T
tonyrey
Guest
More like Universal Gravy! It is tasty but acquired with no effort and turns out be an illusion…Universal Gravity of course
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
If no philosophical propositions were verifiable there would be no rational foundation for scientific principles…
T
Touchstone
Guest
Parsimony is a rational principle, which is used by science (to good effect), but it’s analytic philosophy. It’s just the principle of “economy”. Having two or more explanations, intuitions, or statements that are all at parity, and under-determined, we prefer the simplest as a matter of economy. This is the scientific approach, but it’s a heuristic that’s not local to science, any more than invoking the law of non-contradiction in making logical inferences, which is also a valuable scientific tool we use.
That notwithstanding, it would not be necessary for us to “empirically establish that the natural world is all there is” (!) for us to apply the principle of parsimony. All we need is a pair of propositions that are under-determined (we can’t tell them apart from the evidence). For example, we reject Last-Tuesdayism and the Omphalos, both metaphysical propositions that are at parity with our historical realism, because the omphalos (to pick one) carries a whole truckload of new machinery and additional metaphysics in order for us to embrace it. It might be true, but it’s a XXL superset of the ontology and metaphysics of historical realism. So we exercise parsimony over these metaphysical competitors, and LastTuesdayism and the Omphalos get excused.
That IS WHY THIS IS A WORLDVIEW, NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. The very thing you see as a problem is the metaphysics, the philosophical expansion that turns scientific epistemology into a holistic metaphysical interpretive framework, a worldview.
Yes, that’s precisely the point I’ve been making, and the substance of your self-contradiction here. Your objections reduces to: hey, you can’t think that way without your science becoming metaphysical, overtly (extra-scientifically) philosophical!
Why, yes, you have it now. That is how a scientific worldview is forged. You take scientific principles, scientific epistemology and you apply them “upward” and “outward”, so they are a general lens for all of life, from first principles in metaphysics all the way down. You’ve heard of “methodological naturalism”, in science, I’m sure, and it’s big bad worldview cousin “philosophical naturalism”. “Philosophical naturalism” is the general application of naturalist principles (used locally in a constrained fashion in operational science), “upward” and “outward”. A scientific worldview is a close relative a naturalist worldview, naturalism being less specific in its epistemology than science.
Well, that’s peculiar. Now you are saying a scientific worldview does obtain, after all, and is just known by another name.
The differences may not be important here, but naturalism focuses more on ontology, and science on epistemology. Naturalism is, as a concept, a metaphysical view, one that has been “physicalized” as a practical constraint – only natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Strictly speaking, a naturalist will defer to science (or at least empirical) as a means of qualifying what exists, but may eschew scientific models as explanations for how that natural stuff operates and interacts. I have a “naturalist” friend who doesn’t dispute the scientific view of ontology, from elementary particles on up, and does not believe in anything supernatural or immaterial. But she has a very new-agey view of how all this stuff interacts naturally, that is definitely not compatible with our current (or past) scientific models. Atheist, naturalist, critic of scientist. It happens.
Anyway, a “scientific worldview” would overtly signal the embrace of scientific principles and epistemology from top-level metaphysics on down, not just a naturalist ontology.
-TS
D
DeepBlueSea
Guest
True. In that case, those propositions remain as theoretical hypothesis, instead of law of physics.
T
Touchstone
Guest
What do you mean by “verifiable”, tonyrey. What distinguishes a “verifiable” proposition from a “non-verifiable” proposition?
-TS
T
tonyrey
Guest
The restriction of the verification principle to sense observation was the downfall of logical positivism. Verification in its full and original sense is justification of the truth of a proposition by any rational means.
For example, total scepticism is falsified by the fact that it is self-contradictory. It follows that the validity of reason is verifiable solely by inexorable logic. To reject reason is lunacy!
I
inocente
Guest
When our little child is ill and at death’s door, we’ll take her to a scientifically trained doctor, that will be as real as it gets. We can only afford to theorize that science isn’t based on reality from the comfort of our armchairs when nothing important is in the balance.
Religion can destroy science by burning libraries, and there are religionists who would jump at the chance. They are the ones who rely on the superstition and ignorance which science destroys. But why should the rest of us agree to a war between science and religion? Why do we even have to separate them into different compartments?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Innocente,When our little child is ill and at death’s door, we’ll take her to a scientifically trained doctor, that will be as real as it gets. We can only afford to theorize that science isn’t based on reality from the comfort of our armchairs when nothing important is in the balance.
Religion can destroy science by burning libraries, and there are religionists who would jump at the chance. They are the ones who rely on the superstition and ignorance which science destroys. But why should the rest of us agree to a war between science and religion? Why do we even have to separate them into different compartments?
What you are saying is that there should be no such war and that there may be a counter war. That is a thought. Thank you.
T
Touchstone
Guest
I was asking how you verify philosophical principles. What is the acid test for a philosophical proposition in your head?
-TS
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
A philosophical principle:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident … that all men are created equal …”
Because the principle is self-evident, it does not require verification. We are all equal before the law, whose enforcement is, or ought to be, blindly conducted without prejudice.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident … that all men are created equal …”
Because the principle is self-evident, it does not require verification. We are all equal before the law, whose enforcement is, or ought to be, blindly conducted without prejudice.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
That is neither what I said nor meant to say. What I did mean to say is what you improperly call the “scientific” worldview really is properly called the naturalistic worldview.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Well, that’s the problem right there. Scientific epistemology cannot be applied “upward” and “outward” in the case of the claim that the natural world is all there is, since scientific epistemology is strictly dependent on the scientific method of observation and experiment. Thus, naturalism is by necessity an extrapolation that goes outside scientific epistemology and the scientific method, i.e. outside anything that is properly scientific.
In other words, naturalism cannot be “scientific”, since its metaphysical claims are not accessible to science. There is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview (I guess I had said that already ;-)).
This statement comes dangerously close to conflating the scientific “methodological naturalism” (the search for natural causes for natural effects, established as a method by believers in God *), i.e. not as “naturalist principle”) with “philosophical naturalism”.
*) The scientists of the scientific revolution, including Galileo, were all believers – no exception.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”
Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”
Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”
Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”
Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”
Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”
Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
By the way:
If in a futile and stubborn manner you would still insist that your worldview is “scientific” because it is based on science, you would wade into dangerous territory. On the same grounds any believer in biological Intelligent Design (a view that I do not subscribe to) could counter that their view is also “scientific” – after all, it is based on science as well!! (The scientifically established complexity of the living cell etc.).
You might then counter, well it is not based on “mainstream science” which does not accept biological Intelligent Design. But then I could say that my belief in a Cosmic Designer is “scientific” because it is based on the science of the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. And that science is solidly mainstream: every respectable and notable cosmologist (including Hawking, Smolin, Suesskind, Rees, Weinberg etc. *)) affirms the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Only the philosophical interpretations of what that may mean differ widely.
But of course, neither the belief in biological Intelligent Design nor the belief in Cosmic Design are scientific. And neither is naturalism, for the reasons stated.
*) Victor Stenger of course denies it. But Stenger is the Michael Behe of atheists, not to be taken seriously. Like Michael Behe, he twists and distorts science for his ideological means.
If in a futile and stubborn manner you would still insist that your worldview is “scientific” because it is based on science, you would wade into dangerous territory. On the same grounds any believer in biological Intelligent Design (a view that I do not subscribe to) could counter that their view is also “scientific” – after all, it is based on science as well!! (The scientifically established complexity of the living cell etc.).
You might then counter, well it is not based on “mainstream science” which does not accept biological Intelligent Design. But then I could say that my belief in a Cosmic Designer is “scientific” because it is based on the science of the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. And that science is solidly mainstream: every respectable and notable cosmologist (including Hawking, Smolin, Suesskind, Rees, Weinberg etc. *)) affirms the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Only the philosophical interpretations of what that may mean differ widely.
But of course, neither the belief in biological Intelligent Design nor the belief in Cosmic Design are scientific. And neither is naturalism, for the reasons stated.
*) Victor Stenger of course denies it. But Stenger is the Michael Behe of atheists, not to be taken seriously. Like Michael Behe, he twists and distorts science for his ideological means.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Yep. Precisely.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Science is a metaphysical discipline. You cannot do science without engaging in scientific metaphysics. There is no connection between experiences and extra-mental reality without the metaphysical axiom that connects them, that stipulates, without justification, but just as a naked, enabling axiom that our experience DOES reflect extra-mental reality.
There cannot be any scientific method without the metaphysics of science. A scientific worldview is just a subtype of naturalism, one that goes further than just affirming a naturalist ontology, and affirms scientific epistemology as the basis of knowledge. It’s not “methodological”, constrained as that term indicates to experimental science, but philosophical, applied to all of our thinking and interpretation.
Philosophical naturalism a wider set that contains scientific worldviews. Scientific wordviews are just a special case of naturalism that specifically embraces scientific epistemology. Methodological naturalism is just the means of constraining naturalist ontology to the practice of science – we don’t except “God” as an agent in a scientific theory, even if the scientists doing the work are Christians, because scientific practice does NOT make the overarching metaphysical commitments that one with a scientific worldview does. They only embrace, as a matter of necessity, that experience evinces reality, that our senses reflect the extra-mental world.
A philosophical embrace of scientific principles, as opposed to a practical (methodological) embrace produces a worldview governed by those principles, and they form the interpretative grid for all of one’s experiences. Methodological naturalism doesn’t apply at that scope, which is why a scientist can be a Christian – he only applies the godless, naturalist principles of science at a practical level, and reserves his interpretation of wider philosophical and metaphysical questions for his theistic superstitions.
-TS
D
DeepBlueSea
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Touchstone
It is one thing to speak of the “godless, naturalist principles of science” as an epistemology that excludes God from its immediate activities, but quite another thing to assume that science itself is fundamentally atheistic or godless because it precludes the existence of God. Science can never do this, though individual scientists, whose intellects and imaginations have been narrowed by the bias of naturalism, will leap to that logically unfounded conclusion.
Atheism is a superstition. There is no proof for it. That is by definition what a superstition is … a belief with no proof whatever. The only people who are atheists are the people who are rebelling, for any one or more of a thousand reasons, against the the probability or even the possibility of God.
It is one thing to speak of the “godless, naturalist principles of science” as an epistemology that excludes God from its immediate activities, but quite another thing to assume that science itself is fundamentally atheistic or godless because it precludes the existence of God. Science can never do this, though individual scientists, whose intellects and imaginations have been narrowed by the bias of naturalism, will leap to that logically unfounded conclusion.
Atheism is a superstition. There is no proof for it. That is by definition what a superstition is … a belief with no proof whatever. The only people who are atheists are the people who are rebelling, for any one or more of a thousand reasons, against the the probability or even the possibility of God.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Aww, now you’re just making stuff up. The first lines from Wikipedia’s entry on “superstition”
(my emphasis)
Atheism doesn’t embrace any of that. Neither does materialism, which is what I think you actually mean to refer to.
No. Superstitions are beliefs in magical causes, supernatural forces intervening that violate mechanistic natural law.
God’s possible, and there is some small probability that God exists. We just have no basis for supposing that God is actual. That needs no superstition; it is anti-superstition in action.
-TS
- Status