What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Hee_Zen]

If you don’t mind, I would like to discuss the issues one at a time in order to preserve clarity of the discussion.

I certainly agree. I am a firm believer of the KISS principle. I hope you know what I mean.

I have to disagree with you. I believe that Beauty and Justice, although highly abstract to the point of being difficult to define or measure, are very real. They are not material and so cannot be measured.

I agree that they are concepts and as such they cannot be measured. What one person find “beautiful” another one may find boring or irrelevant. Art, music, literature come to mind. We find something beautiful if its “resonates” with our individual concept of harmony. In the middle ages the pictures of Madonna were probably beautiful by their own standards. By today’s standards they are ugly, due to their bulging, protruding eyes - which was caused by the lack of iodine in the drinking water (what a trivial reason!). In other words, there is no “absolute” standard of beauty.

Let me add: the concept of “heavy” is objective, but what counts as “heavy” is subjective. What is heavy for one person, is light for another. There are many immaterial attributes in the material world, like “heavy and light”, or “simple and complicated”, “near and far”… etc. the concepts are objective, but their application is subjective.

There are many aspects of physical existence, which are not material objects, like “attributes”, “actions” and “relationships” along with concepts. But none of these are independent from the physical underpinning.

In order to further explore this line of reasoning, Let me ask you a question. Would you agree that the killing of millions of innocent people by the Nazi regime of Germany in the mid 20th century was wrong and should not have been done?

Of course I agree. I would even go further, the wanton killing of torturing of even one person is wrong and should not be done. Observe the word: “wanton”. The reason is almost trivially simple, we rely on the “golden rule” (which is MUCH older than Christianity). I do not want to be killed or tortured, so I should not do it to others. It is easy to find examples where the killing or torturing of an individual - while not “morally upright” is “morally defensible” since it avoids some greater harm.

Please keep going.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . we rely on the “golden rule” . . .

So the Golden Rule would appear to be at the foundation of morality. It is common sense. It cannot be wrong.
Go with that; it is a good start to discovering what love is all about.
If I did not know God, I would want someone to tell me. So, I am giving you directions to Him.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12537455:

If you don’t mind, I would like to discuss the issues one at a time in order to preserve clarity of the discussion.

I certainly agree. I am a firm believer of the KISS principle. file:///C:\Users\robert.bushlow\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1%between%1\clip_image001.gifI hope you know what I mean.

• I have to disagree with you. I believe that Beauty and Justice, although highly abstract to the point of being difficult to define or measure, are very real. They are not material and so cannot be measured.*

I agree that they are concepts and as such they cannot be measured. What one person find “beautiful” another one may find boring or irrelevant. Art, music, literature come to mind. We find something beautiful if its “resonates” with our individual concept of harmony. In the middle ages the pictures of Madonna were probably beautiful by their own standards. By today’s standards they are ugly, due to their bulging, protruding eyes - which was caused by the lack of iodine in the drinking water (what a trivial reason!). In other words, there is no “absolute” standard of beauty.

I would have to disagree; heavy, light near and far are adjectives, Beauty is an abstract noun, not just an adjective and it is very real and has very tangible effects.

In order to further explore this line of reasoning, Let me ask you a question. Would you agree that the killing of millions of innocent people by the Nazi regime of Germany in the mid 20th century was wrong and should not have been done?

Of course I agree. I would even go further, the wanton killing of torturing of even one person is wrong and should not be done. Observe the word: “wanton”. The reason is almost trivially simple, we rely on the “golden rule” (which is MUCH older than Christianity). I do not want to be killed or tortured, so I should not do it to others. It is easy to find examples where the killing or torturing of an individual “morally defensible” since it avoids some greater harm.

Ok, “Wanton killing” would then be an example of an evil, and avoiding doing “greater harm” would be an example of a good.

On what basis do we say that the one is good and the other evil.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I would have to disagree; heavy, light near and far are adjectives, Beauty is an abstract noun, not just an adjective and it is very real and has very tangible effects.

Sorry, I don’t get it. The words “beautiful” and “ugly” are also adjectives describing our opinion about the “pleasantness” of a face, or the harmony of a sound. “Heavy and light” describe “weight” - which can be objectively described via kilograms or pounds; while “near and far” describe" distance which can be objectively measured with meters or inches. I don’t see what you mean by referring to adjectives and nouns. There are all sorts of attributes which describe certain characteristics. There are subjective assessments of these attributes. The subjective assessments cannot be measured, so they are not subject to the “scientific” approach. I also have no idea what you mean by saying that an abstract concept (beauty - no need to capitalize the first letter) can have “very tangible effects”.

Ok, “Wanton killing” would then be an example of an evil, and avoiding doing “greater harm” would be an example of a good.

On what basis do we say that the one is good and the other evil.

Biology. Biological life is defined as an effort to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment. We call “biologically good” what promotes life, and “biologically bad” what hinders life. These are not morally charges labels, simply describing a biological function. When it pertains to us, we prefer “life” (especially good, healthy, productive life) and we do not want the opposite (pain, hunger, illness, etc…). When we act to promote the “biologically good” state we call that act “morally good”. When someone knowingly and volitionally inflicts the “biologically bad” aspect on someone, we call that “morally bad” - all other things being equal.

So the distinction between “morally good” and “morally bad” (also called “evil”) is very simple. It all stems from being biological entities who are able to distinguish between biologically good and bad outcomes. A cat may “play” with a mouse which is very detrimental for the mouse’s well-being, but since the cat does not know what it is doing, this act is not “evil”.

 

[Ignatius]

Sorry, I don’t get it. The words “beautiful” and “ugly” are also adjectives describing our opinion about the “pleasantness” of a face, or the harmony of a sound. “Heavy and light” describe “weight” - which can be objectively described via kilograms or pounds; while “near and far” describe" distance which can be objectively measured with meters or inches. I don’t see what you mean by referring to adjectives and nouns. There are all sorts of attributes which describe certain characteristics. There are subjective assessments of these attributes. The subjective assessments cannot be measured, so they are not subject to the “scientific” approach. I also have no idea what you mean by saying that an abstract concept (beauty - no need to capitalize the first letter) can have “very tangible effects”.

I looked up up beauty in the dictionary and it is indeed a noun. I’ll grant you that it is a noun of a very high level of abstraction, but it is a noun nonetheless. And one that cannot be measured as it is of a higher order thing, not subject to physical measurement.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I looked up up beauty in the dictionary and it is indeed a noun. I’ll grant you that it is a noun of a very high level of abstraction, but it is a noun nonetheless. And one that cannot be measured as it is of a higher order thing, not subject to physical measurement.

Sure thing, I agree completely. Of course “nouns” do not necessarily describe an ontological object, just like “beauty” does not. Abstractions cannot be measured.

I apologize, I’m a little pressed for time this evening so I’ll have to get to the rest of the post tomorrow.

No hurry. Take your time.

 

[Aloysium]

Sure thing, I agree completely. Of course “nouns” do not necessarily describe an ontological object, just like “beauty” does not. Abstractions cannot be measured. . .

If all you have is a ruler, all reality becomes a length.

 

[magnet]

Sure thing, I agree completely. Of course “nouns” do not necessarily describe an ontological object, just like “beauty” does not. Abstractions cannot be measured.

Do mean esthetic qualities? Mathematics is abstract. It is also not dependent on individual tastes.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Do mean esthetic qualities?

Yes, that is what I meant.

Mathematics is abstract. It is also not dependent on individual tastes.

Correct. Mathematics is based on axioms. Abstractions come in all sorts of different “flavors”.

I am talking about the “metaphysics” of the objective, external reality - which is concerned with “what exists” or “IS”. That is what science is all about. The second part of philosophy is “epistemology”, or in other words: “how do we know something?”, or “how do we obtain knowledge about something?”. That is not part of the physical sciences. Just like the abstract sciences are a different discipline.

It is nonsensical to ask: “can the methods of science (epistemology) be substantiated by the scientific method?”. Of course not, we are talking about two different disciplines. Epistemological propositions can only be either “valid” or “leading to results”, or not. They either “work” or they “don’t work”. To use an example: “when one cooks a stew, it is either tasty or not”. If it is tasty, then the “method” was right, if it is not, the “method” was wrong. The proof of epistemology is just like the proof of the pudding - is it “edible”?.

The third part of philosophy: “ethics” (or morality) also does not belong to the realm of “science”. It is not about the “IS”, it is about the “OUGHT”. How should one behave if one wishes to achieve a certain goal? Of course these kinds of questions can only be answered if one has a sound metaphysical underpinning, in other words, if one knows “what exists”.

The fourth part of philosophy is “aesthetics”, which leads to the fully subjective realm of “beauty”, and “taste”. None of these can be measured, none of these are objective, so “science” could not care less about this realm.

Some people like to argue that science is “impotent” about propositions concerning the “past”, and they want to establish this as a “weakness” of science. Of course they are right that the past is outside the realm of science, but since the past does not exist any more, it is not a “problem”. They could lament with equal force that science cannot make accurate descriptions on the “heat that emanates from the flames that the seven-headed, fire-breathing dragons blow from their imaginary mouths”. Of course not. Science does not care about the nonexistent entities.

Science is only concerned with the objectively existing external reality - nothing else. This is why it is frustrating to see the misconceptions floating out there, and the idiotic accusations about “scientism”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science is only concerned with the objectively existing external reality - nothing else. This is why it is frustrating to see the misconceptions floating out there, and the idiotic accusations about “scientism”.

Accusations? What accusations do you refer to as idiotic?

Science is not idiotic. Scientism is. Scientism is the exaggeration of science into an exclusive approach to truth. So that when Hawking says he sees no scientific evidence for God, and therefore atheism is a reasonable inference, he is making science the arbiter of all truth, including the supernatural as well as the natural. That is bad science and idiotic philosophy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, that is what I meant.

Correct. Mathematics is based on axioms. Abstractions come in all sorts of different “flavors”.

I am talking about the “metaphysics” of the objective, external reality - which is concerned with “what exists” or “IS”. That is what science is all about. The second part of philosophy is “epistemology”, or in other words: “how do we know something?”, or “how do we obtain knowledge about something?”. That is not part of the physical sciences. Just like the abstract sciences are a different discipline.

It is nonsensical to ask: “can the methods of science (epistemology) be substantiated by the scientific method?”. Of course not, we are talking about two different disciplines. Epistemological propositions can only be either “valid” or “leading to results”, or not. They either “work” or they “don’t work”. To use an example: “when one cooks a stew, it is either tasty or not”. If it is tasty, then the “method” was right, if it is not, the “method” was wrong. The proof of epistemology is just like the proof of the pudding - is it “edible”?

Science is only concerned with the objectively existing external reality - nothing else. This is why it is frustrating to see the misconceptions floating out there, and the idiotic accusations about “scientism”.

Every time you write I feel as if the wool is being pulled down tightly over my eyes.

It is odd that you will admit that at least some values are objective and about the external world, even that metaphysics is properly concerned with external reality, but then you want to claim science is the only method by which knowledge of the external world can be obtained.

Epistemology does not reduce to science unless you make a prior commitment to the two being the same. You attempt to do so by the premise that only physical events or those verifiable by science can be valid and known for certain and, therefore, only science can adequately underwrite epistemology.

Unfortunately, for you, that involves going into denial about mathematics, ethics and aesthetics, at least two of which you allow are objective and about the external world but certainly do not rely on science for validity. You, therefore, refute your own equivocation of science and epistemology.

Certainly, science is “all about” what exist as physical entities and in that sense is concerned about what IS in that sphere, but it is only by equivocating existence with merely physical or material existence that your point can be valid.

Truths concerning mathematics or ethics ARE or can be epistemologically certain AND exist objectively, though not physically as tangible objects. These truths do represent aspects of physical reality but, however, are true independently of physical reality, which makes their grounds for being true transcendent to physical reality and not dependent upon it.

In fact, epistemology would hold that truths that merely depend for their validity upon physical reality can only be inductively true about that reality and merely contingently true about reality as a whole. That is a lower degree of epistemological certainly compared to mathematical or ethical truths which can be known with certainty independent of any reference to physical reality. Ergo, epistemology does not reduce to science as you have tried to demonstrate by surreptitiously plying woolly coverings at the same time as distracting with verbose explanations.

 

[Hans_W]

Science is not idiotic. Scientism is. Scientism is the exaggeration of science into an exclusive approach to truth. So that when Hawking says he sees no scientific evidence for God, and therefore atheism is a reasonable inference, he is making science the arbiter of all truth, including the supernatural as well as the natural. That is bad science and idiotic philosophy.

Well said!

And then there are some people who think that science is too limited through methodological naturalism. Science should be able to consider supernatural causes.

Needless to say, that would bring down the whole structure of science. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Hee_Zen]

It is odd that you will admit that at least some values are objective and about the external world, even that metaphysics is properly concerned with external reality, but then you want to claim science is the only method by which knowledge of the external world can be obtained.

As I said many times, you (in general as well as personal “you”) are always welcome to present an **alternative **epistemological method about the objective reality.

Epistemology does not reduce to science unless you make a prior commitment to the two being the same.

I wish you would pay closer attention to what I actually write. I never said that “epistemology” is **restricted **to the “scientific” method, and if you actually read what I wrote, then it would be crystal clear that epistemology is much wider and depends on the subject to be studied. For the abstract, axiomatic sciences the way to decide if a proposition is true or false is to see if the proposition can be reduced to the axioms. That is NOT what we call the “scientific” method.

Unfortunately, for you, that involves going into denial about mathematics, ethics and aesthetics, at least two of which you allow are objective and about the external world but certainly do not rely on science for validity. You, therefore, refute your own equivocation of science and epistemology.

This is merely your misunderstanding, and I suggest you read the above paragraphs and will stop this nonsense. Ethics is about the “OUGHT” and not about the “IS”, and as such it not subject to be scientific method. Ethics is **contingent **upon what the person wishes to “achieve” so it cannot be fully objective. And aesthetics is fully subjective.

A short recap. Epistemology is about the method to decide if a proposition (ANY proposition!) is true or false. The epistemological method to make this decision is **contingent **upon the nature of the proposition.

1. When the proposition is about the objective, external reality, then only the “scientific” approach will suffice. If you deny this, bring up an alternative method.
2. When the proposition deals with some abstract, axiomatic question, then the only method is to reduce the proposition to the axioms.
3. Ethical propositions have no objective true-false value attached to them, since they are contingent upon the person’s subjective “desires”: “what should I do if I want to achieve a certain result”?
4. Aesthetic propositions are fully subjective, and as such irrelevant.
5. Propositions about the past are only subject to testimonials, which may or may not be accurate. But since the past does not exist, the propositions about it are by and large irrelevant.
6. Propositions about fully imaginary entities (Santa Klaus, the Easter Bunny, honest lawyers, etc…) all belong to the “DUH” category.
   I hope this is the last time I will have to make a post about this. It is very boring by now. Let me reiterate: “epistemology is not restricted to the scientific method!!!”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well said!

And then there are some people who think that science is too limited through methodological naturalism. Science should be able to consider supernatural causes.

Needless to say, that would bring down the whole structure of science. Any thoughts on that?

One can be both a scientist and a philosopher.

The methodology of science is restricted.

The methodology of philosophy is not restricted.

Many scientists use philosophy (inductive, deductive, intuitive logic) to affirm the existence of God, and they don’t have to bring down the whole structure of science when they do so.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is very boring by now. Let me reiterate: “epistemology is not restricted to the scientific method!!!”.

So we are in agreement. Excited now?

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. When the proposition is about the objective, external reality, then only the “scientific” approach will suffice. If you deny this, bring up an alternative method.
2. When the proposition deals with some abstract, axiomatic question, then the only method is to reduce the proposition to the axioms.

Would you agree, then, that an axiom, such as the logical principle of sufficient reason, entails that physical reality does not explain itself, so there MUST be SOME OTHER sufficient explanation FOR physical reality, since it cannot and does not explain itself or its existence?

Also that the “sufficiency” requirement of that principle points towards a non-physical explanation with the power to bring into existence all of the conditions for physical reality, since all those conditions came into existence at a discrete time some 13.7 billion years ago?

It would take quite a substantive explanation to achieve sufficiency, would you not agree, since the explanation must account for the coming into existence of all space, time, matter and energy, AND merely resorting to “brute fact” or “always existed” explanations have been pretty much ruled out in terms of adequacy?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Would you agree, then, that an axiom, such as the logical principle of sufficient reason, entails that physical reality does not explain itself, so there MUST be SOME OTHER sufficient explanation FOR physical reality, since it cannot and does not explain itself or its existence?

I don’t accept that as an axiom, and in a few moments you will deny it, too. For if that would be an axiom, which is applicable to all entities which exist, then it would be also applicable to God. And I doubt that you will find that acceptable. You tried to limit of the “sufficient reason” to the physical world. What kind of arguments can you bring up for this limitation? Why would non-physical “entities” be exempt from the allegedly universal “axiom”?

Furthermore, if “everything” that exists would require a “reason” for its existence, that would entail this proposition, too. What would be the reason for the existence of such a proposition? The usage of the universal operator of “ALL” is dangerous, since it leads to one or more of the Russell-paradoxes.

**The point is that you cannot have an infinite descent of explanations. You must stop somewhere - and that “somewhere” is a brute fact without further explanation. **For the theists this final stopping point is God, for the atheist it is the Universe. And since the Universe obviously exists, while God’s existence is doubtful, the atheist’s position is simpler. Of course simpler does not make it true.

It would take quite a substantive explanation to achieve sufficiency, would you not agree, since the explanation must account for the coming into existence of all space, time, matter and energy, AND merely resorting to “brute fact” or “always existed” explanations have been pretty much ruled out in terms of adequacy?

Adequacy is another subjective term. What is adequate to you may be insufficient for me and vice-versa.

But I have to point out that you still did not attempt to answer what kind of “alternate epistemological method” would you suggest for the propositions about the objective, external reality?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t accept that as an axiom, and in a few moments you will deny it, too. For if that would be an axiom, which is applicable to all entities which exist, then it would be also applicable to God. And I doubt that you will find that acceptable.

Well, actually, no. One of the first criteria for God to be an adequate explanation – in the logical sense of truly sufficient – is that God must be, if nothing else, self-sufficient - a quality that the universe, itself, and nothing found within it, can or does possess.

Now you may find that rather convenient for me or, even, insufficient for you, but it seems to me that anything contingent on something else, that cannot fully explain itself, is ruled out, by definition, from being a truly sufficient explanation for anything else, since it would, by definition, require some other explanation. So, to stop that endless buck-passing, I resort to aseity as a necessary or axiomatic characteristic for sufficiency.

This is quite logically consistent with other qualities such as omnipotence or omniscience that I hold are necessary to meet the PSR since being a completely self-sufficient, self-existent reality would mean that nothing could possibly make it “not exist.”

You see, this is what makes your view quite different from mine.

I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus – not because I rule out their existence a priori, as you do, or because you claim they defy your belief system, but – because I don’t find that their existence is required to be explanatory of anything in reality.

If someone tells me Santa Claus doesn’t exist BECAUSE they don’t believe a jolly fat guy with a beard could possibly exist, I would laugh - because I AM a jolly fat guy with a beard. The reason I don’t believe in Santa Claus is because of what the Santa Claus hypothesis purports to explain – presents under the tree at Christmas. That has a perfectly plausible explanation without appeal to a magical fat guy. I don’t a priori rule out magical fat guys merely because I presume they don’t exist, as you do.

Now your problem is that you don’t have an adequate, non-question-begging explanation for the existence of the universe, while I do.

It would be like finding a 13.7 billion year old “present’ under your Christmas tree, one that encompasses all of time and physical reality, but you still can’t accept that it couldn’t have been one of your “go to” explanations - like your parents left it there - even though those explanations all miserably fail to account for the reality or nature of that “magical" present.

I have no problem believing in a Santa Claus, if such a belief could explain otherwise baffling events. You must resist such a move since you have “faith” that a more pedestrian explanation will surface “someday” even though everything that could be possible explanations in your field of view are precisely those things which, themselves, are in need of explanation.

So no, God is not something that MUST also be explained, since, conceptually speaking, using such a limited “being” as an explanation would be to resort to no explanation at all. I begin with the assumption that to be “explanatory,” in the sense required by the mysterious existence of an entire universe, God must have a unique nature - ipsum esse subsistens or aseity - as a logically necessary quality of anything that could possibly explain something like the coming into existence of the universe.

You may not like that and you may wish to characterize that as exactly like believing in Santa Claus, but, as I say, I have no compunction against believing in Santa Claus if I found that such a belief was required to be explanatory of something that could otherwise not be explained.

You are still left with explaining the – otherwise – unexplainable. Good luck with that.

 

[Hans_W]

One can be both a scientist and a philosopher.

Sure. I am not the only one

Many scientists use philosophy (inductive, deductive, intuitive logic) to affirm the existence of God, and they don’t have to bring down the whole structure of science when they do so.

But then they are not doing science anymore. If you “affirm” the existence of God (how do you do that?) you are not doing science and it doesn’t affect science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t accept that as an axiom, and** in a few moments you will deny it, too**.

Clearly, the gift of prophecy eludes you.