Scientific Naturalism and Culture Wars
reas...@my-dejanews.com
as we know it in modern culture has a rather uncritical religious
a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism
(http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=420234484).
There have also been a number of discussions initiated by another author
with a similar focus (http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=427877639).
In typical Usenetian fashion, there were a host of replies, many quite
thoughtful, which raised a number of issues and contested a number of
points. I was particularly gratified by the degree to which these replies
compelled me to think more deeply about the issues. I hope to eventually
continue dialogue regarding a number of those issues. This article is a
continuation of just one of those lines of discussion.
"Does science in general exhibit an a priori commitment to philosophical
naturalism?" For those folks who denied this is the case and demanded
evidence, I wanted to answer in part the demand for more evidence from
within the upper echelons of the naturalist science community itself.
The prevailing assumption in our culture is that what is referred to
as scientific "knowledge" is, at its foundations, based on impartial
consideration of evidence via the "scientific method". A demonstrated
a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism (or materialism, a
suitable synonym) would seemingly debunk this prevailing assumption as a
myth and have far-reaching implications.
What follows is a snippet from what I found to be a fascinating and
revealing review by Richard C. Lewontin, a highly respected evolutionary
biologist from Harvard, in the New York Review of Books online. One
opinion does not a consensus make, but Lewontin is a secular scientist
with impeccable credentials.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment,
a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
- Richard Lewontin, "The New York Review of Books", 1994
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?1997010928R@p7
Cheers.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
maff91
That's all very well as far as it goes but any change is going to be
unsettling for a section of the population. Industrial Revolution
produced such a change which caused much social dislocation and
turmoil. The information revolution is causing another such period in
our history. One can't bury the head in the sand and pretend it's not
happening; or like Tolpuddle martyrs hope to stop the change; or we
can at least try to educate so that the transition can be better
managed.
Thomas Paine
Sounds more like a fundy than a "secular scientist".
Even though I don't understand much of the more intense sciences around
cosmology, the big bang, biogenesis etc ... it always had logic. Mainly
because, no matter what the realm, the laws of physics and chemistry applied.
If he thought reality (scientific claims) were against common sense, then his
common sense must not include those laws.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Last month I posted an article regarding the assertion that "science"
>as we know it in modern culture has a rather uncritical religious
>a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism
of course, the use of the term 'religious' already biases the nature
of the debate. people of uncritical analytical abilities typically
frame the discussion in this context.
A demonstrated
>a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism (or materialism, a
>suitable synonym) would seemingly debunk this prevailing assumption as a
>myth and have far-reaching implications.
what debunks it is the ability of people WITH religious beliefs to be
scientists. thats ONE OPERATIONAL measure of the absurdity of your
statement.
>
>"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
>sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
>science and the supernatural.
ever read quantum mechanics? lewontin is right. QM is both against
common sense, and yet a facet of nature that has no parallel in
religion.
We take the side of science in spite of
>the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
>failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
>life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
>unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment,
>a commitment to materialism.
which is not philosophical naturalism, and says nothing about what
'materialism' is. science an OPERATIONAL definition of science
requires that it BE materially based, again, your statement above is
illogical.
It is not that the methods and
>institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material
>explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
>are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
>apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
>explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
>to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
>cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
'apparatus of investigation'....which is NOT a religion...so again,
your statement above is illogical. materialism is absolute? unless you
are saying that the supernatural=natural then lewontins statement is
completely true AND logical. for the METHODS of science do NOT allow
supernaturalism. if there are supernatural events, then the methods
used to investigate them are, by DEFINITION, not science. perhaps they
are some NEW methods but they are NOT science.
your illogical conclusion is driven by the confusion you have between
an operational definition of science that states it investigates
nature, and the definition favored by anti-science religious zealots
who say science states that ONLY what science investigates exists.
i suggest you think more critically both about your own position, and
the position of science.
YOELK
> In article <76r0vn$988$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, reas...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> ....
> >
> >"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
> >sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
> >science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
> >the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
> >failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
> >life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
> >unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment,
> >a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
> >institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material
> >explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
> >are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
> >apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
> >explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
> >to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
> >cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
> >
> > - Richard Lewontin, "The New York Review of Books", 1994
> > http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?1997010928R@p7
>
> I clipped your fine introduction only out of a desire to minimize the size
> of the message after my reply. I want to take exception to the idea that
> materialism is a synonym for naturalism. The current paradigm, scientific
> naturalism, may in fact have paired up with metaphysical materialism (i.e.,
> with a claim that the 'stuff' of the universe is matter), but naturalism
> can theoretically cohabitate quite comfortably with metaphysical idealism,
> or can be silent as regards the 'substance' or 'source' whence our
> experiences spring. Refer to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy for a
> discussion of the differences between naturalism and materialism.
> Naturalism insists only that the world forms a single 'sphere', without
> incursions from anything 'outside' and without granting concrete existence
> to such things as 'universals'.
>
> Lewontin seems to say that we have lost the point of the scientific
> enterprise -- which he seems to think is to comprehend the universe. Out of
> what is becoming a blind commitment to the current paradigm, we are
> constructing models that are certainly not comprehended by the average
> intelligent person, and we have even reached a point where the experts in
> these fields do not even attempt to comprehend their models -- they are
> content to tweak the equations, add dimensions, incorporate imaginary
> numbers, speculate on disturbances in vacuums, and dream about cats that
> are neither alive nor dead.
>
> But where do we go? Do you have thoughts on Thomas Kuhn's assertion that
> paradigm shifts will occur only when there is a clear failure of the
> current paradigm, _plus_ a fairly well specified alternative paradigm
> available that has shown clear promise, such that leaders in the field
> begin to promote it?
>
> Or have you thoughts on Wittgenstein's statement that at the core of every
> well-founded belief is a belief that is unfounded? This would suggest that
> there is no intrinsically 'better' paradigm to be had, at least, none that
> solves the essential problem posed by Lewontin, the problem that we will
> never have a fully solid picture of the world.
>
> Let it be granted that our current paradigm, scientific naturalism paired
> with metaphysical materialism, has led to absurdities or to
> incomprehensible models of the universe. Grant even that this problem will
> never be fully overcome within the current paradigm. Even if we agree that
> this state of affairs will never be overcome, this does not point to the
> availability of, or even a need for, an improved or 'better' paradigm in
> this regard. It could, of course, lead to a bit more humility, and
> willingness to explore alternatives.
>
> But there is a problem if it is suggested that there is a 'better'
> alternative. For example, take Lewontin's Divine foot in the door. Any
> paradigm that invokes a fundamental mystery, or miracle, or metaphysical
> consciousness, fails at the get-go as a potential solution to Lewontin's
> problem with the current paradigm, because it replaces the current
> absurdity, with a new and different absurdity at the core of knowledge. And
> we can never get away from that core. It irritates us, constantly drawing
> us back, since we are *starting* with absurdity.
>
> I guess what I am getting at is: Lewontin is right -- the current paradigm
> leads to absurdity. But his finding leads not only to a conclusion that the
> current paradigm is ultimately inadequate, it finds fault with any paradigm
> that attempts to structure our experience on a metaphysical foundation. We
> seek to comprehend the universe. Can we comprehend it in any way that is
> not "in terms of X" where X is an unfounded belief?
>
> Red
There are indeed many scientific theories that are difficult to settle with
common sense,
further , science starts where the common sense ends.
For instance, if we look at a solid iron bar, physics tells us that most of it
is nearly empty
and its mass is concentrated in a tiny fraction of its volume : the nuclei of
the atoms.
Another example: the human body is composed of many living cells which cooperate
and constitute the human organism.
Third example : Newton's second law is against the common sense that every
motion
requires a force (Aristotle's theory).
Science starts where people say that there is more then what meets the eyes, no
wonder the theories
that science yields look ridiculous.
But comparison of science to religion as a way to find the truth makes science
triumph.
The corner stone of science is doubt, trying to disprove theories,
Religion on the other hand marks doubt as a sin that may be punishable by
eternal fire.
Science tries to improve itself be introducing new theories that fit better the
facts,
it is the merit of science that it is changing and improving,
while religion is based on sticking to tradition and preserving it, proclaiming
its unchangeable dogma as a sign of truth.
Science is based on reason and observation/experiment while religion is based
on faith and revelations given in dreams and mystic visions of today and of
former times.
Bottom line :
The scientific method is far better then the religious method in understanding
and approximating
the reality. The assumption that there is more than meet the eye is much
smaller than the assumption that there is a supernatural omnipotent force that
has deep
interest in my sex life.
-----
YOELK
A Rotondi
reas...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> "Does science in general exhibit an a priori commitment to philosophical
> naturalism?" For those folks who denied this is the case and demanded
> evidence, I wanted to answer in part the demand for more evidence from
> within the upper echelons of the naturalist science community itself.
> The prevailing assumption in our culture is that what is referred to
> as scientific "knowledge" is, at its foundations, based on impartial
> consideration of evidence via the "scientific method". A demonstrated
> a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism (or materialism, a
> suitable synonym) would seemingly debunk this prevailing assumption as a
> myth and have far-reaching implications.
Not in the least. You seem not to understand the history or conduct
of science. It is not necessary for scientists to be impartial. What is
needed is that their analyses of data/evidence is valid and reliable. In fact
it is a strength of the scientific method that individual scientists
can have their own biases and pet theories, and pursue these
in valid ways, even if their view is contrary to the pervailing view, and
still
science can progress. Someone may have a commitment to philosophical
naturalism, someone may have a commitment to a god, that's fine,
as long as these beliefs do not create dishonest science. One could
even pursue these beliefs in their science, that's fine too, as long
as their pursuits are done in scientifically valid and reliable ways
and they produce positive additions to their theories.
What is not science is when one has to bend the data, use unreliable
or invalid methods, only recognize confirming evidence, inorder
to adhere to an a priori commitment to a conclusion, theory,
belief, or philosophical approach. This is not science.
Science as we know it is performed by humans, one need not
expect us to behave like emotionless robots, with no biases
or expectations. One can expect us to adhere to valid and
reliable methods however, despite our human condition.
> What follows is a snippet from what I found to be a fascinating and
> revealing review by Richard C. Lewontin, a highly respected evolutionary
> biologist from Harvard, in the New York Review of Books online. One
> opinion does not a consensus make, but Lewontin is a secular scientist
> with impeccable credentials.
This MAY establish his credentials/abilities to comment on evolution, it does
not
establish his ability to comment on science generally.