Scientism

[Aloysium]

I’m going to take a cue from theology and say physics just is. If need be I’ll do what has been done with God and claim that we don’t need to explain its existence by definition.

Physics is. And, what it is is a relationship between mankind and the physical universe.

Most of it involves the visual sense and is mathematically oriented.
We see motion, measuring it as part of our visual connection to the world.
We don’t taste, touch or smell it; although we can hear it in a passing train.

We are participants in the physical order of things.
When we study physics, we study ourselves, what is happening right here and now.
Although such realities as the Law of Thermodynamics constitute our physical nature, the fact that we are connecting here reveals that there is more - mind and spirit.

I am asking you to consider that everything is relational, that a self-other connection is true nature of existence.
There is nothing in isolation, and whatever being exists, be it atomic, unicellular, or as complex as you and I, it is as a relationship between its constituent parts, relating to other similar types of being.
At the base of the pyramid of physical being, we have light, created first and the stuff of which things are molded, shaped by Divine will.
At the Ground of existence, bringing everything that is, was and will be, relative to where we are in a moment in time, there is Existence itself, perfect Relationality.
Connected to everything the Triune Godhead brings forth all into existence through His infinite compassion.

I’m sure I’ve lost you, but although there is obviously infinitely more, this is how it is, at least as best as I can express it, and I feel obliged to let you in on it.

 

[reggieM]

Those are events, not branches of science. And we know how God did one, we’re on the way to knowing two but the third is a tough one. It’s like trying to look at the back of your head. We know it’s there - we just can’t see it.

Ok, I can accept that God gave us physics (among other things) and leave it at that.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Scientism refers to the idea that all explanatory causes in relation to the existence of the universe requires scientific evidence, and all arguments that do not utilize this epistemological standard are automatically invalid as evidence and are to be ignored.

In other-words we cannot “know” the cause unless there is scientific evidence for it.

While science is essentially about describing and identifying physical relationships, what essentially defines “scientism” is that it demands scientific evidence for metaphysical claims insomuch as we cannot know metaphysical truth without science. This is the difference between science and scientism

What say ye?

I don’t think scientism is correct, but I do think that it is necessary to specify some epistemic method when talking about claims. The issue science proponents have with religious reasoning is that religious people are willing to abandon the well defined scientific epistemic method and instead use… no epistemic method. Instead of proposing a reasonable alternative method, religious people resort to a vague tu-quoque reasoning like “well science needs faith too!”

And so I suspect religious people see “scientism” where none exist. They interpret demands for scientific evidence, and a rejection of their reasoning as failing to live up to scientific criteria, as evidence of scientism. But the reality is that science-proponents are only demanding an epistemic method, and religious people aren’t providing an alternative.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t think scientism is correct, but I do think that it is necessary to specify some epistemic method when talking about claims. The issue science proponents have with religious reasoning is that religious people are willing to abandon the well defined scientific epistemic method and instead use… no epistemic method. Instead of proposing a reasonable alternative method, religious people resort to a vague tu-quoque reasoning like “well science needs faith too!”

And so I suspect religious people see “scientism” where none exist. They interpret demands for scientific evidence, and a rejection of their reasoning as failing to live up to scientific criteria, as evidence of scientism. But the reality is that science-proponents are only demanding an epistemic method, and religious people aren’t providing an alternative.

Metaphysics

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Metaphysics

Right. And metaphysics must follow physics. So your metaphysics can be hypothesis generating, but it can’t overrule actual physics nor can it’s claims be accepted as baldly true without verification by physics.

 

[IWantGod]

Right. And metaphysics must follow physics. So your metaphysics can be hypothesis generating, but it can’t overrule actual physics.

Why must it follow physics? They are two different methods of inquiry dealing with the fact of being in two different respects.

Metaphysics deals with being as being; the fact of being in general. Metaphysics doesn’t make hypothesis about particular physical relationships.

Physics involves descriptions of physical activity in particular and the scientific method is there to test those descriptions.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Why must it follow physics? They are two different methods of inquiry dealing with two different aspects being.

Metaphysics deals with being as being; the fact of being in general.

Physics involves descriptions of physical activity in particular and the scientific method is there to test those descriptions.

Metaphysics deals with the things that “underpin” the physical activity that we observe and investigate. It asks questions like “in what sense do these activities exist? And what are their actual underlying nature?” So metaphysics can only ask those questions about that which we know about through physics.

And the answers it comes up with are sometimes relevant to physics (e.g. it may imply that certain physical activities are impossible, or require the existence of undiscovered physical activities) What I am saying is that when metaphysics says “X” and physics says “not X,” we have to change our metaphysics, not our physics. AND, until “the physics is in,” we can’t be categorically certain that the metaphysics is correct.

 

[IWantGod]

Metaphysics deals with the things that “underpin” the physical activity that we observe and investigate. It asks questions like “in what sense do these activities exist? And what are their actual underlying nature?” So metaphysics can only ask those questions about that which we know about through physics…

Well, we know things through are sense perception, and so we begin with physical activity… But metaphysics does not consider the relationships between physical things in a particular sense. We do not ask what are “atoms made of”. Metaphysics asks what is being as being; what does it mean to have an act of existence…

And the answers it comes up with are sometimes relevant to physics (e.g. it may imply that certain physical activities are impossible.) .

Metaphysics is not trying to answer scientific questions. For example why is there something rather than absolutely nothing is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question that perhaps some people think science can answer. .

What I am saying is that when metaphysics says “X” and physics says “not X,” we have to change our metaphysics, not our physics.

That’s not true at all.

 

[IWantGod]

This is from Fr. Spitzer

Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy .

Physics is the study of nature, and more specifically, of matter, energy, change, motion, elementary constituents, space, and time within the universe. It proceeds from an empirical or observational starting point, and uses measurement and quantitative analysis to discover the equations of physical force and energy which describe the laws of nature. It is restricted to data from our universe, and specifically what can be observed and falsified in our universe. Since we cannot know whether we have discovered everything which would affect our theories of the universe, all such theories are perpetually subject to modification or change. Nevertheless, physics attempts to corroborate the evidence behind its various theories by discovering multiple data sources and evidence sets through mathematical correlation. When this correlation is found, the theory becomes more rigorously established, and carries with it considerable probative force (even though it may one day have to be modified). See Chapter One, Section II of my book New Proofs).

Metaphysics, on the other hand, is the study of ultimates – such as the ultimate grounds and causes of existence. It probes the whole of reality – not just reality in our universe or reality which can be observed. Thus, it seeks to discover whether there is a reality outside of our universe (such as a Creator) and whether there is an unconditioned reality, an infinite reality, an absolutely simple reality, a completely intelligible reality, and a spiritual reality.

In order to do this, metaphysics uses a methodology of proof which is distinct from that of physics. Physics proceeds from observation through hypothetical-deductive reasoning to a conclusion which can be modified. Alternatively, metaphysics uses a methodology called reduction to absurdity **(which shows that a hypothetical proposition is equivalent to an impossible state of affairs, which means that the opposite proposition must be true). ** There are three general forms of reduction to absurdity:

1. Reduction to a contradiction (where one shows, for example, that a proposition such as “past time is infinite” implies “an achieved unachievable” which is a contradiction. This implies that past time is not infinite, and is therefore, finite – see Chapter Five of my book New Proofs);
2. “Reduction to the non-existence of everything” (where for example, one demonstrates that if everything in all reality is a conditioned existent, then nothing would exist – which is clearly not the case. This means that there must be at least one unconditioned existent in all reality – see Chapter Three of New Proofs); and
3. Reduction to an infinite regress (where, for example, one shows that an infinite number of conditions has to be fulfilled for something to exist – which means that it won’t exist because an infinite number of conditions – an unlimited number of conditions --is unfulfillable. See Chapter Three of New Proofs). These three proofs are explained in Chapter Six of New Proofs.

Physics is limited to the data of this universe – and specifically, to what can be empirically observed and falsified, but it does not specifically treat what is beyond our universe. It can, however, give considerable evidence for a limit to the universe (such as a beginning) which brings it to the threshold of metaphysics because a beginning marks a point at which the universe came into existence. At this point, physics passes the baton to metaphysics which considers the idea of absolute nothingness (physics does not do this because absolute nothingness does not exist in our universe or anywhere else). It is here that metaphysics reveals the need for a Creator because if the universe was nothing before its beginning, then it could not have created itself (because from nothing, only nothing comes); therefore, something other than the universe must have created the universe as a whole. This is what is meant by a “Creator.”

Metaphysics can prove a series of absolute propositions through its specific methodology. For example, it can prove that there must be at least one unconditioned reality, and that this reality must be unrestricted and unique (see Chapter Three of New Proofs). It can also prove that there must be at least one completely intelligible reality, and that this reality must be unrestrictedly intelligible and unique (see Chapter Four of New Proofs). Metaphysics can also prove that aggregative structures (such as past time) cannot have an infinite number of constituent parts, and therefore, that past time must be finite (see Chapter Five of New Proofs).

Though metaphysics can demonstrate absolute and universal truths (which can be shown to be either impossible or necessarily true through the proofs described above), it cannot use those proofs to demonstrate the existence of particular, contingent, factual truths about our universe (e.g. the invariant speed of light in our universe is 300,000 kilometers per second). Contingent, factual truths are neither impossible nor necessary, and so they cannot be demonstrated by the above proofs; they can only be verified through observation and measurement.

Thus, physics has its domain of observable, contingent, factual truths about our universe and metaphysics has its proper domain concerned with absolute and universal truths which can be demonstrated through proofs which lead to the impossibility or necessity of those truths. These methodologies, though distinct, can be complementary and mutually corroborative, and when they are, they can reveal the richness, the beauty, and even the transcendent dimensions of reality.

Sincerely,

Fr. Spitzer

 

[IWantGod]

And the answers it comes up with are sometimes relevant to physics (e.g. it may imply that certain physical activities are impossible, or require the existence of undiscovered physical activities) What I am saying is that when metaphysics says “X” and physics says “not X,” we have to change our metaphysics, not our physics. AND, until “the physics is in,” we can’t be categorically certain that the metaphysics is correct.

For example If science finds a particle that comes into being with no physical cause, it does not follow from that observation that something has come from nothing. It determines only that it has no physical cause. A metaphysical naturalist whom does not believe in anything but the physical universe may proceed to say that science has shown us that a particle can come from absolutely nothing. But this wouldn’t be true. This wouldn’t be a scientific statement, but rather a philosophical one. And it is wrong. How do we know? Because out of nothing comes nothing.

Metaphysics gives us real knowledge.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, we know things through are sense perception, and so we begin with physical activity… But metaphysics does not consider the relationships between physical things in a particular sense. We do not ask what are “atoms made of”. Metaphysics asks what is being as being; what does it mean to have an act of existence…

Yes, metaphysics does ask that question, in a sense. For example, the “brain in a vat” thought experiment posits that the “atoms” we observe don’t actually “exist as atoms” but rather as signals being sent to some consciousness. The denial of the existence of “actual” atoms is a metaphysical conclusion.

Metaphysics is not trying to answer scientific questions. For example why is there something rather than absolutely nothing is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question that perhaps some people think science can answer.

You’re right that it does not have that goal. But I never said that it did. I said that it has implications for physics, as you seem to agree with in your later post.

That’s not true at all.

Lots of quasi-scientific mystics believe this (e.g. alchemists.) But they’ve all ended up embarrassed when their metaphysically-derived requirements for physics were shown to be false.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, metaphysics does ask that question, in a sense. For example, the “brain in a vat” thought experiment posits that the “atoms” we observe don’t actually “exist as atoms” but rather as signals being sent to some consciousness. The denial of the existence of “actual” atoms is a metaphysical conclusion.

You’re right that it does not have that goal. But I never said that it did. I said that it has implications for physics, as you seem to agree with in your later post.

Lots of quasi-scientific mystics believe this (e.g. alchemists.) But they’ve all ended up embarrassed when their metaphysically-derived requirements for physics were shown to be false.

Please read what i posted by Fritzer. What you seem to think of as metaphysics is not what i understand it to be.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, metaphysics does ask that question, in a sense. For example, the “brain in a vat” thought experiment posits that the “atoms” we observe don’t actually “exist as atoms” but rather as signals being sent to some consciousness. The denial of the existence of “actual” atoms is a metaphysical conclusion.

You’re right that it does not have that goal. But I never said that it did. I said that it has implications for physics, as you seem to agree with in your later post.

Lots of quasi-scientific mystics believe this (e.g. alchemists.) But they’ve all ended up embarrassed when their metaphysically-derived requirements for physics were shown to be false.

Science is irrational if it has no metascientific foundation because our physical perceptions do not inform us that we are intelligent nor that the universe is intelligible. They merely convey information which requires comprehension and interpretation by a rational mind.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Please read what i posted by Fritzersic]. What you seem to think of as metaphysics is not what i understand it to be.

Sure. Spitzer is mixing metaphysics with theology. Any time he seeks to constrain the “behavior” of the supernatural, he has departed from the realm of metaphysics (e.g. when he asserts everything must be intelligible.)

What do I mean by that:

Spitzer says “Physics is limited to the data of this universe… but it does not specifically treat what is beyond our universe”

Now this is only sort of right. What it is useful for, though is to drive the wedge between physics and the methods of science.

So it is true that physics (the body of knowledge derived from application of scientific methods to what we observe) is limited to this universe. But the reason for that is not that the methods of science are fundamentally invalid outside of this universe. The reason is far more pragmatic: we don’t know how to “get outside” the universe in such a way that we could apply the methods of science outside of the universe. In other words, the reason physics is limited to this universe is us, not the methods of physics.

So I’ll instead ask you to consider an angelic-scientist. It would be in a position to apply the methods of science to things outside the universe. Indeed, the angel would be able to come up with some “supernatural physics,” which would be the body of knowledge derived from applying the methods of science to “outside the universe” stuff.

But now you’ll point out that this “supernatural physics” isn’t metaphysics; it would be just like our physics, but with very different laws and regularities. And that is right! Indeed, this “supernatural physics” may have laws and regularities that contradict the laws and regularities of our “natural physics.” But that aside, the question is now: Can things like “supernatural creation” be studied by “supernatural physics” or is it still purely metaphysical? And I would argue that a lot of what people claim is “metaphysical” isn’t actually; instead, it is “supernatural physical.”

Demanding evidence for supernatural-physical claims is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Science is irrational if it has no metascientific foundation because our physical perceptions do not inform us that we are intelligent nor that the universe is intelligible. They merely convey information which requires comprehension and interpretation by a rational mind.

I’ve explained this elsewhere. We are, ALL of us, standing on a stool with a noose around our necks. That stool is the reliability of our sense and reason.

Yes, it is true that you can kick the stool over, but when you do, we ALL hang. Physics cannot show that our reason and senses are reliable, because physics requires reliable sense-and-reason to work. Metaphysics cannot show that our reason and senses are reliable, because metaphysics requires reliable sense-and-reason to work. Religion cannot show that our reason and senses are reliable, because religion requires reliable sense-and-reason to work. Meta-Meta-physics cannot…

Any attempt to show that sense-and-reason are reliable must rely on neither sense nor reason, but those are the only tools we have.

So yes: science is irrational in the sense that there is no justification for the reliability of sense-and-reason. But there is literally no alternative. **Every **positive claim is irrational in that sense.

 

[IWantGod]

Sure. Spitzer is mixing metaphysics with theology.

Show me where. Quotes please.

What do I mean by that

Spitzer says “Physics is limited to the data of this universe… but it does not specifically treat what is beyond our universe”:

In metaphysical terms beyond the universe means beyond physical reality. Whatever is beyond the physical is a matter only metaphysics can deduce. This is all that is really being said. Its is not a question of whether or not there is anything physical beyond the ** known universe**; that is a question for science… Fitzer is not arguing that if there is something physical beyond the universe that therefore only metaphysics can deduce its existence. I don’t know where you are getting that from? .

So I’ll instead ask you to consider an angelic-scientist. It would be in a position to apply the methods of science to things outside the universe. Indeed, the angel would be able to come up with some “supernatural physics,” which would be the body of knowledge derived from applying the methods of science to “outside the universe” stuff.

confused: Supernatural physics? I don’t understand. What has this got to do with what Spiitzer is saying?

But now you’ll point out that this “supernatural physics” isn’t metaphysics.

That’s because it isn’t. it’s a strawman.

it would be just like our physics, but with very different laws and regularities. And that is right! Indeed, this “supernatural physics” may have laws and regularities that contradict the laws and regularities of our “natural physics.” But that aside, the question is now: Can things like “supernatural creation” be studied by “supernatural physics” or is it still purely metaphysical? And I would argue that a lot of what people claim is “metaphysical” isn’t actually; instead, it is “supernatural physical.”

I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m talking about metaphysics.

Demanding evidence for supernatural-physical claims is a reasonable thing to do.

I don’t know what supernatural physical claims are. But its irrelevant because ii’m not talking about a physical-supernatural and neither is Spitzer. We are talking about metaphysics and how it achieves the kind of knowledge that is proper to its subject matter…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In metaphysical terms beyond the universe means beyond physical reality. Whatever is beyond the physical is a matter only metaphysics can deduce. This is all that is really being said. Its is not a question of whether or not there is anything physical beyond the ** known universe**; that is a question for science… Fitzer is not arguing that if there is something physical beyond the universe that therefore only metaphysics can deduce its existence. I don’t know where you are getting that from? .

If that were true, Spitzer/Fitzer would not have needed to constrain physics to the known universe (as he did in the quote I provided.)

confused: Supernatural physics? I don’t understand. What has this got to do with what Spiitzer is saying?

It shows exactly where Spiitzer/Fitzer/Spitzer is talking about the metaphysical (e.g. unconditionality, uniqueness, spirituality deal with what actually underlies reality) and starts talking about the supernatural-physical (e.g. a supernatural creation, intelligibility deal with how the natural/supernatural actually behaves.)

I don’t know what supernatural physical claims are. But its irrelevant because ii’m not talking about a physical-supernatural and neither is Spitzer. We are talking about metaphysics and how it achieves the kind of knowledge that is proper to its subject matter…

You believe there is a realm of the supernatural, right? And that it is inhabited by supernatural beings, right? And that those beings have certain properties, have certain limitations, and obey certain rules, right? And that those beings actually DO things, governed by their properties, limitations, and rules, right?

So what would you call our knowledge of that collection of beings, activities, rules, limitations, and properties? We call our knowledge of natural beings, activities, etc. “physics”, so it seems reasonable to me that when those beings, activities, etc are supernatural, we should call it a “supernatural physics.”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Scientism is the stuff you get on the news, like vitamin A is good for you, no, wait it’s toxic. Or sunshine is bad for you because it causes cancer, but wait it’s good for you because it has vitamin D in it. Or you shouldn’t eat fats or you’ll get fat, but wait, fat is actually good at keeping you slim. Ad nauseam.

Scientism claims “Science” has “proven” all the above statements. So what?

 

[Bradski]

It shows exactly where Spiitzer/Fitzer/Spitzer is talking…

Milk out of my nose…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But the term does seem to be a recent innovation. I hold most innovations on meaning with some contempt in this modern age as I find the “drift” is usually something other than natural and unguided (a nod to ThinkingSapien).

:tiphat: