"Science is a subset of rationality"

[Anselm33]

I found a passage in a new book by a noted evolutionary biologist, Robert Asher, Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist,that struck me (a retired physicist) as particularly apt in this materialistic/physicalist age:
"It is rational to believe that an entity beyond our comprehension was the agency by which something was derived from nothing at the beginning of time. . . . Although I acknowledge my belief to be non-scientific, it is entirely rational. Science is a subset of rationality; the former has a narrower scope than the latter. To ignore rationality when it does fall beyond the scientific enterprise would be an injustice to both reason and humanity.”
I would challenge anyone to dispute this proposition.

 

[WesleyF]

I would challenge anyone to dispute this proposition.

To dispute it, he/she would have to reason with you using non-scientific arguments, which would defeat his/her very purpose!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Just to play devil’s advocate, the only counterargument I can think of would be that it is only rational to entertain the possibility of there being a Creator, but not to believe it as an absolute truth.

But personally, I quite like that quote. I’m going to save it.

 

[Sair]

Rationality is simply the ability to perceive and reason from causes to effects. No matter how complex either of these may be, the process is the same. Any area of study, be it philosophy, history, sociology, science, whatever - all of these employ the process of connecting causes with effects, of finding evidence to support our theories of reality. Science is a formulation of rationality deliberately structured to minimise the possible intrusion of irrationality by relying upon testable, repeatable observation for its content and (tentative) conclusions. Indeed, so successful has science been in reliably explaining the world and allowing us to operate within it, most other intellectual disciplines have adopted something similar to the scientific method in their focus upon evidence and experimentation - testing hypotheses with reference to all available relevant materials. I think it’s fair to say that science is, in essence, the practical application of reason.

It’s difficult to see how it could be rational to be convinced of the existence of an entity for which there is no observable evidence. We can certainly speculate about probable causes for events that we observe, but until there is concrete evidence, speculation is all we have. It may be rational to suppose that there was a first cause (although cosmology is tending towards the possibility that this may not have been required) but there seems no rationality to the insistence, in the absence of testable evidence, that this first cause was certainly a personal god - that appears to be simply a matter of preference.

 

[tonyrey]

Rationality is simply the ability to perceive and reason from causes to effects.

1. Rationality entails far more than the ability to perceive and reason from causes to effects.
2. Causal relations are only one aspect of reality.
3. Purposeful activity is not the result of physical causation.

No matter how complex either of these may be, the process is the same. Any area of study, be it philosophy, history, sociology, science, whatever - all of these employ the process of connecting causes with effects, of finding evidence to support our theories of reality.

1. Finding evidence entails far more than the ability to perceive and reason from causes to effects.

Science is a formulation of rationality deliberately structured to minimise the possible intrusion of irrationality by relying upon testable, repeatable observation for its content and (tentative) conclusions.

1. Science is a product of rationality based on metascientific principles.
2. Science is not the sole product of rationality.
   .

Indeed, so successful has science been in reliably explaining the world and allowing us to operate within it, most other intellectual disciplines have adopted something similar to the scientific method in their focus upon evidence and experimentation - testing hypotheses with reference to all available relevant materials. I think it’s fair to say that science is, in essence, the practical application of reason.

1. The success of science is due to the power of reason which entails creativity as well as mechanical activity, intuition as well as intelligence, induction as well as deduction, synthesis as well as analysis, insight as well as hindsight and lateral thinking as well as logical thinking.

It’s difficult to see how it could be rational to be convinced of the existence of an entity for which there is no evidence.

1. Knowledge of physical entities presupposes the existence of intangible entities, i.e. minds.

We can certainly speculate about probable causes for events that we observe, but until there is concrete evidence, speculation is all we have.

1. We don’t have to speculate about the causes for our decisions because we know we are the direct causes.

It may be rational to suppose that there was a first cause (although cosmology is tending towards the possibility that this may not have been required) but there seems no rationality to the insistence, in the absence of testable evidence, that this first cause was certainly a personal god - that appears to be simply a matter of preference.

1. The most economical, comprehensive and fertile explanation of rationality is the existence of one supremely rational Being.

 

[tonyrey]

Rationality is simply the ability to perceive and reason from causes to effects. No matter how complex either of these may be, the process is the same. Any area of study, be it philosophy, history, sociology, science, whatever - all of these employ the process of connecting causes with effects, of finding evidence to support our theories of reality. Science is a formulation of rationality deliberately structured to minimise the possible intrusion of irrationality by relying upon testable, repeatable observation for its content and (tentative) conclusions. Indeed, so successful has science been in reliably explaining the world and allowing us to operate within it, most other intellectual disciplines have adopted something similar to the scientific method in their focus upon evidence and experimentation - testing hypotheses with reference to all available relevant materials. I think it’s fair to say that science is, in essence, the practical application of reason.

It’s difficult to see how it could be rational to be convinced of the existence of an entity for which there is no observable evidence. We can certainly speculate about probable causes for events that we observe, but until there is concrete evidence, speculation is all we have. It may be rational to suppose that there was a first cause (although cosmology is tending towards the possibility that this may not have been required) but there seems no rationality to the insistence, in the absence of testable evidence, that this first cause was certainly a personal god - that appears to be simply a matter of preference.

It is anthropocentric to assume we are the most rational beings that exist…

 

[Anselm33]

… I think it’s fair to say that science is, in essence, the practical application of reason.

.

I’m not sure how much you’ve had to do with science, but as a retired physicist (papers, grants, review boards, all that stuff) I’d say your view is misty-eyed and unrealistic. There are many rational endeavours–philosophy, aesthetics, music (consider Mozart and Bach)–that don’t operate by the rules of science, i.e. don’t require repeated observation/experimental evidence to falsify or confirm mathematically phrased theories linked to other more basic theories (see works by Popper and Lakatos). Do some reading in the philosophy of science to enlarge your mindscape, e.g. “Laws and Symmetry” by Bas van Fraassen, or “The Limits of a Limitless Science” by Fr. (Dr.) Stanley Jaki.

 

[Sair]

I’m not sure how much you’ve had to do with science, but as a retired physicist (papers, grants, review boards, all that stuff) I’d say your view is misty-eyed and unrealistic. There are many rational endeavours–philosophy, aesthetics, music (consider Mozart and Bach)–that don’t operate by the rules of science, i.e. don’t require repeated observation/experimental evidence to falsify or confirm mathematically phrased theories linked to other more basic theories (see works by Popper and Lakatos). Do some reading in the philosophy of science to enlarge your mindscape, e.g. “Laws and Symmetry” by Bas van Fraassen, or “The Limits of a Limitless Science” by Fr. (Dr.) Stanley Jaki.

In claiming that science is the practical application of reason, I have stripped the scientific method, as such, down to the most basic elements of observation, hypothesis, experiment - this is simply the approach we take to dealing with the world, no matter how many hoops we may have to jump through. I remember when I used to think that teaching was simply a matter of imparting knowledge to students! Well, it is - but there’s a whole lot of bureaucratic sludge muddying the water, just as I imagine there must be in the working life of a professional scientist. Even the most illustrious career in music begins with listening (observation), then contemplating different sounds and whether they might be pleasant or otherwise (hypothesis) and playing instruments and perhaps composing different combinations of sounds (experimentation). Observation, hypothesis and experimentation is essentially the way we learn and build our knowledge of the world, regardless of the particular endeavours in which we engage. We have to do this, because we are not omniscient.

 

[Anselm33]

In claiming that science is the practical application of reason, I have stripped the scientific method, as such, down to the most basic elements of observation, hypothesis, experiment - this is simply the approach we take to dealing with the world, no matter how many hoops we may have to jump through. I remember when I used to think that teaching was simply a matter of imparting knowledge to students! Well, it is - but there’s a whole lot of bureaucratic sludge muddying the water, just as I imagine there must be in the working life of a professional scientist. Even the most illustrious career in music begins with listening (observation), then contemplating different sounds and whether they might be pleasant or otherwise (hypothesis) and playing instruments and perhaps composing different combinations of sounds (experimentation). Observation, hypothesis and experimentation is essentially the way we learn and build our knowledge of the world, regardless of the particular endeavours in which we engage. We have to do this, because we are not omniscient.

what you’re describing isn’t science, I maintain. It’s rational behavior, but not science. what’s missing is 1) theory (mathematical); 2) links to basic fundamental theories. whence the quote “science is just a subset of rationality”.

 

[JDaniel]

I found a passage in a new book by a noted evolutionary biologist, Robert Asher, Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist,that struck me (a retired physicist) as particularly apt in this materialistic/physicalist age:
"It is rational to believe that an entity beyond our comprehension was the agency by which something was derived from nothing at the beginning of time. . . . Although I acknowledge my belief to be non-scientific, it is entirely rational. Science is a subset of rationality; the former has a narrower scope than the latter. To ignore rationality when it does fall beyond the scientific enterprise would be an injustice to both reason and humanity.”
I would challenge anyone to dispute this proposition.

Anselm:

Why? Because science is the excellent use of dialectical induction - from rationality - to seek and discover useful things about other things.

God bless,
jd