Entry 1505, on 2013-03-05 at 13:08:35 (Rating 3, Science)
In recent discussions I have often encountered the question of what is the best way to establish the truth. Generally this question is used as a cover for religious people to reject the findings of science because they claim science can't discover certain types of truth and that alternative methods must be employed instead.
Before even examining that issue we must face the problem of is there really a thing called "truth" anyway? Maybe there is no truth at all (a type of epistemological or ontological nihilism), or maybe there are multiple truths depending on your philosophical approach (relativism), or maybe there is a truth but we can never know it for sure (classical skepticism).
Philosophers can debate these problems of epistemology for as long as they like. I fully understand that we can never be totally sure about anything regarding the nature of reality but I prefer to take a more pragmatic approach. We all act as if there is a reality and that we can know it to some extent so let's keep the whole debate reasonable and start with the assumption that there is an underlying reality and that we can know something about it even if we can never fully understand it.
The scientific method has emerged over the last couple of hundred years as the way to do this, at least in my opinion, but not according to everyone as we will see later. This method is basically a cycle of formulating an hypothesis to test, creating an experiment (using appropriate blinding, baseline testing, controls, etc) or making an observation to test the hypothesis, carefully examining the results, writing up the method and conclusions in a formal way, having other people repeat the experiment, and looking for consistent outcomes and establishing theories based on those.
I would assert that the method works for two reasons: first, it just simply makes sense that it should because careful formulation, testing, and repetition is just naturally a logical way to proceed; and second, it gets results.
Yes, science does get results. We can look at the outcome of science-based interventions such as antibiotics and see the effectiveness, but look at the outcome of other processes based on alternative worldviews (such as religion, spirituality, etc) and you will see a mixture of good, bad, and inconclusive results (the efficacy of prayer would be a good example) which is generally a sign that there is no real effect.
There is a criticism of what I have just said however. That is that I am proposing using a scientific testing regime to test both science and other systems. Is that fair? Maybe not.
But now I get to the core question in this blog entry. That is: what is the alternative? If anyone disagrees with the scientific method then I would like to hear them propose something better. When I challenge someone this way I usually don't get an answer at all and if I do get an answer it usually makes very little sense.
For example someone might suggest that faith is a good alternative. OK, let's look at that idea. Faith is a belief in something without good supporting evidence. How do I decide which thing to believe? For example, if it is a religion then how do I decide which religion to have faith in? Many people will say it obviously has to be Christianity but that is just a consequence of being born in a country with where Christianity is the dominant religion. If I asked the same question in Saudi Arabia I would be told Islam is the obvious answer, or in India I might be encouraged to follow Hinduism.
This does not sound like a good way to establish a real, objective truth, because it depends so much on totally arbitrary starting parameters. Is the truth different depending on which religion is popular in the country you were born in?
Another possible solution is to look at the contents of the belief system in question and see if they fit the facts. But this isn't faith any more, is it? In fact taking the ideas of a belief system and testing them sounds more like science! Unfortunately when you do this in every case the belief system is found to be severely lacking in which case it is necessary to revert to faith. So around and around the old circular logic roundabout we go!
If anyone believes in something based on faith we can almost immediately assume it is untrue because if faith is necessary to support something you can be fairly sure that it has failed all the real reality tests and faith is the only option left.
But what about revealed knowledge? The sort of thing found in holy books, like the BIble. Exactly the same criticism applies. Which holy book should we choose? And if we use real scientific investigation to test these books why do they always fail?
So let's move beyond religious answers and look at other alternatives. What about philosophy? Well I have a lot of regard for philosophy but so much of it (not all) is somewhat pointless because it is untestable. If a number of philosophical theories are devised and there is no way to distinguish which is true then what is the point? I would suggest that the value of these theories is somewhat limited.
So now it all gets back to my second reason for supporting science: it gets results. Look back at the history of civilisation. Where has almost all of our real progress come from? Is it from religion, or philosophy or science (and its natural end result, technology)? I think if anyone was truly honest they would agree that science is the system which has produced the real results.
So there's an open challenge to everyone. If you really think science has problems and is imperfect (it is) and you want to reject it based on that then tell me what is better. Whatever flaws science has I would claim it is much better than anything else we have. If you disagree let's hear your better idea!
Comment 1 (3434) by chicagoja on 2013-03-05 at 15:31:45:
While I much prefer scientific explanations over religion, science is itself a form of religion – the belief that the mind can observe the unknowable by looking at the knowable. Besides, science by definition is unsettled so what they say today will inevitably be changed tomorrow.
Comment 2 (3435) by OJB on 2013-03-05 at 15:32:01:
No, sorry, but you’re wrong about everything! :) Science is not a form of religion in the real sense: “religion (noun) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. Does that sound like science? And I agree that *some* science will change in the future but it’s still by far the best explanation we have of the real world. The challenge still stands: name something better!
Comment 3 (3436) by keithnoback on 2013-03-05 at 15:33:03:
Let me play Devil’s advocate (so to speak). Metaphysical naturalism, despite it’s variety, maintains at heart that our concepts and other mental experiences are derivative and descriptive. Number theory, for example, is derived from observation of identity among perceptual objects. The perceptual objects are basic. But why do we perceive them so? That is a more difficult issue.
To many religious people, that issue is too troubling. They feel that our concepts and mental experiences must be primary in order for us to make sense of our perceptions. This is a feeling they have, admittedly. However it is not a totally irrational feeling as it does have a basis in the question above. Given this perspective on what is primary, it is easy to see how people might reach the conclusion that there is a mind of minds wherein all these basic mental elements reside.
The problems with the latter view are too great for me. I think it leads inevitably to some flavor of substance dualism, which seems an indefensible position. Physicalism has its issues, but they come in the form of loose ends instead of dead ends. The loose ends remain, however, and we shouldn’t be surprised that some folks prefer the other set of problems. I say all this to the exclusion of those who are fearful, stupid or plain, bat-shit crazy and subsequently just ignore such matters. Lot of that going around, too.
Comment 4 (3437) by OJB on 2013-03-05 at 15:34:25:
Yes, well as I said in the blog entry, philosophers can play the game about what we can really know and what is the true nature of reality forever. I said I prefer to take pragmatic approach even though I know that ultimately it cannot be strictly justified. So yes, I agree with your comments in some ways. But I don’t think that’s the reason any religious person I have ever debated with rejects science. They have far less sophisticated reasons: it disagrees with their superstitious beliefs!
Comment 5 (4417) by SM on 2015-10-30 at 14:14:49:
"Is it from religion, or philosophy or science (and its natural end result, technology)? I think if anyone was truly honest they would agree that science is the system which has produced the real results." - Ironic then, that it was a religious (Christian-theistic) philosophy of science that set science on it's pragmatic tracks...
Comment 6 (4419) by SM on 2015-10-30 at 16:31:52:
"We all act as if there is a reality..."
Who is this "all"? Certainly not the millions of followers of various Indian religions who believe reality to be an illusion.
"...and that we can know it to some extent"
But this statement presupposes your theory of knowledge - "the scientific method" (Humean empiricism?) - and assumes that you can 'know'. If you can't justify, from within your naturalistic worldview, HOW you know, how is knowledge made possible? Simply taking a "pragmatic approach" does not relieve you of this dilemma. What is your ultimate authority, by which you can say, "I know (to some extent) that reality exists"?
"...start with the assumption that there is an underlying reality"
So a leap of faith then?
Comment 7 (4420) by SM on 2015-10-30 at 16:50:10:
"For example someone might suggest that faith is a good alternative..."
Hopefully not a Christian who knows their bible, because faith is not an epistemology. Faith is not HOW you know; it's WHAT you do with knowledge. I know you won't agree, but that is how faith is understood within the biblical worldview. That is the faith that Max Plank envisioned when he said faith, "is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." This blog entry makes it quite obvious that not even you cannot operate outside of a fiduciary framework.
Comment 8 (4421) by SM on 2015-10-30 at 16:51:17: *Max Planck
Comment 9 (4423) by OJB on 2015-10-30 at 21:12:41:
OK, let me see if I can respond to your points (thanks for being so thorough)...
Comment 5. I don't think you can really make the claim that science came from religion. Some of the principles of science came form the Greek world and it was primarily Christianity which held back that early progress during the Dark Ages. I accept that many of the "early scientists" were Christians but that was because everyone was. It was either be a Christian or be persecuted!
Comment 6. Even the people who have a belief system which rejects objective reality act as if there is one. They don't jump off tall buildings because they know gravity is real, for example. I agree that philosophically we can never be certain of anything, because everything (even the existence of the universe) could be an illusion. But that is a pointless view to take. We have to start with something (that an objective reality exists). Call it faith if you wish, but it's really just pragmatism.
Comment 7. You're right, I don't agree. Some people believe religions because they think they have had some sort of supernatural experience, but these can never be verified (I'm not saying they can't be true, just that they probably aren't true). But the majority just believe through habit or faith. What other possible reason would there be to believe the Bible stories (and those from other religious texts)?
Comment 10 (4427) by SM on 2015-11-02 at 14:47:02:
“I don't think you can really make the claim that science came from religion.”
That’s not what I’m claiming.
There was paradigmatic change in 17th century Western Europe (post Dark Ages and post Protestant Reformation) regarding the search for epistemological certainty about nature. The driving force of this change was the combined intellectual efforts of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and Pierre Gassendi: a scientist, a philosopher, and a priest – all Christian theists.
Our (Western) scientific tradition today, is the by-product of this change. Some historians believe Bacon was almost solely responsible for shifting the focus of nature inquiry (“science”) from doxological to pragmatic. However, Descartes and Gassendi developed this shift in focus with the understanding that it was a NECESSARY bifurcation in truth – the ‘two circle theory’ of truth (faith-truths and nature-truths). This bifurcation was cemented in place by Kant when he “saved” science; the outcome being, phenomena/noumena, fact/value, "science/religion".
As an aside, if religion was understood as being, “the various efforts of man to apprehend the totality of existence…” (Hendrik Kraemer), as it commonly is in the history and philosophy of religion, then I think there are good grounds for claiming science came from religion.
Comment 11 (4428) by SM on 2015-11-02 at 15:36:40:
“Even the people who have a belief system which rejects objective reality act as if there is one.”
Yes, I would say it's because they live in spite of their professed worldview. You hold to a worldview that says you cannot have epistemological certainty: “We can never know anything for certain...” (OJB Blog). This, as you are aware, destroys the task of inquiry, rendering such activity pointless. So you “must be pragmatic” in order to proceed. Yet this is an expression of necessity (“must”); something that is disallowed in a naturalistic worldview. If you cannot know anything for certain, why do science? Where is the mandate for inquiry, in a naturalistic worldview?
Comment 12 (4429) by OJB on 2015-11-02 at 17:31:54:
Regarding comment 10...
Yes, I am aware of the contribution of these people, especially Bacon, plus that of many others, such as Galileo. And I am aware that many of them had religious beliefs, as was universally the case at the time. I don't agree that science was inspired in any significant way by religion.
Religion is about following revealed knowledge and generally involves a major element of faith. Science involves discovered knowledge and relies in skepticism. They are total opposites.
I dont believe religion has any place in a knowledge system, not even for establishing value. That's what philosophy is for. Religion is a pointless anachronism which is taking a long time to die.
Comment 13 (4430) by OJB on 2015-11-02 at 17:48:51:
Re comment 11...
I can't follow most of your logic in this comment, I'm afraid. But the key point is this: science doesn't require certainty, that's why so many results give confidence estimates, probability levels, etc. And philosophically we can never be 100% certain of the existence of anything, but this affects all worldviews equally, and has always seemed a rather pointless view to take because it just leads us nowhere.
Comment 14 (4435) by SM on 2015-11-04 at 10:31:55:
"I don't agree that science was inspired in any significant way by religion."
Yet Kepler was inspired to do science because he believed he was, "thinking God's thoughts after him". Bacon saw the need to put science back on the track of progress because he believed mankind needed to, "...recover its God-given right over nature".
Comment 15 (4437) by OJB on 2015-11-04 at 15:55:04:
I guess people have many different reasons for doing what they do, some of which make little sense. That doesn't mean that science itself is inspired by religion though. As I have already pointed out, their methodologies are totally opposite.
Comment 16 (4439) by SM on 2015-11-04 at 19:45:47:
Thanks.
Is it fair to say that SETI is inspired by the (speculative) belief that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
Comment 17 (4441) by OJB on 2015-11-04 at 23:04:24:
SETI is inspired by the wish to find out if intelligent life exists or doesn't. Most people who know much about this would admit there are too many unknowns to really speculate much one way or the other.
However, either way the result is amazing. Think about it: either we are the only intelligent life in the whole vast universe (this seems almost impossible) or there are other intelligent civilizations out there (also an incredible thought).
Comment 18 (4444) by SM on 2015-11-06 at 08:57:18:
Great, thanks; appreciate the discussion.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE