I've attended a lecture of Mr. Kroto, where he also came to that quote.
...H. Kroto emphasised that it is not necessary that it'll lead us to the final truth. He explained this statement in a rather different way, however: that, compared to other methods, science just offers better reliability, because:
Scientific statement must be foolproof and consistent with observations in nature and other fields of science, otherwise it is not a scientific statement. There is no dogma, which says that this is like that just because it is.
Religious statement, such as God exists ... well ...
There are several ways to understand reality: theology, philosophy, deductive logic, mathematics, science, engineering, humanities, emotion, etc. Each has its proper place. Some folks, usually scientists, assert the superiority of science for understanding truth.
However, science can only investigate one aspect of truth-- empirically demonstrable facts about nature. Each discipline investigates different aspects of truth. If I want to know about the motion of planets, science (astronomy) is the best. If I want to know who to marry, emotion and humane insight is best. If I want to know ultimate purpose in life, theology is best.
Some disciplines are more basic than others. Philosophy and logic are more fundamental than engineering and science. The reason is that the assumptions on which engineering and science are based are philosophical insights. Inductive and deductive reasoning, for example, are essential to engineering and science, but are not science themselves.
The notion that science is more "foolproof and consistent with observations in nature" is itself not a scientific assertion. It is a philosophical assertion. And if you want "foolproof" and "consistent", don't settle for science. Engineering is much more consistent and foolproof than science.
There's much less debate about the specifications for bridge abutments than there is about string theory. If atheists want certainty, there's a whole hell of a lot more consensus about the internal combustion engine than there is about cosmology. New atheist credo: 'Newton's laws of motion are all we need to understand the meaning of existence'.
But what about dogma? Science is full of it. The scientific method is dogma.
Truth is approached in many ways. Science is a superior way to understand natural processes. But the assertion that science is the only path to truth, or even the major path to truth, is so illogical that it merely excludes that person saying it from serious discussion.
Is it me... or Atheism has pretty much moved into the Scientism wagon. Damn you Comte, you made millions of people nuts XD with positivism ( scientism was a doctrine within positivism )
ReplyDeleteMike wrote:
ReplyDelete"But the assertion that science is the only path to truth, or even the major path to truth, is so illogical that it merely excludes that person saying it from serious discussion."
It seems to me an indicator of a fanatical devotion to the discipline. A kind of tunnel vision often seen in academics and professionals but of amplified to a higher order again.
The point regarding engineering is both accurate and gave me a good Saturday Morning giggle.
The way I see it, is much of the time engineering is all part and parcel of the materialist 'thing'. Social Engineering jumps to mind. Global (environmental), 'Reprogenetics' also.
You may have opened Pandora's box with that line of thinking :P
Cheers, Mike.
Or maybe it's the other way around, Edward. Some conservative Christians turned anti-science to protect their worldview.
ReplyDeletePhillip Johnson, the godfather of intelligent design, has intentionally directed the wedge of his ID movement against evolutionary biology.
Edward,
ReplyDeletePeople love it when a man of culture and education comes up with a complex formula to rationalize ignorance, laziness and stupidity. It's an easy sell. Like a materialist absolution or plenary indulgence.
The 'enlightenment' was full of such snake oil, and it's elegant salesmen. I hear a lot of folks completely lost/lose their heads over the stuff!
Well Oleg XD I not really being a conservator, can see your point. But both sides, like in all problems in our society by the way things are, have signs of extremism. Okay you are not so full of Scientism, buuuuuuut... what about the others?
ReplyDeleteScientism, althought in our time and age let's say, is a very noble position, but is mainly a social position. Let's say... just like I think that violent games are not all that bad! hey there is heck loads of arguments against violent games or violent entertainment in general, so my position about this particular subjective can be as blind as a door. I feel like scientism is sort of the same, but when it comes to philosophy or overall understanding of science.
Well Phillip Johnson... well not really a knower of what the guy have done beyond the obvious: Created the ID Movement.
Yeah he hates evolutionary biology, but... the same can be said about the folks on NCSE and many other organizations. They hate with a passion creationism and/or criticism of Darwinism. Like I said before, both sides... extremes!
My personal position about the matter is that, unguided random evolution coupled with natural selection does not bring about all we see and are and do. I think that a guided, either by a system within the DNA or "something else XD" could be the better answer. I mean like cataclysms, could be the key rapid evolution... by some awkward reason. Or maybe a particle that mutates the genes * yeah totally crackpot but I am just being especulative *.
I just feel that... welllll that whole chance and necessity is no moto for evolution.
-------------------------------------------
Crusade... XD I remember reading once that the more crazy the idea is to it's time, more followers it gets. I know it applies to all, but I have maybe 80% confidence in that rule XD.
The Enlightenment was a great moment for many things in the western world... but it also brought about the doubt of our position in the cosmos.
Thank G.... errr well Thank the flying espaguetti monster that Sagan told where while placve in the Cosmos is XD ahhahah ... =_= yeah we are nothing... isn't that a bitch!
Scientism: The assumption that the inductive study of secondary causes as they act in a fallen universe is the highest form of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteScientism: The attitude that the very most important part of any play is the props and set design.
Scientism: The attitude that a great dramatic work can be understood not by getting to know the author or reading and reflecting on it, but by analyzing the paper it is printed on.
Scientism: The vengeful attitude of former chess and audiovisual club presidents who were laughingstocks during high school.
"Scientism: The vengeful attitude of former chess and audiovisual club presidents who were laughingstocks during high school."
ReplyDeleteLMAO
Too true, Matteo.
@Matteo:
ReplyDelete[Scientism...]
Great synopsis!
I use to love chess XD
ReplyDeleteOnce again sorry about the bad spelling XD I swear I don't do drugs XD
As far as I can tell, scientism is a term used by philosophers to express frustration at their own irrelevance. They are no longer the cool kids on the block. Gone are the days of Aristotle and Plato.
ReplyDeletePhilosophy turned out to be useless in the studies of nature. Science has taken away the study of nature. When quantum mechanics and relativity arrived, scientists did all the work leaving philosophers to pick up the crumbs. Which they are doing to this day.
And now science is threatening to take away another favorite toy of philosophers: the mind. Philosophy of mind has been stagnant for ages. Neuroscience is making great strides in studying—empirically—the workings of the brain. My heart goes out to the poor philosophers.
Speaking of Aristotle... Mike, when are we going to hear on the subject of Aristotelean metaphysics being such a great help in science?
@oleg
ReplyDeleteScientism: the worship of our belly button!
:-)
Pépé,
ReplyDeleteScientists leave navel gazing to their philosophy brethren. An empirical study of the navel, or more precisely, of its biological content, is a much more interesting activity. Here is Carl Zimmer on his microbiome.
No Oleg, Scientism is a doctrine of positivism, or sometimes the idea that science is the only way to knowledge or the onl;y knowledge one should believe in. It varies, but it became a bad philosophy * yep it was a philosophical approach to knowledge, you know, epistemology something really damn important to science * after positivism crumbled.
ReplyDeleteScience can answer a lot of stuff, but it depends what you call science... Each let's say, department in universities has a different approach towards the world and that makes science have all sorts of definitions.
Oleg--
ReplyDeletePlease give me your best answer to the following:
Why would any arrangement of matter whatsoever need to become conscious? Do the laws of physics cease to function comprehensively when arrangements become sufficiently "complex"? Does consciousness cause anything to happen which the laws of physics acting on their own wouldn't? If not, then why does consciousness go through the bother of arising at all? In short, please provide some sort of reason why matter merrily and obediently following blind physical law would ever have the slightest tendency to give rise to mind. You assert that it is so, but do please provide a reason why it should be so.
Oleg wrote:
ReplyDelete"As far as I can tell, scientism is a term used by philosophers to express frustration at their own irrelevance. They are no longer the cool kids on the block. (my emphasis)
Hilarity.
Philosophy undone by fashion. OMG!
Obviously no one could outshine except the uber cool pocket protector crowd. Those guys just MELT the chicks, you know?
Anyway...I only kid back in good humour.
Don't ignore me for it, Oleg.
I still love you, man.
Then Oleg explains:
"Gone are the days of Aristotle and Plato. "
What an observation!
These two great minds are now dead, their civilization transformed. We can no longer go to the Kebab shop with and talk 'Homer' with the Author of Republic.
Oleg then goes on to state:
"Philosophy turned out to be useless in the studies of nature."
Eh?
The 'idea' continues...
"Science has taken away the study of nature."
And replaced it with what?
We are left to wonder.
"now science is threatening to take away another favorite toy of philosophers: the mind. "
Ouch! I am starting to think this Science guy/diety must be an @$$hole. Take away the mind? Not very nice at ALL.
Good thing it is impossible :P
But Oleg cares:
"My heart goes out to the poor philosophers."
Subjectively of course. Genuine pity has been 'taken away by science', and is now merely some random and natural force at work in a slab of flesh making his fingers type that.
Perhaps Oleg could elaborate on the method science took the real pity (mind) away?
"Speaking of Aristotle... Mike, when are we going to hear on the subject of Aristotelean metaphysics being such a great help in science?"
Oleg's favourite question!
Consider: The atheist view is one without foundations based on randomness and futility; or where foundations are illusory and of non consequence. So, as we see here a connection between Aristotle, Aquinas, and modern inquiry is denied by use of a rhetorical question.
Fascinating!
Matteo,
ReplyDeleteYour question makes no sense whatsoever. Let's apply your question, mutatis mutandis, to superfluidity. For best effect, imagine that we are in year 1940.
Why would any arrangement of matter whatsoever need to become superfluid? Do the laws of physics cease to function comprehensively when arrangements become sufficiently "complex"? Does superfluidity cause anything to happen which the laws of physics acting on their own wouldn't? If not, then why does superfluidity go through the bother of arising at all? In short, please provide some sort of reason why matter merrily and obediently following blind physical law would ever have the slightest tendency to flow without resistance.
Oleg, if my question makes no sense to you whatsoever, then you really need to broaden you education and/or what you choose to think about. It is your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. No one had ever heard of superconductivity in 1940, but everyone has acknowledged the existence of mind since time immemorial. You really need to read some more Plato and Aristotle. Your analogy also begs the question. Superfluidity is quite obviously a physical phenomenon. I'm asking you to give reasons why mind could even in principle be reduced to a physical phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteisn't mind and superfluids fundamentally different ??? o_O
ReplyDeleteMatteo: Oleg, if my question makes no sense to you whatsoever, then you really need to broaden you education and/or what you choose to think about. It is your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. No one had ever heard of superconductivity in 1940,
ReplyDeleteReally? Superconductivity was discovered in 1911, Matteo. It isn't the same phenomenon as superfluidity, but they are related. In any event, superfluidity was discovered in 1937 experimentally. In 1941, Lev Landau came up with a theory of superfluidity, which remains relevant today.
I specifically chose 1940 to be the year after the experimental discovery but before the advent of the theory. At that point, it was a puzzling phenomenon that seemed to run contrary to our physical intuition. Friction, however small, always exists and eventually stops the motion of a fluid. Helium-4 below the lambda point turned out to be an exception to that principle. Physical phenomenon or not, it seemed to violate the very foundations of statistical physics.
but everyone has acknowledged the existence of mind since time immemorial. You really need to read some more Plato and Aristotle.
Since the time immemorial, everyone had also acknowledged that the sun went around the earth. Until science proved otherwise. Philosophy of mind is old, but it has not been particularly useful lately.
Matteo: I'm asking you to give reasons why mind could even in principle be reduced to a physical phenomenon.
Why would I do that? I do not subscribe to reductionism. Phil Anderson famously wrote this in his essay More is Different:
"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."
Ponder that.
Do the laws of physics cease to function comprehensively when arrangements become sufficiently "complex"?
ReplyDeleteNo they don't. Why do you think they do?
"More is different" hardly constitutes an answer, Oleg.
ReplyDeleteLook, you asserted that neuroscience is "taking away" philosophy of mind. I asked the very question that neuroscience will need to answer in order to "triumph" over philosophy. And that question is incomprehensible to you. What am I to conclude?
It's not the answer, Matteo. I am simply saying that it makes no sense to try and describe the brain in terms of physics. Which you asked me to do. That makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteUncle Remus--
ReplyDeleteThe laws of physics being sufficient to account for everything, what does mind add to the picture? How is saying (via a complete neurophysiological explanation) in effect that "Physics does everything, mind does nothing, and that's why there is mind" make any sense?
The laws of physics being sufficient to account for everything
ReplyDeleteWho told you that?
errr... I guess you Oleg are defending that point of view... or maybe you made it look like you were.
ReplyDelete@oleg
ReplyDeleteScientists leave navel gazing to their philosophy brethren...
I am sorry, I thought you could understand a joke (and read between the lines), unlike Mister Data of StarTrek!
I prefer a philosopher who looks at the stars and wonders about their beauty to a scientist who analyzes their spectrum.
The philosopher will hear the symphony while the scientist will always remain deaf.
PS: I do hope your brain is not of the positronic type.
Oleg, is consciousness brought into being by the arrangement (hierarchical or not, "more is better" or not) of material entities? If not, then please explain where it comes from. If so, then please explain why arrangements of material entities following physical law should be expected to give rise to it?
ReplyDeleteMatteo,
ReplyDeleteWhat does the physical laws have to do with it? I said several times already that biology is not applied chemistry and chemistry not applied physics. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.
Oleg,
ReplyDeleteYou seem unable to comprehend that the philosophical question I am asking is, in fact, a legitimate and crucial question, a question that neurophysiology simply must answer if it is to fulfill your stated dream of doing away with philosophy. To answer a question, one must perceive its existence. A failure to perceive results in a failure to answer, resulting in a failure to triumph. Neurophysiology, if it takes your attitude, simply cannot triumph over philosophy.
To borrow a quote from someone who commented above: My heart goes out to the poor neuroscientists.
"I said several times already that biology is not applied chemistry and chemistry not applied physics."
So, then, biology causes things to happen that the chemical components of biological entities cannot cause, and chemistry causes things to happen that the physics of molecules cannot cause? Does mind, then, cause things to happen that neurophysiology cannot? If so, then how precisely does neurophysiology triumph over philosophy? If not, then why are you throwing up a smokescreen about different "more is better" levels of causation? Why is it that you do not assert that "Philosophy of mind is not applied neurophysiology," then? Why is it that instead you assert that neurophysiology will render philosophy null and void?
To assert that neurophysiology triumphs over philosophy is to assert reductionism. But you deny reductionism.
You do not need to agree with me, but you should strive a bit harder to agree with yourself.
Matteo wrote:
ReplyDelete"My heart goes out to the poor neuroscientists."
...and his really does, as his mind was not 'taken away by science' and he is capable of real empathy, not illusory (positronic, Pepe?) function like the blind responder.
Still ignoring me, Oleg? Convenient.
Everyone else reading these posts will see my responses to you ... and they will note your absolute LACK of a response and/or courage to do so.
And Atheists wonder why people think them shallow and rude?
Matteo: Why is it that you do not assert that "Philosophy of mind is not applied neurophysiology," then?
ReplyDeleteI do not disagree with that. Philosophy of mind is not applied neurophysiology. Astrology is not applied astronomy. Homeopathy is not applied pharmacology. The problem is not where you think it is. Neurophysiology, astronomy, and pharmacology are sciences. Philosophy of mind, astrology, and homeopathy are not. They do not belong in the same hierarchy of fields Anderson mentions in his paper.
Matteo: Why is it that instead you assert that neurophysiology will render philosophy null and void?
Philosophy of mind does not need a competitor to become obsolete. It has been stagnant for ages. Neuroscience, despite its tender age, has already made important discoveries. It showed, for instance, that psychiatric disorders have a physiological basis.
You have to ask a different question, Matteo. Why is it that philosophy of mind has been spinning wheels while neuroscience made progress? In my view, the answer goes to the root difference between philosophy and science.