Why Scientism is a Faith

[AntiTheist]

Tangible evidence is stuff you can touch. If that’s the only kind of evidence you’re willing to put credence in, then my only counter to your argument is an incredulous stare, since it can’t be countered with logic.

I’m asking how you know that your conclusions are correct, how you separate true answers from false answers.

What is this intangible evidence of which you speak?

“Why does the universe have one specific form rather than another, when other forms consistent with physical laws seem perfectly possible? …] It is an issue to be examined through philosophy or metaphysics”

It may very well be that science may never come up with an answer to that question – and that testifies to the fact that knowledge is not absolute, the fact that science has limits, and the fact that our petty little brains may not ever be able to solve every last mystery.

But this does not imply that there is a better method of discovering those answers, nor does it imply that the question even has an answer (or, as Spock puts it, that the question is not nonsensical).

You seem to think that there is a method of determining true answers to questions like this. What is the method? How does it go about distinguishing true answers from false answers? And – here’s the million-dollar question – how do you know that the answers it distinguishes as true actually are true?

It’s all well and good to make up stories or to engage in thinking exercises where you derive conclusions from premises that you just randomly assert, but I’m asking a more basic question: how do you know that your method is sound and that your conclusions are actually true?

 

[Betterave]

I just used the chi-square as an example. The point is the prediction-verification.

Right, I acknowledged that chi-square was an example of a statistical mode of verification. So I assume that you recognize that statistical methods are not in general essential to scientific verification?

Don’t forget, you are the questioner in this example. All you can see is that the respondent gave you correct answers 50% of the time. You are not privy to the method he used.

I don’t see how that answers my question, and in any case, no, according to your original scenario what you see is that the answer is ‘yes’ 50% of the time and ‘no’ 50% of the time, not that the answers are correct 50% of the time.

Would you explain this in more detail? It seems to me that you deny that there is any way to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I may be misunderstanding your position.

I’m just saying that our ability to separate wheat from chaff (perhaps ‘methodically’) depends on our prior basic ability to apprehend the wheat and the chaff as such. This is not a method, it’s an ability or faculty.

Cool. So what is the way to go?

One: we need to recognize the plurality of meaning intrinsic to the notion of ‘method,’ including ‘scientific method,’ such that appeals to the exclusive rights of ‘scientific method’ are inherently suspicious and in need of interpretation. (This includes suspicious questions like, “But what other method is there?”)

Two: we need to recognize that no matter what method we invoke, it will fundamentally be grounded in and driven by the somewhat mysterious abilities or faculties that we have (sensing, conceiving, judging, understanding), which are also always in need of interpretation. Abstract appeals to the greatness and exclusiveness of some ‘method’ (like “evidence-based inquiry,” for example - or complaints like, “but I need something tangible!”) tend to obscure this truth.

 

[Betterave]

It’s all well and good to make up stories or to engage in thinking exercises where you derive conclusions from premises that you just randomly assert, but I’m asking a more basic question: how do you know that your method is sound and that your conclusions are actually true?

Here’s a more general version of your basic question: how do we ever know that our methods are sound and that our conclusions are actually true?

 

[AntiTheist]

Here’s a more general version of your basic question: how do we ever know that our methods are sound and that our conclusions are actually true?

You are reading this message on a computer. That tells us that our model of how electrons work must be fairly accurate because it enables us to do things like send messages over long distances.

 

[vz71]

And – here’s the million-dollar question – how do you know that the answers it distinguishes as true actually are true?

Perhaps the same way everyone else does…faith.

At some point we all must trust our conclusions regardless of how we have arrived at them.

 

[vz71]

You are reading this message on a computer. That tells us that our model of how electrons work must be fairly accurate because it enables us to do things like send messages over long distances.

So does that tell us that we understand how an electron works?
Does it tell us we do not?

What exactly is fairly accurate?

 

[AntiTheist]

Perhaps the same way everyone else does…faith.

At some point we all must trust our conclusions regardless of how we have arrived at them.

“Faith” is belief in the absence of sufficient evidence (if one had sufficient evidence, one would not need faith, obviously).

The things I know and believe are based on evidence. For example, I know that my car is very likely to start when I turn the key, and I know this based on evidence – past experience, inductive reasoning, some basic information about the car, etc. Now, that knowledge is not absolute, and I could always be mistaken, but it’s not in any way an act of “faith” to say that my car is likely to start when I turn the key.

I have very good reasons for thinking the way that I do and good reasons for thinking that the method of evidence-based inquiry is effective.

Evidence-based inquiry is not based on faith. It’s based on – surprise, surprise – evidence.

 

[AntiTheist]

So does that tell us that we understand how an electron works?
Does it tell us we do not?

What exactly is fairly accurate?

I’m saying that the fact that we can do things with electrons tells us that the model we have for how they work must be a pretty accurate model. If we were completely off base, it stands to reason that our attempts to manipulate electrons would be unsuccessful.

The computer is tangible evidence that we have a solid knowledge of electrons.

 

[Betterave]

You are reading this message on a computer. That tells us that our model of how electrons work must be fairly accurate because it enables us to do things like send messages over long distances.

Okay… so what is your answer to the general question?: how do we ever know that our methods are sound and that our conclusions are actually true? (Your answer is not general, it’s not easy to see how it could be generalizable, and it seems to not even deal with the issue of ‘method’ at all.)

 

[AntiTheist]

Okay… so what is your answer to the general question?: how do we ever know that our methods are sound and that our conclusions are actually true?

1. We consider a claim about the world around us to be “true” when it corresponds to the world around us.
2. We define “evidence” as “data drawn from the world around us.”
3. The more data drawn from the world around us (i.e. evidence) that supports the claim about the world around us, the more likely this claim is to correspond to the world around us (i.e. be true).
4. The more evidence that supports a claim, the more likely the claim is to be true.

Now, this isn’t just some empty syllogism that I’m asserting. This is a method that we have actually put into practice and determined that its correct practice yields results that verify the practice.

I’m asking you to explain your method for determining truth and to put on display the results that verify this method.

 

[Betterave]

1. We consider a claim about the world around us to be “true” when it corresponds to the world around us.
2. We define “evidence” as “data drawn from the world around us.”
3. The more data drawn from the world around us (i.e. evidence) that supports the claim about the world around us, the more likely this claim is to correspond to the world around us (i.e. be true).
4. The more evidence that supports a claim, the more likely the claim is to be true.

Now, this isn’t just some empty syllogism that I’m asserting. This is a method that we have actually put into practice and determined that its correct practice yields results that verify the practice.

I’m asking you to explain your method for determining truth and to put on display the results that verify this method.

If this is supposed to be a syllogism (as opposed to an ‘empty syllogism’), please put it in the form of a syllogism. If it’s not, please clarify the intended inferential structure of your collection of claims here.

 

[Spock]

Right, I acknowledged that chi-square was an example of a statistical mode of verification. So I assume that you recognize that statistical methods are not in general essential to scientific verification?

Sure. Statistical method is just a subset of verifications, when one deals with a stochastic model.

I don’t see how that answers my question, and in any case, no, according to your original scenario what you see is that the answer is ‘yes’ 50% of the time and ‘no’ 50% of the time, not that the answers are correct 50% of the time.

If you would be familiar with probability theory, you would immediately understand that the random answers will yield a correct response about 50% of the time.

I’m just saying that our ability to separate wheat from chaff (perhaps ‘methodically’) depends on our prior basic ability to apprehend the wheat and the chaff as such. This is not a method, it’s an ability or faculty.

Very true. But that is a given, not an assumption based on some “faith”. One does not need “faith” to realize that putting one’s hand into fire is painful. Of course this is a simple example, but when push comes to shove, all of our measurements boil down to some personal experience.

One: we need to recognize the plurality of meaning intrinsic to the notion of ‘method,’ including ‘scientific method,’ such that appeals to the exclusive rights of ‘scientific method’ are inherently suspicious and in need of interpretation. (This includes suspicious questions like, “But what other method is there?”)

Two: we need to recognize that no matter what method we invoke, it will fundamentally be grounded in and driven by the somewhat mysterious abilities or faculties that we have (sensing, conceiving, judging, understanding), which are also always in need of interpretation. Abstract appeals to the greatness and exclusiveness of some ‘method’ (like “evidence-based inquiry,” for example - or complaints like, “but I need something tangible!”) tend to obscure this truth.

Why on Earth are these “mysterious”? What is the “mystery” about putting one’s hand into fire will be a painful experience? I see no need for overcomplicating these simple observations. And the so-far neglected question: “what else is there?” is the pertinent one. What else can you (or anyone else) offer instead the tested “observe-measure-verify” concept? I can see no reason for the avoidance, unless, of course, there is nothing to offer, and it does not “feel good” to come clean and admit it.

 

[AntiTheist]

And the so-far neglected question: “what else is there?” is the pertinent one. What else can you (or anyone else) offer instead the tested “observe-measure-verify” concept? I can see no reason for the avoidance, unless, of course, there is nothing to offer, and it does not “feel good” to come clean and admit it.

Bravo. I want to see a clear and specific answer to this question.

 

[Spock]

Bravo. I want to see a clear and specific answer to this question.

So would I. But let’s not hold our breath. There will be no answer - since there is no answer. And it takes a fair amount of intergity to admit it.

 

[tonyrey]

1. We consider a claim about the world around us to be “true” when it corresponds to the world around us.
2. We define “evidence” as “data drawn from the world around us.”
3. The more data drawn from the world around us (i.e. evidence) that supports the claim about the world around us, the more likely this claim is to correspond to the world around us (i.e. be true).
4. The more evidence that supports a claim, the more likely the claim is to be true.

Now, this isn’t just some empty syllogism that I’m asserting. This is a method that we have actually put into practice and determined that its correct practice yields results that verify the practice.

I’m asking you to explain your method for determining truth and to put on display the results that verify this method.

Your method of determining truth is** inadequate** because truth is not a item of data. Moreover your evidence is **incomplete **because it is restricted to “data drawn from the world around us” and omits the most important data of all: the interpreters of that data…

 

[hatsoff]

Bravo. I want to see a clear and specific answer to this question.

Deduction and induction come to mind.

 

[tonyrey]

What else can you (or anyone else) offer instead the tested “observe-measure-verify” concept? I can see no reason for the avoidance, unless, of course, there is nothing to offer, and it does not “feel good” to come clean and admit it.

A far more reliable source of knowledge. In fact the only source of unequivocal knowledge we possess. All our knowledge of things is **inferred **whereas our knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions is immediate and direct. We can imagine things exist but we cannot imagine we exist. Imagination implies a subject! And subjects precede objects both logically and ontologically…

 

[AntiTheist]

Deduction and induction come to mind.

Well, yes, but deductino and induction – along with the scientific method – fall under the broader heading of “evidence-based inquiry.”

There are people who are asserting that evidence-based inquiry is not absolute and probably cannot answer all questions. I agree with that. However, I disagree with the next idea that they leap to: "Well, there must be some other method that does answer all of those other questions!’

That doesn’t follow. It might be that those “other questions” are unanswerable or flawed (i.e. nonsensical).

If you think that there is a method of determining things about the world that works better than evidence-based inquiry, I’d be curious to hear it and know how you know that it works better.

 

[tonyrey]

Deduction and induction come to mind.

Bravissimo! Mind is the key word…

 

[tonyrey]

If you think that there is a method of determining things about the world that works better than evidence-based inquiry, I’d be curious to hear it and know how you know that it works better.

You are still trapped in your scheme of things about the world. Do you count for nothing?