Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Let me elaborate a bit on my previous post.
The reason you do not understand that you have a “philosophy of science” is probably that your philosophy is essentially the following: Intelligent Design is not and cannot be science because it implies a Designer, and science cannot possibly study the Designer. In other words, you and many of the other pro-evolution participants on these threads simply reject ID a priori because you do not like the religious *implications.*
In other words, the reason you do not recognize that science is defined by philosophy is that your own philosopy of science is in essence nothing more than an arbitrary assertion backed by nothing more than a personal bias. To put it more colloquially, it’s baloney. But that particular baloney is very popular these days, and you mistakenly think that popularity justifies it.
Conversely, many statements made by science cannot be received as objective truth, i.e. methodological naturalism is the reduced boundary of the scientific method.
The epistemic divide must be respected from both sides, or if it isn't then "methodological naturalism" must be trashcanned.
Scientists like Dawkins, Singer, Pinker, Lewontin and Monod do not respect the epistemic divide when they posit the theory of evolution as objective truth which by definition cannot be subjected to the scientific method (observer problem.) When they do this, these scientists reflect poorly on other scientists.
This is a great analogy, Alamo-Girl! Classical physics is thought to be (certainly by Niels Bohr) a special, "limited case" of a more general, comprehensive theory, quantum theory. Newtonian mechanics "works" perfectly well in our ordinary experience, which is confined to a certain range of scales and velocities that are . Yet we know that what appear as bodies in classical physics at the quantum level are not simple "bodies" as all. Also classical physics is predicated on a certain notion of determinism, which the quantum theory shows is not the actual case at all, that uncertainty is built into the very base of the system (so to speak).
Not to say that classical mechanics has at all been obviated by quantum theory: It is eminently valuable in making descriptions/predictions within the range of "normal" scales where the effects of the quantum of action are too small to notice, and where velocities do not approach the level where relativistic effects begin to kick in. Still the "Newtonian universe" fits into a wider, more comprehensive descriptive framework that includes both quantum and relativistic effects.
Thank you so much for your excellent observations!
Nails it.
First of all, science was originally called “natural philosophy.” Although we have a shorter name for it now, we could just as well still call it by that name.
Secondly, philosophy itself is what defines “science.” To put it another way, what you and I call “science” is defined, either implicitly or explicitly, by a “philosophy of science.” Your “philosophy of science” is apparently somewhat different than mine, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.
The main difference between you and me on this matter is that I recognize that I have my own “philosophy of science,” whereas you don’t even recognize that science is defined by philosophy. You think that science somehow stands above philosophy, which is profoundly wrong. And that is why so much of what you write on these threads in also profoundly wrong.
I disagree.
What I have said any number of times on these threads is that philosophy has been left in the dust by science.
Philosophy can..., well, philosophize, all it wants, but unless it can link its methods and results to something real, it is all just a mental experiment, with every practitioner having his/her own opinion, most of which disagree with one another. But philosophy does not and can not bring concrete evidence (e.g., the natural world) into the discussion because such evidence is no longer a part of philosophy.
You say, "philosophy itself is what defines 'science.'” Sorry to have to break this to you, but most scientists pay no attention to the ramblings of philosophy. Philosophy has been saying this and that for millennia, to little effect, but the scientific revolution a couple of hundred years ago took place largely because folks started ignoring philosophy and a lot of the other fuzzy subjects and started relying on the rationality and scientific method. You might say that science defined itself as a vastly different field from philosophy, and that has made a world of difference.
But philosophy and philosophers always seem to be whining, "But, but... we were here first! Pay attention to us. Please. Pleeeeeeease! Just a little! (Sob!)"
You have a very mistaken notion of what “philosophy” is. The post you just wrote is philosophy, for example. Bad philosophy, but philosophy nonetheless.
If scientists don’t pay any attention to philosophy, then they cannot possibly be good scientists. What we call the “scientific method” is itself a philosophy. If scientists don’t understand that, they are lost.
To say that science has passed up philosophy is a bit like saying that your shadow has passed you.
And as I said earlier, until you understand this, you have no hope in the world of understanding that your naturalistic premise is bad philosophy *and* bad science. Naturalism as a hypothesis is fine, but as a premise it is nothing more than a dogma.
Sorry, but dogma does not belong in science — whether it makes you feel good or not.
Thanks so much for your kind words, dear A-G! Unfortunately, there’s a “gap” in what I wrote, text missing probably because I messed up an HTML tag. LOL, but I can’t remember exactly what the missing text was! Jeepers.... But you “got it” anyway! Thanks.
LOLOL! It all seemed to flow perfectly to me. I would have never guessed anything was missing.
Leibniz has the third take and was probably right, as Herder suggested. James was on that track a century later. Now, yet another century later, the consciousness seems to be lodged in the claustrum and chooses whether to go ahead with motion the body suggests. Usually it says 'not,' which makes free will more of 'free won't.' That is, the consciousness decides to not do or lets the motion proceed. Cartesian duality is out.
Sounds heuristic if not dogmatic itself. Kind of a logic loop going there.
Excellent insight, RussP! IMHO You really hit the bull's-eye here....
Thank you so very much!
If you cannot see that dogma does not belong in science, then you must be ... an evolutionist!
Simply asserting that something is true does not make it true. And that includes naturalism, whether you worship that cow or not.
That’s just common sense, which seems to be in short supply these days.
Well, thanks. I certainly appreciate your insights too.
Most hard-core evolutionists don’t understand the difference between a hypothesis and a premise. Then they have the hubris to claim that “philosophy” is obsolete when if fact they simply fail to understand its most basic principles.
I don't know what you mean by saying "started naturally." What is the principle or cause that gives dumb matter a kick-start to get the evolutionary process going? Are you saying that atoms are "intelligent," and therefore "know" how to do such a thing?
It's much easier for me to understand (2) and (3).
(2) is an hypothesis that excites certain people, but not me. I surmise the "panspermia" theory of seeding by "space aliens" is advanced primarily for the reason that it would obviate the need of a divine creator-god. For that reason alone it would have irresistible attraction for certain people.
But you know, the panspermiasts really do not "obviate God" by taking this position. I mean, the space aliens had to come from somewhere, too. The panspermia theory does not moot the problem of a beginning of space and time out of nothing.
As for (3), what you refer to could not be a "divine intervention," for until the moment of the beginning, there was nothing to "intervene" in. God had to create "the whole ball of wax" first -- space, time, matter, laws; which is what I believe actually happened.
And there's nothing in science that falsifies this belief. Indeed, if anything, it is recent discoveries in science itself that appear to validate it (i.e., the big-bang/inflationary universe model, which is a science of ORIGINS. It stipulates a beginning of the universe in space and time; it does not identify the cause of this beginning. But that's not science's job to do. It is there to make physical descriptions of nature, not make metaphysical observations that cannot be supported by direct observation and replicable experiments.)
Coyoteman, you wrote: "It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)" But all means, continue to do that, Coyoteman. But don't get yourself trapped in "silos" of thinking. FWIW, truly I miss many of the recently departed "evos" -- you must be feeling like the "Lone Ranger" around here lately. Some of those people are first-rate thinkers and they were wonderful "adversaries" in debate.
Thank you so much for writing, Coyoteman!
My claim that dogma does not belong in science is not a scientific claim. It is a claim *about* science. It is a philosophical claim. Philosophical claims often cannot be proved. As the great mathematicial and philosopher Kurt Goedel said, “In any non-trivial axiomatic system, there are true theorems which cannot be proven.”
By the way, genius, are you saying that dogma *does* belong in science? Just what is your point?
Hi GourmetDan! Great post!
WRT to the above caption: To my way of thinking, the WAP is a cavil and a cop-out -- a rationalization to explain the universe without reference to a beginning in space and time, presumably caused by a divine creator. So we postulate multiworlds and infinite numbers of universes -- which is such a joke, because nobody has ever observed any of them nor is ever likely to, making the WAP completely impervious to actual scientific analysis.
So give me the SAP -- and give it to me full strength!!!! LOLOL!
Thanks so very much for your excellent essay/post!
What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?And this led you to debate the three choices.
The actual answer is that evolution could proceed as described with any of these three origins -- because evolution involves change, not origins.
FWIW, truly I miss many of the recently departed "evos" -- you must be feeling like the "Lone Ranger" around here lately. Some of those people are first-rate thinkers and they were wonderful "adversaries" in debate.
Its ironic that you miss some of the recently departed, as you and a number of others helped to run them off. You see mysticism and religious belief as equals with science; that might be acceptable in philosophy, but it doesn't cut it in science. But what was particularly galling was the number of times those supporting the theory of evolution were told by a few posters that they were going to hell, compared with Hitler and Stalin, or their years of study and research were denigrated on the basis of something quote mined from the web or lifted from some silly anti-science website like AnswersInGenesis. Then, a year or so ago when the admins and management started playing games and banning pro-science posters, many others took the hint and left. That is when Darwin Central was formed -- as a refuge.
Finally, I am certainly not feeling like the "Lone Ranger" (Hi Dave!). I have science on my side, so I have you outnumbered and outgunned! ;-)
The thing that bugged Polanyi and that initially drove his intellectual work in this area was that his experience with scientific discovery was very different from the systematic kind of process that's conventionally held to be the way discoveries are made. He found making discoveries to be an art, that it was not systematic in the strict sense, that it involved more than just being reasonable but also being creative. You can't just follow a set of steps to a new discovery; there's a leap involved and reason and the scientific method aren't enough to span the gap.
Anyway, he took this seed and branched out from it and wound up arriving at some very interesting conclusions that have powerful implications in the area of science/religion and evolution/design -- and also politics (Polanyi was a classical liberal, strongly anti-communist). He has a novelty and an importance that reminds me of Godwin. He's one of those guys that more people ought to be aware of.
Highly recommended if you get the chance:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.