name of tolerance. Liberals are living examples of hypocrisy. Only a liberal mindset would label american conservatives as anti-gay while ignoring people who torture gays. But liberalism has no consistency. You can criticize the state of Arizona's immigration law based on the argument that it is a federal responsibility to secure our borders and in the next breath forsake that federal responsibility. You can tout immams as moderate who make speeches which would arouse passionate criticism of a conservative who said the same thing. Liberals want an excuse to hate while at the same time transferring their motivations to others. That's what leads them to overlook true human abuse while they make a litmus test out of a piece of paper which merely legalizes an existing relationship.
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2010 @ 10:17 am
August 26th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Bradford,
The question for which I gave percentages was "Would you say your overall opinion of gay men is very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?" It has nothing to do with gay marriage, so lay off your "litmust test" excuse.
Comment by olegt — August 26, 2010 @ 10:36 am
August 26th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Darn. I was hoping to get an answer.
Scientist Olegt embodies scientism by claiming that philosophers use the pejorative "scientism" because they are envious of scientists?
Classic!
Comment by chunkdz — August 26, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
August 26th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The encoding into law of the religious concept of marriage predated ballots, of course. While back then, same sex marriage wasn't a very interesting concept and no one really thought about it, a very similar ban against multiple marriages was established, and we can see actual cases in which religious authority put down dissenters. Same sex marriage has only recently been interesting because of all the civil attachments placed on marriage in the last century or so, so it might be harder to see that that's also been a ban enforced by religious authority since the beginning.
But the important observation today is that people more often oppose gay marriage because their religion says gays should not marry than because they care whether gays marry. The fact that so many are happy to follow their religious leaders in opposing same sex marriage does not significantly change the source of the authority.
Comment by don provan — August 26, 2010 @ 5:45 pm
August 26th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Interesting; I take a look at a thread that appeared at first to be about philosophy of science, and lo and behold it morphs into what looks like a typical comments thread at Fox News. I admit I occasionally go there to rubberneck at the cultural equivalent of a bad motor vehicle accident, but to find the same kind of thing happening here, well…it's discouraging.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — August 26, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
August 27th, 2010 at 5:15 am
All in favor of discouraging Allen MacNeill and company, raise your hand.
*hand goes up*
Comment by nullasalus — August 27, 2010 @ 5:15 am
August 27th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Allen MacNeill:
Fair and balanced. You, Olegt and Don Provon got to air your views. Can't help it if you all can't drive straight.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2010 @ 6:47 am
August 27th, 2010 at 8:22 am
don provan wrote:
Your claim is false unless the majority of voters in each State of the United States (including California) are religious fanatics.
Besides, there is no ban of homosexual marriage. If you believe there is, please show me a homosexual couple who had a marriage ceremony being thrown in jail or fined for doing so. That's what happens when your civil rights are truly violated by the government – it uses its force against you. Governmental negligence is better known as liberty.
There is no ban. Instead, there is a demand by homosexuals to have marriages between them recognized by the state. To use the flip side of the argument typically employed here, the couples in question are essentially allowing the government to tell them whom they can and cannot love. And what the government gives it can just as easily take away.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 27, 2010 @ 8:22 am
August 27th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Back on topic.
I found an interesting speech written by someone whose politics are fairly opposite of mine, but on the subject of scientism I find a great deal of common ground with him.
He compared his firsthand experiences with Agent Orange with what was being reported about it which subsequently became the folklore about it.
Comment on what you believe about Agent Orange and I will post a link and/or excerpts of the speech to illustrate the difference between science and scientism and what the true origins of scientism are.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 27, 2010 @ 8:36 am
August 27th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Awww! Allen MacNeill is so concerned about Telic Thoughts that he took the time to share some of his own polemic partisan political bullcrap with us. How thoughtful!
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
August 27th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Excuse me. I brought up a very simple and obvious example for purposes of illustration. You, fifth monarchy man, and angryoldfatman are the ones the turned this into a debate on homosexuality. If you want your thread to stay on track, then go back to the original point about naturalism as a source for input on moral issues and let's continue from there. I'd really much rather discuss that.
Comment by don provan — August 27, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
August 27th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I guess I'm confused about what we mean by "scientism". Here, for example, angryoldfatman seems to be using it as meaning "bad science".
Comment by don provan — August 27, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
August 28th, 2010 at 12:11 am
don provan wrote:
I see. When you bring up a tangential subject, it is not derailing the conversation. However, when I respond to your example by showing how it relates to the OP, I am derailing the conversation.
Recognition of your own hypocrisy is not your strong suit. Either that or you were trolling. You're not excused.
Or you could stay on track by not trolling.
Wikipedia is your friend:
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.
Scientism is exposed by blind adherence to bad science, in the face of contradicting evidence.
I'm currently gathering perceptions on Agent Orange as a sort of neutral issue, one that's not a hot button issue that trolls love to use. Care to participate, or do you want keep going with your boring pedantry and sophistry?
Here's an excerpt of the speech to whet the appetite of those who might want to discuss it:
The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, would have a new set of principles, a new faith, with a new institution to keep it. That was science, of course, which is to say you folks [scientists].
Science gave the human race new powers. Science could understand and control the material world, which in the new age was known as "reality." Science would point telescopes at distant planets and microscopes at the living cell. Scientists would develop medicines and surgical techniques that would enable people to live longer, healthier lives. They could build bridges to span rivers, ships to cross oceans, railroads to link distant cities — even, one day, spaceships to explore what had once been called heaven.
As faith had been the heart of Medieval consciousness, so now truth was the touchstone of the modern. The idea that the truth could be known replaced faith in the unknowable as the basis of the social contract; the prevalent faith was that truth would always win out, and that when it did it would be visible to all. These perceptions dominated everything from the making of the modern science to the American constitution and the idea of the freedom of speech, which gives power and meaning to my profession [journalism].
The truth behind the truth, though, was that science was not accessible to all. Few could build a microscope or understand what it showed. Few could follow Newton's equations. So as medieval peasants had once trusted priests and popes, enlightened laymen now trusted science.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 28, 2010 @ 12:11 am
August 28th, 2010 at 11:04 am
As I already explained, I brought up an example, not a subject.
That's the problem: the definition says "natural science", so someone adhering to something else, such as faulty information incorrectly presented as science, wouldn't be an example of scientism.
Right. So at worst, scientism is no worse than trusting priests and popes. The way it's being used here, there's something inherently and obviously wrong about scientism. But, in fact, unlike priests and popes, science does provide the possibility of confirmation. It sounds like you're demonstrating just that with your investigation of Agent Orange. If you're Catholic, and the pope says Agent Orange is OK for religious reasons beyond science, you don't have that alternative.
Of course, we've come a long way since medival times. There's a stupendous amount of cross checking today that wasn't there to protect medival peasants from the abuse of an individual scientist.
Comment by don provan — August 28, 2010 @ 11:04 am
August 28th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Hey DP
You do realize that not all Christians are Catholic?
You do realize that Christianity offers the possibility of confirmantion in the form of Scripture the Holy Spirit and natural revelation amoung other things.?
In fact Christianity is the only world view that I'm aware of that commands we look for confirmation in everything and commends those who except nothing just because it is affirmed by an authority figure. (1st Th 5:21, Acts 17:11, John 5:31 etc)
Scientism is deficient in that it only allows one means of confirmation instead of the multiple ways available to the rest of us.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 28, 2010 @ 11:38 am
August 28th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Which does nothing to validate scientism. Human experience is much broader than that which can be related to experimental outcomes. A philosophical, religious or political idea can be confirmed and the study of nature is useless as a tool for determining important moral and other values.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
August 28th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
It seems (to me at least) that scientism relies either on a hard or soft version of Scientific Positivism; a self-incoherent position.
1) It is irrational to believe anything that cannot be proved by the scientific method
2) Scientific Positivism cannot be proved by the scientific method
3) Therefore, Scientific Positivism is irrational.
Comment by Euphrates — August 28, 2010 @ 9:37 pm
August 29th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
don provan wrote:
And as I predicted, here is pedantry.
More pedantry, as well as poor reading comprehension. The Wiki excerpt again:
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.
Your hypothetical Someone wouldn't know the difference between science and (in your words) "faulty information incorrectly presented as science" if he was told by scientific authorities that such-and-such is science. He would think it was science. He would think so because the authorities said it was so. If science is his only yardstick to measure the world and science is what the authorities say it is, he then is an adherent of scientism.
Make up your mind. Are you talking about science or scientism?
About the possibility of confirming science: if laymen can confirm for themselves many scientific claims, then we are unnecessarily spending money on scientific authorities.
The authorities (scientists) tell the laymen (everybody else) what science is and what it is "faulty information incorrectly presented as science". Thus we have scientism (the idea that science is the end-all and be-all) leading to authoritarianism (science is dictated to the masses by authorities).
I don't know how many more times you need it explained to you before you get it. Unless of course you're being disingenuous about getting it in the first place, which is called… starts with a T and that rhymes with D and that stands for Don.
Not Catholic. Don't know what "Agent Orange is OK" means. OK for stripping leaves off of trees? Granted. OK to be within 10 feet of it without protective gear? I don't know personally, I only know what I've read from various sources. Some say "yes", some say "no". Whom should I believe?
Your naïve view of science is exactly what I'm trying to address. There isn't a stupendous amount of cross-checking. It's more like rubber-stamping.
That's why you comment here constantly. You think that it's not possible for your priests and popes to be wrong. You believe in the infallibility of a small group of human beings when they pursue something you think of as a higher calling. You are, at best, no different than the Catholics you mentioned earlier.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 29, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
August 29th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
This is ridiculous. Science is not a closed society. We publish our results in the open. Just go to the nearest university library and read original research papers. If you need further details write an email to the authors. All of that requires a certain level of understanding the subject, so one must invest a certain effort into reading textbooks and, better yet, taking classes. (Here is what can happen if you forgo the learning stage.)
As to rubber-stamping, you should see the first reaction of a scientist who has just received from the journal editor referee reports criticizing his paper. Watch this: It's always the third reviewer!
Comment by olegt — August 29, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
August 29th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
This thread and the one following it show that while scientific data is metaphysically neutral, those who worship a science idol are easily pigeonholed by their biases. Observe dp's repeated linkages to religion (Christianity) when making points about scientism. I have yet to witness an ID critic savage the attempt to show hedonism as based on science, or more specifically evolution, in the Gilson thread. Guarding the integrity of science seems to be dictated by who is abusing it in the eyes of its defenders.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
August 29th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
A devastating critique of scientism Euphrates.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
August 30th, 2010 at 4:27 am
We can stick with discussing Catholics specifically if it helps you not be defensive.
You do realize that the accuracy of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and revelation is based on unconfirmable claims by generations of religious authorities.
Comment by don provan — August 30, 2010 @ 4:27 am
August 30th, 2010 at 4:35 am
It wasn't intended to validate scientism, merely to point out its advantages. I'd be happy to engage in a comparison of various approaches with anyone that can leave behind the silly idea that scientism is not worth discussing because it's fundamentally misguided.
At every turn, we find that other approaches have very similar problems to what is objected to about scientism, yet somehow those flaws in other approaches are never considered. As if scientists are uniquely inclined to abuse trust and power.
Comment by don provan — August 30, 2010 @ 4:35 am
August 30th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Oh, I'm sorry. Can you explain the basis for your approach, then? I understand the idea of favoring scientific knowledge. I understand the idea of favoring religious knowledge. What is the third source of knowledge I'm overlooking? The cited article says, "No; scientism rules out the possibility of God," so I assumed those were the two alternatives being considered.
Comment by don provan — August 30, 2010 @ 4:41 am
August 30th, 2010 at 7:23 am
I think it's you who are on the defense. I can tell because someone who has a winning argument does not need to resort to ad homimem attacks.
You could not be more wrong.
Each of these is confirmed by the others and personal experience and natural revelation plus a multitude of other things that you don’t have access to because of your Scientism.
The only possible way that you could believe that these things are not confirmable is if you have limited yourself so much that you are unable to confirm everyday things like other minds and the world outside your head.
It can get pretty lonely in the vat
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 30, 2010 @ 7:23 am
August 30th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Scientism is not science. Scientism seeks to extend the useful scope of science beyond boundaries where data can be said to be either relevant or conclusive. That's done to strengthen political and social causes. Scientism is inherently contradictory as Euphrates has demonstrated.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2010 @ 9:48 am
August 30th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
olegt wrote:
If I have to go to a university library to read the results, then the results are not published "in the open". What is published "in the open" is the interpretation of these texts by science writers in various news media outlets. These interpretations are contaminated with the authors' political and social proclivities as well as their particular level of science education.
If you need to spend money and large blocks of time on training to understand the results, then the results are not accessible to laymen. They are esoteric and laymen can't really understand them without the interpretation of… wait for it… the authorities.
You're talking about what it takes to acheive authority status. When you've been accepted already, though, and the main thrust of your work follows the consensus of the other authorities (no matter how wrong that consensus may be), then the scrutiny is relaxed a great deal. As long as everybody gets their grant money, then all is well.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 30, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Most people can't imagine how it could be more open. What would you suggest to make it more open? Being available on the internet? Being able to call the author and ask for a copy?
Most people can't imagine how it could be more available to laymen. What would you suggest to make it more available to laymen? What do you suggest that would allow laymen to understand the esoteric information required to understand the complex concepts and results? Should we set some lower limit on how difficult scientific findings can be to ensure everything's available to laymen?
What's your suggestion for determining which information is reliable and which is not? I understand you do not agree with the current process, but help me see what your better alternative would be.
Comment by don provan — August 31, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Do Muslims have access to them? If so, why do they disagree with you?
Comment by don provan — August 31, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
The problem I have with this is that to support this claim, you cite an example of dubious scientific results applied inappropriately to make an unconvincing argument. How does that tell us anything about scientism?
It seems too easy to say these unsettling trends in our culture are caused by an unhealthy and unreasonable stressing of science and mindless acquiesvence to scientific authorities driven by a liberal elite. I think the more obvious cause is a simple rejection of traditional religious authority. Science is just the scapegoat.
Comment by don provan — August 31, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Do Muslims have access to them?
They have access to some of them others they do not.
Disagree about what? People everywhere agree about somethings and disagree about others.
When we disagree we do it for the same reason you and I disagree about how to interpret the findings of science. We begin from different places.
You interpret scientific observations from your worldview I do the same from mine.
Majority vote is not the standard by which truth is judged.
I think you grossly underestimate the ability of folks to deceive themselves. People often believe things despite the evidence. That does not mean the evidence is defective it means people are defective.
I would argue that your question it’s self is evidence of your own self-denial when it come to human nature.
Volumes of research in the power of self-deception have been published yet you somehow expect people to agree based on the power of evidence why is that?
Calling a particular piece of evidence science does not somehow magically remove the tendency of humans to deceive themselves. It's what we do.
Just because someone denies that the world is round does not change the fact that this fact is confirmed from multiple sources.
Well adjusted folks don’t lose a lot of sleep worrying that somewhere someone might disagree with them and they certainly don't think that the fact that others disagree is somehow evidence that they are mistaken.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 31, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 7:53 pm
fifth monarchy man,
What do you mean by "confirm"? What I thought we were talking about was something that allows us to check for our self-deceptions. But in this last response, you tell me it's impossible to avoid self-deception. Can you clarify?
I see our positions somewhat differently. I fully understand that we will disagree, and I seek ways to resolve those disagreements. You observe that we'll always disagree because of our worldviews, but offer no solution to the problem. All you do is claim that your worldview is confirmable, but then you get testy when I point out that the Muslim doesn't get the same answers from his equally confirmable worldview.
Well adjusted folk try to resolve disagreements, they don't just claim a superior position by fiat.
Comment by don provan — August 31, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
It is what we were talking about. The problem is you seem to think that majority rule is what allows us to check our self deceptions. I disagree
That’s not what said? I said it’s impossible to override self deception in others. People will believe what they want to believe. I think this is one of the most well supported facts in cognitive science. Yet for some reason you wish to ignore it. I wonder why
On the other hand it’s very possible for our own self deception to be fixed we just have to really want to.
I have a solution but you won’t like it.
You did not say, let alone prove that the Muslim’s worldview is equally confirmable. You simple claim it is by…….. fiat.
What does that tell you in light of what you just did?
inconsistency is the not only the sure sign of a failed argument it’s the hallmark of self deception.
hint hint
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 31, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 10:10 pm
don provan wrote:
"Most people" in this case being Don Provan, who is not very imaginative. Not that you'd have to be imaginative to come up with something better than what we have today; you'd just have to be less of a bootlicker.
All government-funded research in its entirety available free on the Internet would be nice, as would free access to the latest issues of journals in public libraries not located on university campuses. It's not like they'd have to pay for a stack of science journals for practically every hotel room in America.
Once again, "most people" equals Don Provan. Speak for yourself, Don, don't presume to speak for others.
It's impossible to make every single person an expert in every scientific field. What is possible is to stop selling science as the end-all and be-all of existence and propagandizing scientific authority as ordination.
This is especially true when it comes to mixing politics and science, since science-as-religion is curiously sold as a non-religion and thus isn't properly separated from the government like the church is.
Most of the process within the scientific disciplines is fine, Don. The problem arises when unscrupulous people (most of them laymen, by the way, and some of them even well-intentioned) pull and stretch science out of its proper boundaries to cover social issues it should never encroach upon.
For example, let's go back to Agent Orange. How dangerous is it, Don?
One set of authorities says you don't need protective gear to get within 10 feet of it, while another set does.
Which set of authorities do you believe when they both claim to have science on their side? What measurement or methodology would you use to make such a decision?
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 31, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 10:37 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
Go to Wikipedia's article on Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins: Health effects in humans. Scroll down to see health effects in animals, where more controlled studies have been done. The most significant adverse effects are developmental and thus appear in children of the exposed.
Comment by olegt — August 31, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
September 1st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I don't know that that would really make any difference whatsoever, especially since you could just as logically complain that they're placed in public libraries and not in your hands. But, in any case, is there anything stopping you from doing that? I don't know of any.
Wait. They'd have to pay? Who? You're objecting because the people that produced the information are not paying to make it easy for you to get it? What makes you think that's fair?
You're confusing two things. One is accessiblity, and nothing you've said actually supports a claim that that's a problem, and it's not a problem because the entire system is based on it not being a problem. The other thing is distribution. You are free to recommend and campaign for distribution that's more convenient to you, but I can't see how it's reasonable for you to claim the distribution system is broken simply because your home isn't a university library.
That's a different issue. You are free to debate with someone that sells science as the end-all and be-all and explain to them what you think is more important and why.
The point we were discussing is whether the results of science are published "in the open". You concede that expertise is required, but you still seem opposed to the application of scientific expertise.
We've established that as the problem. I've been asking you how we resolve the problem by identifying such abuse. Science is designed to minimize this problem, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. What I'm trying to understand is what you think is wrong with the current procedures and how you think they could be improved. Abuse happens, but science seems to be the only thing preventing abuse from happening much, much more.
Let's take an example. Let's say we implement your plan and publish every scientific finding for free on the Internet, available to all. How do you and I determine which information so published was produced by unscrupulous people (most of them laymen, by the way, and some of them even well-intentioned) that pull and stretch science out of its proper boundaries to cover social issues it should never encroach upon?
Yes, exactly. How do we decide? How does calling one or the other "scientism" help?
Comment by don provan — September 1, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
September 1st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I have no idea how you got that impression. It's almost the exact opposite of what I think.
I have fixed my self deception, and I think you have not. Presumably you feel the same about me. How do we proceed?
Of course. That's precisely the point: I did exactly the same thing you did. Now how do we decide whether it is you or the Muslims that are deceiving themselves?
What did I do? You think I'm a Muslim?!
Comment by don provan — September 1, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
September 1st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Possibly it was the fact that the first critique you offered to my approach was that Muslims disagreed with me. Implying that if they agreed it would count as evidence in my favor
It seems to me you are of two minds.
On the one hand you pretend to value science as the only way to determine truth and on the other you tout the idea that science might be a way to settle arguments as support for your approach. This is a very unscientific reason for holding a worldview.
You are a bundle of contradictions.
I continue to point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in your position and get on with my life. At the same time looking to my own worldview to root out hidden inconsistencies therein
You claimed by fiat that Muslims had equally confirmable positions as mine. Then you claimed (also by fiat) that………………
Quote:
End quote:
This is a bold faced contradiction in your approach
The same way we decide whether it is you or me who are deceiving ourselves.
We look at which of us has the most glaring inconsistencies in our position.
So far in our case the answer is obvious for all to see.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 1, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
September 1st, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Nope. If Muslims agreed with you, I'd just find someone else that disagreed with you. This isn't a numbers game; I'm just trying to understand how you approach disagreement.
Dunno where you got the idea I value science as the only way to determine truth. Science is effective, that's true, but science cannot tell us everything.
I pointed out that a Muslim could claim by fiat exactly what you claimed by fiat. I think you're both making bogus claims, which was the entire point.
The good news is that you see the flaw in the Muslim's position. The bad news is that you cannot see that your position has the identical flaw.
So you think you cannot deceive yourself as long as you're consistent? Have you ever asked yourself whether your belief that you are consistent is a self deception?
Comment by don provan — September 1, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 am
Give us a list of your other means of confirmation please so we can evaluate it.
This whole conversation began after all because you claimed that mine were insufficient.
You claimed this but offered no evidence.
This is definition of claiming something by fiat.
Yet apparently you still don’t understand how this illustrates an inconsistency in your position. amazing
Yes that is why I am constantly looking for hidden inconsistencies in my position. Duh.
This is not rocket science.
The rest of the world does this stuff everyday. You might give it a try
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 2, 2010 @ 7:06 am
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:38 am
angryoldfatman wrote:
It's already available to you courtesy of your local U. Anyone living in the area can get access to the U. library. Go down to the stacks area and read the articles.
Public libraries subscribe to only a few scientific journals like Nature and Science. They don't have the readership that would justify subscribing to Cell, Physical Review and other major science journals.
The NIH already requires of NIH-sponsored researchers to make their work public:
Scientists in other fields have already been making their research papers available on preprint archives such as this one: arXiv.org. All of my research papers are placed there before they are even accepted for publication.
So don't whine, aofm. Drag your butt to your local U. and read up on the literature. Write to the authors of a paper that you'd like to read and ask for a copy in PDF.
Or you can just sit there and whine. The choice is yours.
Comment by olegt — September 2, 2010 @ 8:38 am
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 am
Given that coming to terms (in a very minor sense) with my research field has taken me 8 years of full-time study, I find the suggestion of scientific information as detailed as that found in research papers (with all it's esoteric terminology) being accessible to the lay public laughable at best.
Olegt seems to be arguing along the lines of possibility, rather than plausability. Of course it is possible that anyone can drive to a university campus and spend many hours in the library investigating one paper and any interesting/required cited articles. Of course it is possible they could do this many times over the course of a year (time and ecomony permitting) and become an expert in a very small field of science. But is it really plausible for the lay public to do so?
Comment by Euphrates — September 2, 2010 @ 8:59 am
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:26 am
Of course not. That's why interpreting intermediaries can have more impact than original researchers. Most papers do not lend themselves to controversy. But some do and that's where interpretive summaries can have a big societal impact. If interpretations have a consistent sociological theme we're likely looking at dynamics that are sourced less in science than in politics.
Comment by Bradford — September 2, 2010 @ 10:26 am
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
olegt wrote:
Ah. olegt's methodology to determine scientific validity is to go to Wikipedia. Good going, Oleg!
The problem with using that particular Wikipedia article (besides the fact that it's not a reliable source) is Agent Orange was not a dioxin. Dioxins very sparsely contaminated the defoliant due to occasional manufacturing defects, which in turn were caused by trying to manufacture large amounts of it in a short time frame.
Rodents, birds, and fish. Not only are they not human, we don't know if they were tested with these substances in the same manner saccharin was tested, which pretty much guaranteed harmful outcomes for the test groups.
With other factors (Dad missing for years, comes home an alcoholic or drug addict, traumatized by guerilla warfare, etc.) completely ignored, unless they put the children in a Skinner box.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 2, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
don provan wrote:
No, I couldn't logically say the same thing about public libraries, Don. They're not on college or university campuses. I know this will surprise you, Don, but not everybody lives in a college town. Also, not everybody is welcome freely on a college campus.
As far as what stops laymen from doing so, I told you before – time and money. That's why I suggested the Internet first – once you pay for your connection, which most laymen do via their cable TV provider anyway, you can visit and read to your heart's content.
I've got a meeting to go to, so I'll just skip down to the bottom of your reply. If there's something you want me to address there, remind me and I'll do so.
I have found a question you refuse to answer. Go me!
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 2, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
September 10th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Confirmation? I'm not sure how that applies here. Science is a means of discovering and confirming what is and isn't. But I don't consider science's domain the limit of truth. We have to apply values to decide how to act. This results in truths with a small "t" that our society adopts, such as the desirability of fairness and honesty. Are you asking about the process by which we've arrived at those standards?
Maybe it would help if you give us your list of other means of confirmation so I can understand what you're after. This whole conversation began, after all, when I asked you for that.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were agreeing that Muslims make that claim by fiat. If they don't, then let's go back and you can tell me how you and the Muslims make conflicting claims that are not by fiat. After all, that's why I brought the Muslims up: I'm trying to understand how your method can confirm truth when the Muslims also say they have a method for confirming truth, yet the truths their method confirms disagrees with yours.
But wait. Aren't you making a claim by fiat when you say that I am making a claim by fiat when I say the Muslims are making of claim by fiat? I don't see you offering any evidence, either.
This isn't just a joke. One very common way people decieve themselves is by identifying problems in conflicting points of view without noticing that their own point of view has the same problem. You are rejecting my point of view and the Muslim point of view without having to reevaluate your own point of view.
We all do it. The problem is determining which of us has been successful and which not. You are simply declaring I have failed without explaining what I could do better. On the other hand, I am pointing out a simple failure — you and Muslims use the same technique, yet disagree — and ask you to resolve that inconsistency. Instead, you just accuse me of being inconsistent even though, as usual, my position isn't even on the table because it's entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
Comment by don provan — September 10, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
September 10th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
"Not everyone lives near a public library. Also, not everyone is welcome freely in public libraries." See how easy? In addition, public libraries would be hugely more expensive if they had room and funds to maintain the huge amount of specialized information we're talking about. Universities are designed specifically as places to go to get this level of detailed information.
And as I told you before, it is appropriate that the expenses in both time and money be born by the person desiring the information, not the person providing it.
This is, of course, exactly where the information is today. I just wanted to make sure we were all past it being in public libraries. Now tell me what's missing from the current distribution of this information on the Internet.
Oh! I'm so sorry! I thought the answer was obvious, but I'll be explicit: I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how dangerous Agent Orange is.
Comment by don provan — September 10, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
September 10th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
This is quite true, of course. No one here seriously thinks angryoldfatman would ever be able to understand the information he's asking for even if it were available to him.
That's the issue. angryoldfatman says the system is insufficient, yet no possible improvement would solve his problem. What do we do? olegt and I are suggesting that we don't need to do anything because the current system provides exactly what's needed to exactly who can use it. It does not restrict the information to some priesthood free to manipulate it however they want, which seems to be what angryoldfatman is suggesting.
From what you're saying I gather that you, for example, have yourself entered into the elite of some scientific field. Do you feel you've entered a closed society that's trying to deceive laymen? Or are you now in a position to give angryoldfatman expert opinion about your field even though he would not be able to confirm it personally?
Comment by don provan — September 10, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
September 10th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
This extremely important observation is very true. It's true for science just as it's true for every other field. The one difference is that at least science does have that uncontroversial original research. This gives us a fighting chance to reveal such minipulation which is unavailable when dealing with interpretive summaries of political or religious issues.
Comment by don provan — September 10, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
September 10th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
No I’m asking how you confirm that what you believe is the truth.
You heap scorn on those of us who accept that some things are true dispute them not being susceptible to scientific confirmation. You then claimed that you don’t hold that science is the only way for determining if something is true.
I’m only asking for you to list the ways other than science that you use to confirm the truth of a proposition.
What? I’ve already mentioned things like
Personal experience, Scripture, The testimony of the Holy Sprit, input from my senses, reasoning and logic, etc etc etc . Most folks have a variety of options available to them when confirming the truth of a proposition. You could not have missed it because you went on to ridicule it.
This is not rocket science it is common sense
Don don’t be so obtuse. Muslims have evidence for their claims the same as I do. The reason that I am not a Muslim is because I believe after evaluating the evidence that their claims are lacking in merit.
The only one making a claim by fiat here is you.
Oh DP……..
The evidence is that you offered no evidence…..Duh
let's review
you claimed that just a few posts ago that.
Quote:
End quote
And now you are making a claim by fiat (with out evidence)!!!!!!!!
The DP approved syllogism would read thusly
Major premise…. Well adjusted folks don’t make claims by fiat
Minor premise….. DP makes claims by fiat
Conclusion………DP is not well adjusted
Do you see the inconsistency in you position? If not I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Sorry DP but you have no idea what you are talking about. My point of view is constantly being reevaluated.
I’ve spent hundreds of hours studying the arguments of Islam and Scientism. I’ve read all of the literature coming from these two positions that I can get my hands on.
I’ve also spent countless hours exploring arguments against my position from all sides. It's a hobby of mine and a command from my Lord.
You on the other had don’t seem to have ever looked at anything from an intelligent Christian perspective.
You could start by reading your earlier posts before you contradict them less than 6 inchs down the page.
This is not hard. Ask yourself, “Do I live by the standard I profess?”
The answer is obviously no. If you did you would simply die while trying to “confirm” you weren’t a brain in a vat.
First of all you have yet to prove that Muslims use the same method.
Secondly what inconsistency? I never claimed that everyone will agree on the truth. Your method is not any more effective than mine in this regard as witnessed by the Muslim I linked to who denied that the earth was round
When people deny the truth it’s a problem with people not the truth.
What are you talking about?
I don’t need you to spell out your life’s creed for me to know you are inconsistent all I need to do is compare one post with the next.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
September 13th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Sertiously, I'm very sorry to hear that you think that, by asking questions about it, that I am heaping scorn. Please point out anything I've said that suggests any value judgement at all about what you believe, and I'll clarify or retract it. I have only been pointing out that other people believe different things with just as much confidence in them as you have in what you believe.
OK, I see our problem. For you, "confirm" merely means making it internally consistent with other beliefs. So someone with different beliefs would be able to confirm your position.
This is not the same as scientific confirmation, which requires only belief in the reality we already depend on in our everyday lives. I was confused because you seemed to be suggesting the same level of universal confirmation in Christianity.
As we've discussed, that scientific certainty is limited, so we all must add a layer of value judgement to run our lives. I apologize for whatever I said that suggested to you that I thought I did something better. If you had simply said, "I believe these things, I've determined that they are internally consistent, and I think they are best," I wouldn't have said anything. That's what anybody reasonable does.
But when you said, "Christianity offers the possibility of confirmantion," I thought you were saying that Christianity offered something beyond that, confirmation in the same sense that scientific claims can be tested. I'm glad we cleared up that belief in Christianity was required for "confirmation" in the sense you were using it, but I'm sorry I've made you so angry in the process.
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2010 @ 11:59 am
September 13th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Sorry, this mistake slipped through the preview. Of course, I meant, "So someone with different beliefs would not be able to confirm your position."
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
September 14th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Hey DP,
No need to be sorry. I'm not offended by scorn in fact I rejoice in it. (Matt 5:11-12)
However you haven't asked many questions as far as I can tell. What you have done is claim “by fiat” that my position is inferior to yours. You have done this repeatedly with statements like these.
Do you see why unproven attacks like this against a worldview you reject for no good reason could be seen as attempts to scorn?
When did you point that out?
All Ive seen is repeated claims “by fiat” that my worldview is equall to others you reject and equally inferrior to scientism.
The fact that people have confidence in their worldviews is patently obvious. That's what it means to believe something.
Confidence has zero to do with confirmation. I (or you) can be 100 percent confident in our positions and still be 100 percent wrong.
You are confident in your position and yet any objective observer can see by your inconsistencies that you are mistaken.
No confirm means to verify the truth of a proposition….. full stop.
We (both of us) do this by testing it's relationship to other things we know to be true.
That is exactly what the confirmation I'm describing requires .
Scientism on the other hand requires we ignore large parts of the reality we depend on in our everyday lives and instead only treat the material as real.
There you go again heaping scorn on my beliefs.
You were confused because you some how think that scientific confirmation equals universal confirmation.
That is the very definition of Scientism and it is a huge leap of faith not supported by any evidence what so ever.
Scientifc confirmation does not equall universal confirmation as Ive already shown with my link.
Right now you are posting on a website that is dedicated to discrediting a claim that you believe to be scientifically confirmed. If that doesen't show you that your faith is false nothing will.
Christianity like most worldviews confirms beliefs in the same way scientific claims are confirmed by comparing them to what we know to be true.
The only difference is all other worldviews allow all areas of reality to influence the confirmation and scientism limits itself to only one small part that is unconfirmable by it's own standards.
No, anyone can confirm my beliefs by seeing if they are internally consistent with each other and with the "reality we already depend on in our everyday lives".
That’s how I tested yours and how I knew they were false.
This is not rocket science It is common sense.
peace
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 14, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
September 15th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
1. I don't recall saying anything about my position.
2. I pointed out that from an impartial point of view, Muslims have a point of view that appears equally valid to yours.
3. I asked you to help me understand why these two positions, both held by people confident they have "confirmed" their positions, do not agree.
I don't see much point in continuing this conversation if you insist on considering that sincere and friendly approach to understanding your position "heaping scorn".
What do you consider universal confirmation? As far as I know, scientific confirmation is the only form of confirmation based on assumptions about reality that we all share, i.e., are universal assumptions.
The science is being discredited by showing that the specific confirmation is invalid, not by denying scientific confirmation in general. Yes, humans perform science and interpret religious text, and humans are imperfect, so their results can be flawed. All fields of study have that unavoidable problem. Scientific confirmation is fundamentally different than other fields because it eliminates the requirement for additional beliefs beyond our everyday understanding of reality, not because it is perfect.
They can confirm a Muslim's beliefs and Richard Dawkins's beliefs the same way. Do you agree?
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
September 15th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Pretending that you don’t actually hold to the position you are advocating comes off as cowardly as well as dishonest. I’m reasonably sure you know that your on again off again feigned neutrality is not only completely unbelievable but also harmful to your case.
I can only guess you continue to try and keep up the charade in order to remain on what you believe is the offence with out having to justify your own worldview.
It doesn’t work; everyone knows what your position is. Your statements make it obvious. Pretending just makes you look silly.
Sorry this is merely a claim "by fiat" for which you have offered no evidence what so ever. This is exactly the sin you accuse me of yet you continue in your hypocrisy even after this was pointed out to you. Why?
Once again people (including you) believe what they want to believe. Even in scientism unanimity is not a perquisite for confirmation. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say it .
Not only are the assumptions of scientism not shared by all they are not even those of the majority.
Very few people believe that the materiel universe is the "reality we already depend on in our everyday lives". Yet Science as you define it is dependant on this unconfirmable assumption held by a small minority .
No one claimed scientific confirmation is invalid. It’s just as valid as every other means of confirmation.
Valid does not equal universal. If it did there would be no valid means of confirmation period.
There are no universally shared assumptions at least none that are admitted by all.
Exactly, science is on the same footing as those that I mentioned.
Sorry DP this is just incorrect.
Please read this slowly
None of the means of confirmation I’ve mentioned requires additional beliefs beyond our everyday understanding of reality.
please read it again untill it sinks in.
If you mean "can these folks use these methods?" of course they can.
If you mean "can they say their beliefs are true after employing them completely and correctly" then of course not.
Comparing our beliefs with each other and with the world is exactly how the rest of the world determines what is true . We do it every day. Many times a day.
That's how we do it with the claims of science as well.
Is it possible we are sometimes mistaken? Of course it is but we trust our facilities until it’s been shown that we have reason not to in a paticular case.
It’s only a particular strain of postmodernism that looks at certin beliefs as somehow off limits to the regular confirmation we do everyday and therefore subjective in nature.
It does this by making a faith assumption that is compleatly unconfirmed and subjective.
Do you see how your faith has limited your capacity to function in modern society?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 15, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
September 15th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
"It is a mistake to think 'scientific consensus,' of its own force, will dispel cultural polarization on issues that admit scientific investigation," said Kahan. "The same psychological dynamics that incline people to form a particular position on climate change, nuclear power and gun control also shape their perceptions of what 'scientific consensus' is."
From here:
Now that my position has been scientificly confirmed I wonder if DP will drop his naïve “science is different” faith statement.
If he does not it will only prove I'm right.
game over.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 15, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
September 16th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
You've made up a position for me, and now you're calling me dishonest for not defending it.
Comment by don provan — September 16, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
September 18th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
No I’m saying you appear to be dishonest when you refuse to admit to holding the position you are defending.
I just made the assumption that you hold the position you advocate on this forum.
You’ve stated repeatedly that science is special and all other forms of confirmation are deficient by comparison.
When you are challenged on the implications of this position you deny holding it. I apologize but this strikes me as being a little disingenuous on your part.
However if I’m incorrect and you are actually a secret critic of the worldview you advocate then it still seems that you are not being entirely up front with us.
I don’t mean this as an attack just an observation.
I am curious as to how you will respond now that it has been “scientifically confirmed” that the position you advocate (and may or not hold) is not correct.
It seems that if you actually believe that scientific findings are universal then you must abandon your belief now that it has been scientificly demonstrated that this is not the case.
If you don't actually believe what you post here then I suppose you will continue to make these sorts of claims. Although for the life of me I don't know why you would do so.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 18, 2010 @ 10:45 pm