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

[Mr Spinkles]

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

I can't speak for scientists, I can only speak for myself. I acknowledge that it is possible that everything we experience is the result of demons playing a trick on us. In fact, there are an infinite number of things which I acknowledge are *possible*.

 

[Quiddity]

I think these demons MS speaks of are problematic not only for non-theistic scientist but to most everybody that can attach themselves to something that hinders them from making a fair conclusion. I have always been outspoken that the world view of a scientist will completely affect the conclusions he makes. We are all bias and I don't think it's about getting rid of the bias because I don't believe it's possible. It's about having the right bias.

~Victor

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I can't speak for scientists, I can only speak for myself. I acknowledge that it is possible that everything we experience is the result of demons playing a trick on us. In fact, there are an infinite number of things which I acknowledge are *possible*.

Let's back up a second. You say that we should consider systematic observation as the authority for what we consider to be knowledge. Yet, somehow this is different from appealing to some other authority as religion does because you have added this concession "but there is no guarentee, therefore it is not infallible". I am having trouble understanding the value or importance of this concession because you have not offered any way we could ever know it was "demons tricking us". From a pragmatic standpoint, the scientist will still insist on its authority.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

We are all bias and I don't think it's about getting rid of the bias because I don't believe it's possible. It's about having the right bias.

Well said!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's back up a second. You say that we should consider systematic observation as the authority for what we consider to be knowledge. Yet, somehow this is different from appealing to some other authority as religion does because you have added this concession "but there is no guarentee, therefore it is not infallible". I am having trouble understanding the value or importance of this concession ...

And that is worrisome- if not pathetic. To see no value in the insistence upon intersubjectively verifiable evidence and the recognition of fallibility says much about what is wrong and dangerous with religious orthodoxy.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

And that is worrisome- if not pathetic. To see no value in the insistence upon intersubjectively verifiable evidence and the recognition of fallibility says much about what is wrong and dangerous with religious orthodoxy.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I certainly see value in verificationism, and a recognition of fallibility is a humble and good position. However, we are not talking about the possibility of human error in the application of the scientific method, but rather the validity of the method itself. I fail to see the usefulness in stating that there is no guarantee that we can rely on systematic observation (i.e. in case demons are tricking us) because I have not heard how it is possible for us to ever know this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. ... I fail to see the usefulness in stating that there is no guarantee that we can rely on systematic observation (i.e. in case demons are tricking us) because I have not heard how it is possible for us to ever know this.

Fair enough. Permit me two observations:

1. It is logically true irrespective of whether or not you find that truth to be userful.
2. Implicit in that truth is the recognition that acceptance of the Supernatural pretty much destroys the possibility of any epistemology. Once you allow for supernatural agencies, you abdicate any right to any assurance about much of anything.

While this is clearly not an argument against the supernatural, it is, in my opinion, a useful and foundational realization, and one which flies in the face of orthodoxy.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think these demons MS speaks of are problematic not only for non-theistic scientist but to most everybody that can attach themselves to something that hinders them from making a fair conclusion. I have always been outspoken that the world view of a scientist will completely affect the conclusions he makes. We are all bias and I don't think it's about getting rid of the bias because I don't believe it's possible. It's about having the right bias.

~Victor

I agree with what you're saying except for that little word "completely" in there. There can be no doubt that the conclusions of a scientist are affected by his/her worldview. However, there is also little doubt that many scientists are also perfectly capable of making conclusions which fly in the face of their worldview. In fact, most of the history of science since Newton shows that scientists' worldviews are tugged along by observation. Kepler worked his whole life to prove his theory that planetary motion represented certain perfect geometries. He admitted failure and gave up his life's work when he postulated that orbits trace out ellipses rather than circles, and he did it because that was the only way he could explain the observed orbits precisely. Many scientists thought the universe was a deterministic clock, as predictable as a ball rolling down a hill....until quantum observations forced them to change this view. I myself experienced the same paradigm shift when I was confronted with the wave-like behavior of particles and the particle-like behavior of light.

Otherwise, I agree with you. In my opinion, the "right" bias is the bias of observation. We all want to know what reality is like, and what better way than to consult reality directly?

 

[Quiddity]

1. It is logically true irrespective of whether or not you find that truth to be userful.
2. Implicit in that truth is the recognition that acceptance of the Supernatural pretty much destroys the possibility of any epistemology. Once you allow for supernatural agencies, you abdicate any right to any assurance about much of anything.

Why you think epistemology destroys any possibility to the supernatural is beyond me. It is a branch of philosophy.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

I agree with what you're saying except for that little word "completely" in there. There can be no doubt that the conclusions of a scientist are affected by his/her worldview. However, there is also little doubt that many scientists are also perfectly capable of making conclusions which fly in the face of their worldview.

I hope you truly believe this MS. Because it has been my experience that theistic scientist are more commonly discredited.

In fact, most of the history of science since Newton shows that scientists' worldviews are tugged along by observation. Kepler worked his whole life to prove his theory that planetary motion represented certain perfect geometries. He admitted failure and gave up his life's work when he postulated that orbits trace out ellipses rather than circles, and he did it because that was the only way he could explain the observed orbits precisely. Many scientists thought the universe was a deterministic clock, as predictable as a ball rolling down a hill....until quantum observations forced them to change this view. I myself experienced the same paradigm shift when I was confronted with the wave-like behavior of particles and the particle-like behavior of light.

Very cool and interesting.

Otherwise, I agree with you. In my opinion, the "right" bias is the bias of observation. We all want to know what reality is like, and what better way than to consult reality directly?

Agreed to an extent. Because I obviously believe that subjectivism is at work in our mind and is largely ignored because it can't be measured.

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I hope you truly believe this MS. Because it has been my experience that theistic scientist are more commonly discredited.

Could you clarify what you're saying here?

Agreed to an extent. Because I obviously believe that subjectivism is at work in our mind and is largely ignored because it can't be measured.

Again, I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "subjectivism"? You mean like, if I measure something to be 5 cm and someone else measures it to be 5.1 cm?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's back up a second. You say that we should consider systematic observation as the authority for what we consider to be knowledge. Yet, somehow this is different from appealing to some other authority as religion does because you have added this concession "but there is no guarentee, therefore it is not infallible". I am having trouble understanding the value or importance of this concession because you have not offered any way we could ever know it was "demons tricking us". From a pragmatic standpoint, the scientist will still insist on its authority.

As Deut said, the concession is valid whether or not you see "value" or importance" in it. I agree with you that, for all practical purposes that everything is some trick by demons, or some other supernatural illusion, is trivial; but it's still there.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Fair enough. Permit me two observations:

1. It is logically true irrespective of whether or not you find that truth to be userful.
2. Implicit in that truth is the recognition that acceptance of the Supernatural pretty much destroys the possibility of any epistemology. Once you allow for supernatural agencies, you abdicate any right to any assurance about much of anything.

Ok, I am confused about where you are coming from. How does a lack of "assurance" ruin any possibility of epistemology? Perhaps you are not in agreement with Spinkles, but point (1) is in reference to his claim that science recognizes there are no guarentees to the authority of the scientific method. Using your logic, wouldn't this lack of "guarentee" ruin any possibility of epistemology too?

 

[Quiddity]

Could you clarify what you're saying here?

My bad. I misunderstood you when you said "which fly in the face of their worldview."
I got it now.

Again, I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "subjectivism"? You mean like, if I measure something to be 5 cm and someone else measures it to be 5.1 cm?

Ditto...

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

MS, what is meant by "trick of demons"? Does this include bias, emotional baggage, etc.?

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What do you mean by "subjectivism"? You mean like, if I measure something to be 5 cm and someone else measures it to be 5.1 cm?

Ditto...

Huh?

MS, what is meant by "trick of demons"? Does this include bias, emotional baggage, etc.?

No. When I say everything we observe/experience could be demons tricking us, I'm saying that literally, supernatural demons could be tricking us. What I'm saying is that there is no way for us to be certain about anything whatsoever if we allow for the influence of supernatural things/entities in our experience. Thus, for the sake of method, it makes sense for us to assume that they don't exist (or at least, that they have no effect on the world we observe and experience). If we don't make that assumption, then we literally have no way of distinguishing between the validity of any claims. To claim that supernatural demons cause lightning (and only make it appear to be caused by natural forces) would be no less valid than to claim that a supernatural god causes lightning or that an infinite number of other possible supernatural events "really" cause lightning.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

No. When I say everything we observe/experience could be demons tricking us, I'm saying that literally, supernatural demons could be tricking us. What I'm saying is that there is no way for us to be certain about anything whatsoever if we allow for the influence of supernatural things/entities in our experience. Thus, for the sake of method, it makes sense for us to assume that they don't exist (or at least, that they have no effect on the world we observe and experience). If we don't make that assumption, then we literally have no way of distinguishing between the validity of any claims. To claim that supernatural demons cause lightning (and only make it appear to be caused by natural forces) would be no less valid than to claim that a supernatural god causes lightning or that an infinite number of other possible supernatural events "really" cause lightning.

With regards to the initial discussion point of who claims infallible knowledge, is this assumption you have described significantly different than a theist conceeding that it is logically possible that God does not exist, however they have faith that God does exist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ok, I am confused about where you are coming from. How does a lack of "assurance" ruin any possibility of epistemology?

That's not what Deut said. He said "acceptance of the Supernatural pretty much destroys the possibility of any epistemology".

Perhaps you are not in agreement with Spinkles, but point (1) is in reference to his claim that science recognizes there are no guarentees to the authority of the scientific method.

Let's stick to stuff I actually said. I did not say that "science recognizes..." anything. Science is a method. People recognize things. And, as I said before:

I can't speak for scientists, I can only speak for myself. I acknowledge that it is possible that everything we experience is the result of demons playing a trick on us. In fact, there are an infinite number of things which I acknowledge are *possible*.

 

[Quiddity]

Huh?

I said "Ditto" because my latter statement was based off of my original understanding which I misunderstood. So just ignore that part..

No. When I say everything we observe/experience could be demons tricking us, I'm saying that literally, supernatural demons could be tricking us. What I'm saying is that there is no way for us to be certain about anything whatsoever if we allow for the influence of supernatural things/entities in our experience. Thus, for the sake of method, it makes sense for us to assume that they don't exist (or at least, that they have no effect on the world we observe and experience). If we don't make that assumption, then we literally have no way of distinguishing between the validity of any claims. To claim that supernatural demons cause lightning (and only make it appear to be caused by natural forces) would be no less valid than to claim that a supernatural god causes lightning or that an infinite number of other possible supernatural events "really" cause lightning.

I see what you mean. Do you think that a theistic world view would hinder or contradict Science?

~Victor

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That's not what Deut said. He said "acceptance of the Supernatural pretty much destroys the possibility of any epistemology".

Right, but his reasoning for that statement was "Once you allow for supernatural agencies, you abdicate any right to any assurance about much of anything." So, if I follow his logic, he is saying that the possibility of an epistemology is destroyed because there is no assurance about much of anything.

Let's stick to stuff I actually said. I did not say that "science recognizes..." anything. Science is a method. People recognize things.

I appologize if I am mis-representing your position. I was building off of your statement that started this line of discussion, "I would argue that we are imperfect, and therefore our knowledge is imperfect. Science, in stark contrast to religion, admits this fact."