Accepting an imperfect universe: The Birth of Science and the primacy of observation

[Nick Soapdish]

I would argue that we are imperfect, and therefore our knowledge is imperfect. Science, in stark contrast to religion, admits this fact.

Which religions do not admit that human knowledge is imperfect? The fact that humans are imperfect is actually a very dominant theme in Judeo-Christian religions.

It is the materialists and the naturalists that reject mysticism. In these philosophies, everything is physical and can be observed (or the effects of everything can be observed). They come the closest that I know of to any philosophy that claims that complete knowledge is even possible. Look at all of the seekers of the "Theory of Everything". And it is through science that they believe this knowledge is possible.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Which religions do not admit that human knowledge is imperfect? The fact that humans are imperfect is actually a very dominant theme in Judeo-Christian religions.

I meant that religions do not admit that all of human knowledge is imperfect; in other words, that they claim absolute and unreserved certainty in their beliefs (or some, at least). Clearly this is inaccurate of religions like religious humanism or Zen or many others, but it is still true of religions like Judaism and Christianity. In science, even something as basic and seemingly self-evident as the nature of time and space is recognized not as absolute truth but as an assumption whose value is determined by how well it fits observation.

That's the key: observation and reason. No a priori "knowledge" or revelations or infallible sources of authority allowed. Assumptions are allowed, but they are always open to being toppled by observation.

It is the materialists and the naturalists that reject mysticism. In these philosophies, everything is physical and can be observed (or the effects of everything can be observed).

More precisely, I can say things about the physical/observable with some confidence, however, while things that are non-physical/unobservable may exist, I can't say anything about them with any confidence.

They come the closest that I know of to any philosophy that claims that complete knowledge is even possible. Look at all of the seekers of the "Theory of Everything". And it is through science that they believe this knowledge is possible.

If by complete knowledge you mean the ability to explain all observable phenomena via a single set of equations, then yes; but even a unified theory of everything would be subject to change if observation contradicted it.

That is what sets science apart from religion. Observation overwhelmingly indicates that the Earth was not created in six days, that people cannot come back from the dead spontaneously, that Reiki and other "faith healing" methods don't work; yet, many people believe in these things anyway, because faith and a priori knowledge of these things trumps observation (in their view).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Hi Spinks,

I decided to answer you in one big post as the breaking it up point-by-point seemed to make it loose continuity.

So first off, I believe you are mis-characterizing religious truths. Every person ought to be humble in their beliefs and recognize their understanding has lots of room to grow and mature. This is true of the biologist and the religious scholar. This is not to say we should not be confident in our beliefs, but asserting that any knowledge is infallible is arrogant whether you are talking about which basketball player is a better dunker, or how scripture should be interpreted. We should all revise our understanding of things when confronted with new information we perceive as true. There are both scientists and religious followers that violate this sort of humility.

Also, I think I need to address what we mean by "science". We are talking about claims of truth, and truth is really a subject of philosophy, so we ought to be comparing philosophy to philosophy if we are to make an apples to apples comparison.

There are two dominant philosophies of science: instrumentalism and realism. At first I thought your position was that of an instrumentalist--that is, science is useful for predicting outcomes, but it makes no claim as to what is real. Realism, on the other hand, suggests that science is revealing "truth" in a sort of platonic way.

So I would agree with you that there is a difference between instrumentalism and religion, in that one makes a claim as to what is true and the other does not.

However, it seems that you are implying that science can disagree with religion, or contradict it. In this case, science is making a claim as to what we should consider true, or not true, and therefore, I tend to believe you are not taking the position of an instrumentalist.

So it seems the point of disagreement is what we ought to consider is a reliable source of "truth". I think we both agree science is a reliable source.

However, there is a problem with science. It is very efficient with regards to the kind of knowledge we need for the development of technology. However, it is not very efficient with regards to developing the kind of wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships. It seems to me if we are to have a philosophy that is strong in those areas, we will need to have a philosophy that relies on truths that come from a source other than science.

Of course, it is possible to have a moral philosophy that does not require "a priori" knowledge, however, it is my opinion that it is important to adapt ideals that you have confidence in their truth. Otherwise, the adopted morality is done so with an "appreciation of the philosophy", or just "what I'm going with now", without the weight of knowing it to be true. In this case, the morality is softened and can quickly be made insignificant in stressful situations. Is it possible to have this confidence in the truth of a moral philosophy while disregarding a priori knowledge?

I personally do not accept all claims of a priori knowledge or "revelation" as true, as Christianity is the only religion that I have placed my faith in to accepting its teachings as the truth.

 

[Fatmop]

I think even the instrumentalist version can disagree with religion - if religion takes it upon itself to predict future outcomes, or describes happenings found to be impossible according to any instrumentalist model.

Certainly, both philosophies disagree with the literal translation of Genesis; geology and paleontology clearly predict what should happen deep underneath the Earth, and it just doesn't coincide at all.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I think even the instrumentalist version can disagree with religion - if religion takes it upon itself to predict future outcomes, or describes happenings found to be impossible according to any instrumentalist model.

Certainly, both philosophies disagree with the literal translation of Genesis; geology and paleontology clearly predict what should happen deep underneath the Earth, and it just doesn't coincide at all.

Actually, you are correct. An instrumentalist may reject religion based on its lack of predictive power. Good observation! Spinkles position isprobably closer to instrumentalism than realism when considering this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, there is a problem with science. It is very efficient with regards to the kind of knowledge we need for the development of technology. However, it is not very efficient with regards to developing the kind of wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships. It seems to me if we are to have a philosophy that is strong in those areas, we will need to have a philosophy that relies on truths that come from a source other than science.

What a remarkable example of sophomoric theobabble. Contrary to atofel ...

• The value of science lies in the relative reliability of its methods.
• The "wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships" is the product of social experimentation in the course of millenia of cultural development and no more owes its existence to 'revealed' truths than does my mother's chicken soup.
• Any "philosophy that relies on truths" must first successfully argue the criteria for selecting such "truths".

Atofel reasons: science "is not very efficient" in some areas, therefore we need unverified and unverifiable claims of revelation from God(s). The argument does not even rise to the level of non sequitur.

 

[Quiddity]

However, there is a problem with science. It is very efficient with regards to the kind of knowledge we need for the development of technology. However, it is not very efficient with regards to developing the kind of wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships. It seems to me if we are to have a philosophy that is strong in those areas, we will need to have a philosophy that relies on truths that come from a source other than science.

Atofel reasons: science "is not very efficient" in some areas, therefore we need unverified and unverifiable claims of revelation from God(s). The argument does not even rise to the level of non sequitur.

Seeing as to how you would most likely borrow some morality from theist with your statement of:

That is a truly dangerous and stupid proposal: "atheist country" and "theocracy" are similarly cancerous - only the doxa differ.

Threre is a middle ground that you seek I'm sure. Accepting only that which is veriable and measurable but borrowing from subjective ideals that are more commonly theist. Quite a system you got there. Maybe science will fill in the gaps for you. Good Luck.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seeing as to how you would most likely borrow some morality from theist with your statement of: ...

What does this mean? Please do not confuse 'borrowing morality from a theist' with 'borrowing theistic morality' - particularly since I see no evidence that the latter exists in any meaning way.

 

[Quiddity]

What does this mean? Please do not confuse 'borrowing morality from a theist' with 'borrowing theistic morality' - particularly since I see no evidence that the latter exists in any meaning way.

Correct, theistic morality. How you came to borrow and find evidence for everything that pertains to morals is beyond me.

~Victor

 

[Nick Soapdish]

What a remarkable example of sophomoric theobabble.

I love your posts, Deut, they are so dramatic.

The value of science lies in the relative reliability of its methods.

Ok, that seems obvious. I will clarify my statement: Science can be useful to allow us understand the world around us.

The "wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships" is the product of social experimentation in the course of millenia of cultural development and no more owes its existence to 'revealed' truths than does my mother's chicken soup.

A millennia of cultural development and social experimentation? That does not sound concise, readily understandable or efficient. No doubt there is value in learning from experience. People seem to learn most effectively from their own experience, and from what I can tell, most people don't seem to have sufficient faith and diligence to learn effectively from other people's experiences. But hey, if they do, history gives us a wealth of lessons, including how to be an effective dictator, how to get laid every night, and how to avoid getting caught by the law.

* What is the evident criteria for judging what we should consider moral and immoral?

* Does this cultural development teach us that it is good to be humble?

* Following your first bullet point and the value of science, does your "social experimentation" qualify as good science and bad science? What sort of control does this experimentation have?

Atofel reasons: science "is not very efficient" in some areas, therefore we need unverified and unverifiable claims of revelation from God(s). The argument does not even rise to the level of non sequitur.

If the truth of Christianity were obvious, it would not require faith.

 

[Quiddity]

If the truth of Christianity were obvious, it would not require faith.

:clap .... .

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

And if scientific 'truths' about the world were obvious, we would not need research.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I love your posts, Deut, they are so dramatic.

If you say so ...

Ok, that seems obvious. I will clarify my statement: ...

Thank you.

A millennia of cultural development and social experimentation? That does not sound concise, readily understandable or efficient.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the use of the term "millennia" suggests something other than efficiency.

People seem to learn most effectively from their own experience, and from what I can tell, most people don't seem to have sufficient faith and diligence to learn effectively from other people's experiences.

Furthermore, an extended history gives the species adequate time to select on the basis of an adequate (and adequately balanced) predisposition towards such things as recipricol altruism. We were a biologically and ecologically successful social species long before you (or anyone else) found Jesus.

What is the evident criteria for judging what we should consider moral and immoral?

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What is relevant is the degree to which it can be shown that revealed truth is the source of morality. Parroting Hammurabi's Code or the 'Golden Rule' is underwhelming evidence for such an assertion.

Does this cultural development teach us that it is good to be humble?

Yes. Something that looks very much like humility can be found in all primates. It is also noteworthy that humility is addressed, for example, in the Tao Te Ching (77) ...

The Tao of heaven is like the bending of a bow.
The high is lowered, and the low is raised.
If the string is too long, it is shortened;
If there is not enough, it is made longer.
The Tao of heaven is to take from those who have too much and give to those who do not have enough.
Man's way is different.
He takes from those who do not have enough to give to those who already have too much.
What man has more than enough and gives it to the world?
Only the man of Tao.
Therefore the sage works without recognition.
He achieves what has to be done without dwelling on it.
He does not try to show his knowledge.​

... again, long before you (or anyone else) found Jesus.

Following your first bullet point and the value of science, does your "social experimentation" qualify as good science and bad science?

No.

If the truth of Christianity were obvious, it would not require faith.

As is identically true of all superstition and delusion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

atofel,

Hi Spinks,

I decided to answer you in one big post as the breaking it up point-by-point seemed to make it loose continuity.

So first off, I believe you are mis-characterizing religious truths. Every person ought to be humble in their beliefs and recognize their understanding has lots of room to grow and mature. This is true of the biologist and the religious scholar. This is not to say we should not be confident in our beliefs, but asserting that any knowledge is infallible is arrogant whether you are talking about which basketball player is a better dunker, or how scripture should be interpreted.

I agree with you. However, the adherents of countless religions throughout history do not. It really isn't about humility or a lack thereof, it's simply the difference between dogmatism and skepticism. Religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and others have traditionally held certain beliefs as unquestionable and certain sources of authority as infallible. I was wrong earlier, however, to generalize about all religions, and indeed many peoplein today seem to acknowledge some degree of agnosticism, i.e. "I believe in Islam but I realize that I don't know for sure."

I don't want to lose track of what my original points were when I started this thread (which was a long time ago!):

1. The rejection of geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism is not an example of the failure of the scientific method, but the triumph of it.
2. In science, a priori "truths" are recognized as the assumptions that they are, and when they conflict with observation or fail to explain anything meaningful found in observation, they are dropped (and rightly so).

We should all revise our understanding of things when confronted with new information we perceive as true. There are both scientists and religious followers that violate this sort of humility.

Agreed.

There are two dominant philosophies of science: instrumentalism and realism. At first I thought your position was that of an instrumentalist--that is, science is useful for predicting outcomes, but it makes no claim as to what is real. Realism, on the other hand, suggests that science is revealing "truth" in a sort of platonic way.

I do not see the two as necessarily incompatible, especially when one considers two important aspects of science: experiment and theory. One could say without contradiction that facts revealed by experiment constitute reality while theories developed from those facts constitute models which only approximate reality. (I prefer 'reality' to 'truth'. )

I definitely agree that "science" makes no claim as to what is real, because science is a method, and therefore cannot "claim" anything, real or otherwise. I certainly would not say that we should consider our scientific understanding as necessarily/absolutely "true" either. All explanations in science are approximate. What I would say is that things which are supported by observable evidence warrant confidence which varies with the amount and significance of that evidence. It's a sliding scale of confidence which I do not believe must ever cross over into absolute certainty or doubt. In light of my views, I find both the terms 'realist' and 'instrumentalist', as you have described them, confining.

So I would agree with you that there is a difference between instrumentalism and religion, in that one makes a claim as to what is true and the other does not.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

However, it seems that you are implying that science can disagree with religion, or contradict it.

Absolutely: when the two conflict, observation trumps a priori principles in determining what is true.

So it seems the point of disagreement is what we ought to consider is a reliable source of "truth". I think we both agree science is a reliable source.

Yes.

However, there is a problem with science. It is very efficient with regards to the kind of knowledge we need for the development of technology. However, it is not very efficient with regards to developing the kind of wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships. It seems to me if we are to have a philosophy that is strong in those areas, we will need to have a philosophy that relies on truths that come from a source other than science.

I think that science--particularly psychology, sociology, biology, and history--can be a very good tool in developing the kind of wisdom we can use with morality and the development of personal relationships. I don't think we need any source other than our own desire to be happy and our knowledge (supported by scientific study) that merely saturating the senses with pleasure does not make us happy in order to develop morality and personal relationships, and I would not think the problem could be solved anyway by making up or otherwise choosing arbitrarily/via personal preference a source of "truth" to fill this percieved gap.

But I don't see how this is really relevant to the topic of this thread....

Of course, it is possible to have a moral philosophy that does not require "a priori" knowledge, however, it is my opinion that it is important to adapt ideals that you have confidence in their truth.

I have confidence in what I can directly experience. It is my experience that I want to be happy and I also want other people to be happy. It is also my experience that when I am kind and generous to others I feel good--in fact it feels so good, that I have learned to be kind and generous even when it doesn't feel good, even when it feels quite bad, because I know that if I do, later I will feel good about it. I'm oversimplifying everything, of course, but my point is that one can both have a moral philosophy that does not require a priori knowledge and have confidence in its "truth".

Otherwise, the adopted morality is done so with an "appreciation of the philosophy", or just "what I'm going with now", without the weight of knowing it to be true. In this case, the morality is softened and can quickly be made insignificant in stressful situations. Is it possible to have this confidence in the truth of a moral philosophy while disregarding a priori knowledge?

Yes, I think so. Of course, the opposite problem is recurrent throughout history as well: with enough confidence in a priori "knowledge" morality can often be hardened to include things like stoning adulterers and torturing heretics and killing infidels; or regarding simple things like music and dance and left-handedness and homosexuality as "evil". Suddenly, absolute confidence in one's a priori knowledge doesn't seem like such a good thing after all. In this case, an equally valid question would be is it possible to doubt a moral philosophy without disregarding a priori knowledge?

I personally do not accept all claims of a priori knowledge or "revelation" as true, as Christianity is the only religion that I have placed my faith in to accepting its teachings as the truth.

Hey, I can't argue with faith.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

We were a biologically and ecologically successful social species

Not what I would call a great criteria for morality....

... again, long before you (or anyone else) found Jesus.

I certainly do not doubt that many moral teachings in Christianity are not exclusive to Christianity. Nor do I suggest that atheists cannot be good people. However, I am skeptical that an effective system of morality can be adopted without faith in something.

So just out of curiousity, where do you find your knowledge that it is good to be humble?

What is relevant is the degree to which it can be shown that revealed truth is the source of morality.

It is not evident to someone who does not accept it... it requires faith.

>Following your first bullet point and the value of science, does your "social experimentation" qualify as good science and bad science?
No.

Lol... didn't quite follow that, so let me re-ask. Is social experimentation a reliable/effective science?

As is identically true of all superstition and delusion.

True. I guess it is of great importance where we place our faith.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I agree with you. However, the adherents of countless religions throughout history do not. It really isn't about humility or a lack thereof, it's simply the difference between dogmatism and skepticism. Religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and others have traditionally held certain beliefs as unquestionable and certain sources of authority as infallible.

Hmm.. ok, so is verificationism infallible?

1. The rejection of geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism is not an example of the failure of the scientific method, but the triumph of it.

I agree! I have a lot of respect for Galileo. He certainly revolutionized science and I agree with his view on the relationship between science and religion.

2. In science, a priori "truths" are recognized as the assumptions that they are, and when they conflict with observation or fail to explain anything meaningful found in observation, they are dropped (and rightly so).

Makes sense to me.

I have confidence in what I can directly experience. It is my experience that I want to be happy and I also want other people to be happy. It is also my experience that when I am kind and generous to others I feel good--in fact it feels so good, that I have learned to be kind and generous even when it doesn't feel good, even when it feels quite bad, because I know that if I do, later I will feel good about it. I'm oversimplifying everything, of course, but my point is that one can both have a moral philosophy that does not require a priori knowledge and have confidence in its "truth".

But is it a good moral philosophy?? I mean, come on, we are talking about Mr. Spinkles here!

Your point is well taken... this is a topic I am going to have to think through a bit more. I'm betting there is a good deal of quality environmental influences to help you. Many people do not reach the same conclusions simply from personal experience.

I can tell you from my personal experience that I have made changes based on dogma to behaviors that I believed to be harmless. Consequently, I have found tremendous improvements in the quality of my relationship with my wife. In addition, I feel that Christianity has shined a bright light on many of my inadequacies and areas that need improvement (and there are plenty).

Yes, I think so. Of course, the opposite problem is recurrent throughout history as well: with enough confidence in a priori "knowledge" morality can often be hardened to include things like stoning adulterers and torturing heretics and killing infidels; or regarding simple things like music and dance and left-handedness and homosexuality as "evil".

I do agree with this.

In this case, an equally valid question would be is it possible to doubt a moral philosophy without disregarding a priori knowledge?

I certainly think it is possible to doubt a moral philosophy, but to ignore it would be to disregard the a priori knowledge it depends on.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmm.. ok, so is verificationism infallible?

Of course not.

But is it a good moral philosophy?? I mean, come on, we are talking about Mr. Spinkles here!

Hey, if selling enriched uranium to North Korea and using the profits to buy cigarettes for kids is wrong, I don't want to be right. :162:

Your point is well taken... this is a topic I am going to have to think through a bit more. I'm betting there is a good deal of quality environmental influences to help you. Many people do not reach the same conclusions simply from personal experience.

I learn from other peoples' experiences too, of course.

I can tell you from my personal experience that I have made changes based on dogma to behaviors that I believed to be harmless. Consequently, I have found tremendous improvements in the quality of my relationship with my wife. In addition, I feel that Christianity has shined a bright light on many of my inadequacies and areas that need improvement (and there are plenty).

Oh, there's no question in my mind that religious beliefs can be a great thing in peoples' lives.

I certainly think it is possible to doubt a moral philosophy, but to ignore it would be to disregard the a priori knowledge it depends on.

My point was simply that, while there can be drawbacks to not having absolute confidence in one's a priori beliefs, there can also be drawbacks to having absolute confidence in one's a priori beliefs. A lot of misery has been spread in the name of righteousness. (I seem to recall a famous quote along those lines.)

 

[Nick Soapdish]

> Hmm.. ok, so is verificationism infallible?

Of course not.

Maybe I should restate the question because I suspect you are considering whether the practice of systematic observation is ever flawed (which of course it can be--humans make mistakes). Rather, I am asking if the methodology in principle is an authoritative source of knowledge? In other words, if it is practiced perfectly, should systematic observation or verificationism ever be doubted? And if so, under what circumstance?

My point was simply that, while there can be drawbacks to not having absolute confidence in one's a priori beliefs, there can also be drawbacks to having absolute confidence in one's a priori beliefs. A lot of misery has been spread in the name of righteousness. (I seem to recall a famous quote along those lines.)

In most of those instances of spreading misery, I believe the use of the name of righteousness was at its core an act of politicking and manipulation of those less wise, and not from a genuine belief of being righteousness.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Maybe I should restate the question because I suspect you are considering whether the practice of systematic observation is ever flawed (which of course it can be--humans make mistakes). Rather, I am asking if the methodology in principle is an authoritative source of knowledge? In other words, if it is practiced perfectly, should systematic observation or verificationism ever be doubted? And if so, under what circumstance?

Even if it was practiced perfectly, there's no gaurantee that everything we experience and observe isn't just some demon tricking us. I would still certainly consider the methodology the most authoritative source of knowledge, just not an infallible one.

In most of those instances of spreading misery, I believe the use of the name of righteousness was at its core an act of politicking and manipulation of those less wise, and not from a genuine belief of being righteousness.

I think that view is incredibly naive. Crusaders wrote letters home--personal letters which were not written for posterity, but for personal reasons--about how wonderful it is that their sins will be absolved, how righteous their cause is, how they fell down and wept like babies when they first saw Jerusalem. The rapid conquest of the Sasanid Empire and the near conquest of the Byzantine Empire by relatively small Islamic forces cannot be explained without understanding the incredible piety and conviction of early Muslims. Suicide bombers, fanatical religious orders (like the Teutonic Knights), kamikaze pilots....these are people who most certainly did believe that what they were doing was right. Most people don't give up everything they have, including their life, for things they don't genuinely believe in.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Even if it was practiced perfectly, there's no gaurantee that everything we experience and observe isn't just some demon tricking us.

But scientists have faith this is not the case, right?

I think that view is incredibly naive. Crusaders wrote letters home--personal letters which were not written for posterity, but for personal reasons--about how wonderful it is that their sins will be absolved, how righteous their cause is, how they fell down and wept like babies when they first saw Jerusalem. The rapid conquest of the Sasanid Empire and the near conquest of the Byzantine Empire by relatively small Islamic forces cannot be explained without understanding the incredible piety and conviction of early Muslims. Suicide bombers, fanatical religious orders (like the Teutonic Knights), kamikaze pilots....these are people who most certainly did believe that what they were doing was right. Most people don't give up everything they have, including their life, for things they don't genuinely believe in.

You are probably right. I am thinking more along the lines of political authorities using religion as a tool to manipulate the masses (in similar ways to today's TV evangelists). The suicide bombers and fanatical orders believe what they do because someone is feeding them false information about their religion. So are the feeders aware the teachings are false? I suspect whoever came up with the idea to begin with is. But your point is well taken.