The limitations of science (The limitations of science)
In his post of 13 February at 14.49, under "Politics and Science: is science being corrupted", David wrote:-We depend on science in our discussions here. Is it safe to depend too much on current scientific conclusions and theories? Again, to harp on current climate science, the answer is no.-Aside from the fact that it's never safe to depend "too much" on anything, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on this. I acknowledge how essential it is that in our discussions we never lose sight of the findings of science. In that sense, yes, we depend on it. But as you and Matt are constantly emphasizing, science can rarely give us "truths", and in many areas relevant to our discussions, scientists themselves are divided even on "likelihoods". On none of the questions relating, for instance, to the origin of life, chance v. design, the nature of consciousness, what preceded the Big Bang, does science provide us with anything but speculation. Its restriction to the material world provides it with potential reliability ... potential being far removed from actual ... since the material world can be studied, but this leads to the exclusion of experiences which by their very nature suggest the possibility (no more) of something beyond the material world, at least as we know it. -The scientific contributions made by you, George and Matt are invaluable to a non-scientist like myself, although I could scarcely resist a cheer when I read Henk Tennekes' castigation of what he calls "hermetic jargon". All too often, this is language used to obfuscate rather than explain ... but that's another subject. The point I'm gradually moving towards is that our discussions depend on a great deal more than science. Indeed, the moment a scientist draws philosophical conclusions from his scientific findings, he ceases to speak as a scientist. And the moment our discussions enter into the realm of subjective judgement or experience, we leave science behind without necessarily leaving "truth" behind. Your own route to God, like George's atheism, came largely through science, whereas BBella and Frank came to their form of God from a totally different direction; Matt tends to follow a scientific route away from God but keeps his options open because there is more to life than science (I hope that's a fair summary). From my own point of view, the personal experiences passed on to us by you and BBella, and earlier discussions with various contributors on the nature of a possible God, on ethics, on art, on the "paranormal", are every bit as important as the "scientific conclusions and theories".
The limitations of science
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 15, 2010, 16:46 (5393 days ago) @ dhw
In his post of 13 February at 14.49, under "Politics and Science: is science being corrupted", David wrote: > > We depend on science in our discussions here. Is it safe to depend too much on current scientific conclusions and theories? Again, to harp on current climate science, the answer is no. > > Aside from the fact that it's never safe to depend "too much" on anything, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on this. I acknowledge how essential it is that in our discussions we never lose sight of the findings of science. In that sense, yes, we depend on it. But as you and Matt are constantly emphasizing, science can rarely give us "truths", and in many areas relevant to our discussions, scientists themselves are divided even on "likelihoods". On none of the questions relating, for instance, to the origin of life, chance v. design, the nature of consciousness, what preceded the Big Bang, does science provide us with anything but speculation. Its restriction to the material world provides it with potential reliability ... potential being far removed from actual ... since the material world can be studied, but this leads to the exclusion of experiences which by their very nature suggest the possibility (no more) of something beyond the material world, at least as we know it. > -Still, the material world is a very big place, and quite clearly touches everything that we can objectively *know.* - > ...Matt tends to follow a scientific route away from God but keeps his options open because there is more to life than science (I hope that's a fair summary). From my own point of view, the personal experiences passed on to us by you and BBella, and earlier discussions with various contributors on the nature of a possible God, on ethics, on art, on the "paranormal", are every bit as important as the "scientific conclusions and theories".-Painfully accurate. I often feel I'm caught in a tortuous vise: though many of my atheist friends think religion at large only leads to evil, I actually do admit that I think I know exactly what it is that religions/deities provide. I've mentioned before that when I study the religion of my ancestors I feel very much like these beings and stories pulse and call to me, bridging a gap through the millennium to my ancestors, often to the point where I would cease to say I'm thinking them and actually *feeling* them. There's a primal nature within all of us that exists with the common facade of civilization, and it means different things to different people. If any of you have seen the movie Avatar, it's probably one of the most spiritual movies I've seen, though you have to look beyond the gloss to see it. -This primal mechanism, used with a group of people and the same common mythology, provides a means to commune with one another, provides a central focus for a people, a tribe, and allows the self to be subsumed into the whole of the tribe. It is pointless really, in my mind, to ask the question of whether or not these feelings are created or perceived, because the effect of them is real no matter the root cause.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The limitations of science
Matt says that the primal mechanism of religion "provides a means to commune with one another, provides a central focus for a people, a tribe, and allows the self to be subsumed into the whole of the tribe. It is pointless really, in my mind, to ask the question of whether or not these feelings are created or perceived, because the effect of them is real no matter the root cause."-Like yourself, I'm as aware of the benefits of religion as I am of the damage it causes. The bigotry, arrogance and even violence of the bad is balanced by the communality, selflessness and spirituality of the good. As with just about everything else in our human world, it's a mixture. There is therefore no real disagreement between us, but I'd like to follow up on your final point. Firstly, it's not the feelings that are either created or perceived ... they and their effects are both real. It's the source of those feelings that raises the question of reality, and although your beloved Nietzsche would regard the question as pointless, I don't, and I'm not convinced that you do either, since it ties in not only with this post but also with your post on spirituality.-There you mentioned Van Gogh, and you could have mentioned any number of extraordinary people who have enriched our lives. The chances are that at least half of them would have been considered pretty weird in their time and ours. In the religious context, if Jesus Christ had been born now, you can be pretty sure he'd have found followers in some parts of the world, but he would have been locked away in an asylum or assassinated in others. (I'll leave you to work out what would have happened where!) So did his extraordinariness bring him closer to objective reality than our ordinariness? -It's part of our human nature to want to understand the world we live in. The drive for "truth" has led us to astonishing feats and discoveries, and the great mystics and artists and thinkers have contributed just as much to human progress as the great scientists (I know you agree). Therefore I don't see the quest to uncover the sources of our "spiritual" experiences as being pointless. Just as I want to know whether my personal identity is locked into my brain cells or is something independent (a "soul"), I want to know if the source of the real impact of religion is also real ... i.e. is it an intelligent power that exists independently of the human mind (something "perceived"), or is it a projection of the mind (something "created")? No-one would believe in a God if they thought their belief was based on something imaginary! Are the mystics deluded, then, or do they see more than we do? The argument that we shall never know the objective truth is one that I naturally go along with, but a lot of people do manage to find answers that satisfy them subjectively (George and David, for instance), so I'd say the question is not necessarily pointless, because the answer, as you have indicated, can have very real practical consequences.
The limitations of science
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 15:41 (5384 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-My wife being a teacher (in training) also gets this journal for free, I forget the name off the top of my head, but it's about preserving indigenous human cultures. An article popped into my head as I reread your response here. -The article was about the comparison of western science to native methods of gaining information. The writer was criticising science stating that this slow method of gaining knowledge simply isn't supported by the speed that is typically required of native cultures to respond and adapt to changes in their environment. Clearly, all humans engage in inductive reasoning about their environment, but the writer claimed that the information gained by native methods was instantly transferable and ready to be applied, whereas in the western method we've grown accustomed to waiting for long periods of time before useful information comes down. This is certainly a valid bit of reasoning--it can take a decade before a result or a finding finds application in a real-world solution for something, whereas even if the reasoning might be a bit faulty, traditional cultures have apparently survived well by simply testing and applying immediately.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The limitations of science
MATT: The article was about the comparison of western science to native methods of gaining information. [...] Even if the reasoning might be a bit faulty, traditional cultures have apparently survived well by simply testing and applying immediately.-Thanks for this interesting post. I'm not sure one can say that in traditional cultures the useful information "comes down" any faster than science. Tradition needs a long time to establish itself, and useful information is usually the result of long years of experience. I read an article recently about the disastrous results of applying scientific western methods to cattle farming somewhere in East Africa. Stupidly I chucked it out, and I can't recall the details, but it was all connected with traditional nomadism and how the land (and hence cattle farming) has now been ruined by settlement and fixed pastures. One shouldn't romanticize indigenous cultures, but as you say, they survived and flourished for centuries before the European came on the scene, and the application of western norms and methods has destroyed many traditions and values which are irreplaceable. Having said that, I must own up to the fact that without western medicine, I would not have left West Africa alive!
The limitations of science
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 25, 2010, 00:54 (5384 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: The article was about the comparison of western science to native methods of gaining information. [...] Even if the reasoning might be a bit faulty, traditional cultures have apparently survived well by simply testing and applying immediately. > > Thanks for this interesting post. I'm not sure one can say that in traditional cultures the useful information "comes down" any faster than science. Tradition needs a long time to establish itself, and useful information is usually the result of long years of experience. I read an article recently about the disastrous results of applying scientific western methods to cattle farming somewhere in East Africa. Stupidly I chucked it out, and I can't recall the details, but it was all connected with traditional nomadism and how the land (and hence cattle farming) has now been ruined by settlement and fixed pastures. One shouldn't romanticize indigenous cultures, but as you say, they survived and flourished for centuries before the European came on the scene, and the application of western norms and methods has destroyed many traditions and values which are irreplaceable. Having said that, I must own up to the fact that without western medicine, I would not have left West Africa alive!-Well the article used some kind of example that was good, but I'd have to go dig it up. -In regards to the traditional issue, it's been cropping up that some native methods of doing things were actually the correct ones in the first place. In South America, tribes would burn down a small section of forest, and then grow MANY kinds of crops in the area. By growing a variety, the tribes manage to have a better level of pest control (by avoiding monoculture) and they continuously rotate through areas to burn. Nowadays, big farms burn huge sections of rainforest, and agriculturally deplete the soil within two years. -I agree with you on western medicine, btw. And for the record the thought of returning to even a modern farm chills my spine with the thought of work, heh.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Monday, February 15, 2010, 19:46 (5393 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, February 15, 2010, 19:57
My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognise his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project.-By the way I was intrigued by your statement: "I could scarcely resist a cheer when I read Henk Tennekes' castigation of what he calls "hermetic jargon"." Where did he say that? And who is he?
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 15, 2010, 22:07 (5393 days ago) @ George Jelliss
My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognise his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project. > -You see, the issue (again) is one of framework. I'll leave dhw to discuss his own view here, but here's my 2 cents:-Your disagreement with dhw here is bounded by what is considered "natural," and by what the limits are in terms of answering the question about a phenomenon. -Some philosophers will say that reason is enough--others will insist on a more Empirical approach. Obviously, one must use both kinds of tools. But where the issue bends is on what you and dhw accept as valid evidence. Sometimes, there is no physical evidence. I can tell you yesterday that I thought of a pink elephant, but you have to take me on my word, because you can't verify in any way that yes, indeed, I thought of a pink elephant. -Lets say today, that I thought of an invisible being that rules the universe for good. Rightly, you'd challenge that by saying, "okay, show me that he exists?" For some people, this isn't a thought, it's a feeling; an emotion. And you cannot decide for those people what it is that they should and shouldn't accept or reject; one nature of faith is acceptance of a belief even when evidence suggests otherwise. You can't ask someone to prove a feeling--you'd be asking them to try to duplicate a feeling from themselves to you, not a hard piece of evidence. An immaterial component of reality is represented by this kind of a phenomenon, I say this because even though a thought is an electrochemical process, you can't actually figure out what someone's thought is: you have no access to its content as an outside observer. And you have no real means to tell that person that their feeling is incorrect, I hate to say it but humans have an emotional capacity that is more of who we are than the logic we love so much. This emotional capacity serves us well and helped us evolve to this point. -I guess you can say that I'm less concerned overall about whether or not Gods are real than I am with the psychological impact of these beings--real or imagined.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The limitations of science
GEORGE: My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognize his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project.-You switch from philosophy to natural philosophy here, and I'm not sure what you mean by the latter. Normally I'd understand it as the study of nature ... i.e. the precursor of what we now call the natural sciences ... which is not the same as philosophy, i.e. the study of such basic concepts as truth, good and evil, semantics, the nature of knowledge etc. Even though science and philosophy may overlap in certain areas, you certainly wouldn't argue that the natural sciences are concerned with, say, ethics or epistemology, so I don't know why you have trouble distinguishing between them.-I agree, though, that it's all one project in the sense that what we're investigating is life and the world around us, and I also agree with most of Matt's response to you, the two crucial points being: 1) "Your disagreement with dhw here is bounded by what is considered "natural", and 2) "where the issue bends is on what you and dhw accept as valid evidence". I'll take these extremely perceptive comments (thank you, Matt) as my starting-point, but will make one important adjustment to 2). The difference between us is what we accept not as valid evidence but as possible evidence. -I have no idea what potentially might lie within the bounds of "nature", but if there is a God, we would have to incorporate him within the great "wholeness" (though process theologians would argue that he is both within and without). To elaborate on this, it might be best to focus on the concrete areas of disagreement.-The two main ones are the origin of life, and experiences that appear to defy rational explanation. As regards the origin of life, reason makes me sceptical that chance could have assembled all the necessary components (we've been over the details ad nauseam). Reason also tells me that the alternative to chance is design, which entails intelligence. I don't know what such an intelligence might be like ... although I'm free to speculate ... but reason throws up a series of unanswerable questions which make me equally sceptical about the existence of such a being. However, I think one of these explanations must be true, and so I leave both options open. You, on the other hand, are not prepared even to contemplate the second, and this is where faith steps in. You have faith that the physical components of life could assemble themselves without guidance. I don't, but I go no further than that. I don't think this has anything to do with distinctions between material/immaterial or science/philosophy. It's purely a matter of our personal limits of credulity. On this subject, you have more cause to disagree with David than with me, because like yourself he takes the extra step of faith, but in the opposite direction.-Experiences that defy rational explanation do bring in a possible distinction between material/immaterial. We have no explanation for consciousness and the vast variety of faculties, activities, emotions associated with it, not to mention so-called "paranormal" phenomena (of which more in a moment). You're convinced that eventually all of these will be explained in terms of the physical brain, thus eliminating the possibility of there being what we call a spiritual component to our identity, by which I mean a form of life that is independent of our brain cells. I'm not convinced. For me, your anticipation of such explanations is again a matter of faith which I can't share, any more than I can share faith in an eternal power called God. Such a "spiritual" dimension will still be part of nature if nature means the universe and everything in it, and the difference between us here is that I don't know what constitutes nature, whereas you appear to be convinced that all these phenomena can be traced back to known physical sources (in this case, brain cells). -Matt identifies the "spiritual" element with emotion, but perhaps that's misleading. The ability of David's wife to locate lost objects, the information passed onto BBella's relatives about a stranger's death (sorry, I can't remember the details now), countless other such experiences, NDEs ... these are not feelings. But for me they do constitute possible evidence (nothing more) to accompany the very real experiences of emotions, ideas, art, literature, music as possible pointers (nothing more) to a "spiritual" form of life as defined above. Again, it all comes down to Matt's two categories: definitions of "nature" and of "evidence".-You were intrigued by my statement: "I could scarcely resist a cheer when I read Henk Tennekes' castigation of what he calls "hermetic jargon"." My apologies ... I should have given you the full reference. This was to an article recommended by David under "Politics and Science..." on 13 February at 14.49. Well worth reading!
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 00:14 (5392 days ago) @ dhw
GEORGE: My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognize his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project. dhw: You switch from philosophy to natural philosophy here, and I'm not sure what you mean by the latter. -natural philosphy is just a part of philosophy.-dhw maintains philosophy is "the study of such basic concepts as truth, good and evil, semantics, the nature of knowledge etc."-that's part of philosophy.-dhw maintains that "science and philosophy may overlap in certain areas"-I would place science entirely within the broader realm of philosophy.-dhw says that I "certainly wouldn't argue that the natural sciences are concerned with, say, ethics or epistemology"-On the contrary. I would argue that epistemology, the study of how we know what we know, is a fundamental part of science, since it is the basis for scientific method. No point in pursuing science if we can't be confident in the truth of what we find out. I would also argue that ethics cannot be separated from scientific knowledge about the human beings with whose behaviour ethics is concerned.-Yet we do "agree, though, that it's all one project in the sense that what we're investigating is life and the world around us"-dhw maintains that "The difference between us is what we accept not as valid evidence but as possible evidence. /// The two main ones are the origin of life, and experiences that appear to defy rational explanation." -I would prefer to say that the difference between us is the degree of reliability that we place on different forms of evidence.-dhw claims that I an "not prepared even to contemplate" the concept of an intelligent designer. On the contrary, I am prepared to contemplate such a hypothesis, but I conclude from the many arguments we have already gone over, that the probability of such a being is negligible.-dhw claims further that I "have faith that the physical components of life could assemble themselves without guidance". On the contrary I have no such "faith" in the sense of "belief without evidence", it is simply that I conclude from the evidence that this is by far the most probable explanation, the likelihood of the alternative being negligible. -dhw claims our differences are "purely a matter of our personal limits of credulity." This is not the way I would put it. I would be inclined to say that dhw's degree of agnosticism, as between the two opposing propositions, shows a willingness to place excessive value on evidence I would consider worthless. This is a disagreement on epistemology.
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
GEORGE: My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognize his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project.-By science I understand the natural sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology, which study the physical world. In reply to my statement that science and philosophy "may overlap in certain areas", you "would place science entirely within the broader realm of philosophy". The word "broader" is, I suppose, infinitely expandable, and so one might indeed argue that philosophy is concerned with every aspect of existence, which must therefore include the natural sciences. At this level, it becomes impossible to draw any distinctions. I didn't think, for instance, you would argue "that the natural sciences are concerned with, say, ethics or epistemology". However, you say that on the contrary epistemology "is a fundamental part of science, since it is the basis for scientific method", and "ethics cannot be separated from scientific knowledge about the human beings with whose behaviour ethics is concerned." True, but in both cases, this is what I would call overlapping, and I'd be surprised if a chemist/physicist/biologist agreed that the "concern" of his subject was to distinguish between connaître and savoir, between a priori and a posteriori, between deduction and induction, between practical and propositional. Is chemistry "concerned" with the distinction between ethical naturalism and ethical rationalism, or with questions such as whether the means justifies the end? I don't see it as unreasonable to draw dividing lines, especially when not to do so creates confusion, which I think is the case with your statement quoted at the start.-I agree, as I said in my original response, "that it's all one project in the sense that what we're investigating is life and the world around us." My point is that there are different approaches to the project. I said that where you and I differ is in what we regard as possible evidence. You respond that the difference between us is "the degree of reliability that we place on different forms of evidence." Since I have drawn no conclusions, I don't claim that ANY evidence for or against design/chance, physical/spiritual, God/no God is reliable. This, however, is precisely where my distinction between science and philosophy, in the narrower sense, and between material and immaterial comes into play. I refuse to dismiss certain mystic, emotional, psychic experiences ... for which science as yet has no explanation ... as possible evidence, and for you my openness constitutes "a willingness to place excessive value" on evidence which you "would consider worthless". This constitutes any experience, observation or interpretation that does not conform to your concept of existence, which is that there is no form of life beyond the material world as we know it (i.e. the world studied by the natural sciences). -Let me stress that I can't dispute this subjective evaluation of evidence, because I have no objective criterion with which to counter it. But you don't have one either. Words like "excessive", "worthless", "negligible" are expressions of opinion, nothing more. I have no difficulty understanding your belief that chance assembled the components of life and that the evidence supports you (just as David believes the same evidence supports the opposite view). What I don't understand is your apparent reluctance to acknowledge the subjectivity of the process and priorities that have led to your beliefs. -*** I've just read your very interesting reflections on "Categories or Degrees of Existence". I'll have to get back to this next time.
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 18, 2010, 12:20 (5391 days ago) @ dhw
dhw writes: "I'd be surprised if a chemist/physicist/biologist agreed that the "concern" of his subject was to distinguish between connaître and savoir, between a priori and a posteriori, between deduction and induction, between practical and propositional. Is chemistry "concerned" with the distinction between ethical naturalism and ethical rationalism, or with questions such as whether the means justifies the end? -Chemistry may not be concerned with these questions, but Chemists must be. Without being aware of the epistemological basis and ethical motivation on which they are working their work would be worthless. -dhw: "I said that where you and I differ is in what we regard as possible evidence. You respond that the difference between us is "the degree of reliability that we place on different forms of evidence." Since I have drawn no conclusions, I don't claim that ANY evidence for or against design/chance, physical/spiritual, God/no God is reliable."-This just proves my point. You dismiss evidence that I evaluate as reliable, and place them on an equal footing to evidence I evaluate as unreliable. And my methods of evaluation are not just a matter of emotive reaction but of rational balancing of the probabilities.-dhw: "I refuse to dismiss certain mystic, emotional, psychic experiences ... for which science as yet has no explanation ... as possible evidence"-I would say that science does have adequate explanations of such experiences.-dhw: "This constitutes any experience, observation or interpretation that does not conform to your concept of existence, which is that there is no form of life beyond the material world as we know it (i.e. the world studied by the natural sciences)." -This is putting the cart before the horse. I don't have any preconceived concept of existence. I come to that view by weighing the evidence. It also overstates my view, since I remain open to other evidence.-dhw claims: "Words like "excessive", "worthless", "negligible" are expressions of opinion, nothing more." ... "What I don't understand is your apparent reluctance to acknowledge the subjectivity of the process and priorities that have led to your beliefs."-Absolutely not. They are the result of careful thought, of weighing of the evidence, of going to a lot of trouble trying to be as objective and unbiased as possible. You are free to disagree with me, but I can only think you have a personal need for "certain mystic, emotional, psychic experiences" to have greater value and meaning than can be objectively maintained.
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
George and I are locked in battle over evidence and subjectivity.-You say I dismiss evidence that you evaluate as reliable, and place it on an equal footing to evidence you evaluate as unreliable. I do not dismiss any evidence. However, I do put all these forms of evidence on an equal footing, because in my view none of them are reliable enough to prove that life did or did not come about by chance, that the brain cells are or are not the actual source of consciousness etc., that there is or is not a God. My evaluation of the evidence is subjective, just as your dismissal of some forms of evidence as "worthless" or "negligible" is subjective.-You say your methods "are not just a matter of emotive reaction but of rational balancing of the probabilities", and your opinions "are the result of careful thought, of weighing the evidence, of going to a lot of trouble trying to be as objective and unbiased as possible." I accept that without question. I would attribute precisely the same rational balancing, careful thought etc. to David Turell and his opinions, and I would be most offended if anyone suggested that I myself had not thought carefully, weighed the evidence, gone to a lot of trouble etc. But both you and David have reached opposite conclusions and I have reached none. Are you then claiming that only someone who reaches your conclusion is being "as objective and unbiased as possible"? I trust not. None of us can avoid our own subjectivity, but perhaps some of us are simply more aware of it than others!
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, February 19, 2010, 11:42 (5390 days ago) @ dhw
dhw writes: "You say I dismiss evidence that you evaluate as reliable, and place it on an equal footing to evidence you evaluate as unreliable. I do not dismiss any evidence. However, I do put all these forms of evidence on an equal footing, because in my view none of them are reliable enough to prove that life did or did not come about by chance, that the brain cells are or are not the actual source of consciousness etc., that there is or is not a God. My evaluation of the evidence is subjective, just as your dismissal of some forms of evidence as "worthless" or "negligible" is subjective."-So according to dhw then everything is just a matter of opinion and we can never arrive at any agreement. The core of the problem then lies in dhw's statement: "I do put all these forms of evidence on an equal footing". This is his statement of his agnostic faith, which is not merely that "we don't know" but that "we cannot know". Because any evidence, however flimsy, must be given the same 50/50 valuation as every other. Every gap in the evidence is equally probable to be filled in every possible way, and on this methodology the sensible joining-up-the-dots solution is no more probable than any other.
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Friday, February 19, 2010, 15:01 (5389 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw: > >My evaluation of the evidence is subjective, just as your dismissal of some forms of evidence as "worthless" or "negligible" is subjective."-Our subjective natures do force us to come to some conclusions are broad varience with each other. I think as he does that one must look at every bit of evidence andweight it for itds value. Then some will be major and some minor in its effect on my conclusions. But I will reach conclusions. > >The core of the problem then lies in dhw's statement: "I do put all these forms of evidence on an equal footing".-Right on, George! this is why dhw's rump is so sore. The tips of the picket fence can be quite pointed. Proudly sitting there is not progress. Just dhw's statement that he sees no way chance can create the diversity of life we see (paraphrase)should be a big push off the fence. He just doesn't seem to know where to take himself to the next step. I'll stick with Adler: preponderence of evidence. I agree with dhw about chance. His motto should be, "proud to be an agnostic and damned if I'll change".
The limitations of science
DAVID: This is why dhw's rump is so sore. The tips of the picket fence can be quite pointed. Proudly sitting there is not progress. Just dhw's statement that he sees no way chance can create the diversity of life we see (paraphrase) should be a big push off the fence.-So there I am on my fence (padded with a great big cushion of doubt), on one side the delights of design, and on the other the charms of chance. Here's the deal I'm offered: a) choose design and have faith in a universal intelligence, the form of which is unknown and unknowable, the origin of which is inconceivable, and the presence of which is impossible to detect; b) choose chance, chuck your chemistry set in the Jacuzzi, and wait for a cry of "Eureka".-David suggests that my motto should be: "proud to be an agnostic and damned if I'll change." But no, even though Matt has told me how brave it is to be an agnostic, I'm not proud of it, and I'll change if I find a convincing reason to do so. In the meantime, here are a few more mottos for everyone:-Fresh air doesn't come through closed windows. Try arguing the opposite of what you believe. If someone shines a spotlight, look in the shadows.-And one specially for me: He who drives down the middle of the road can expect a collision.-It's open house, folks. Add your own.
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Saturday, February 20, 2010, 14:29 (5388 days ago) @ dhw
> Here's the deal I'm offered: > > a) choose design and have faith in a universal intelligence, the form of which is unknown and unknowable, the origin of which is inconceivable, and the presence of which is impossible to detect; b) choose chance, chuck your chemistry set in the Jacuzzi, and wait for a cry of "Eureka". > > Try arguing the opposite of what you believe. -I don't need to quote Dembski, that tricky monster, to offer what I believe. Everyone, even Dawkins, agrees that most of biology looks designed. You have offered two options as a sourse of design: chance or design. If there is a third way I haven't seen or heard about it as a theory. It would have to be 'spontaneous generation' and that died an ingloroius death many eons ago.-We have an either/or choice. Chance requires probabilities. Matt doesn't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole and insists we must know everything, every last detail, about living biochemistry, and add all knowledge ab out 10^80 particles in the universe before we can calculate the propabilities of chance. there is no way I'll accept that. -There are all sorts of steps that have to be taken to even get to the necessary amino acids (20), all left-handed, nucleotides, all right-handed, while made from those 20 lefties. Only eight amino acids have arrived on Earth from the meteorites we have studied. How did the other 12 pop up? Or are we doing a Darwin: there are gaps in the record and we have'nt found those pesky missing rocks yet? How did RNA and DNA polymerize without enzymes, which are absolutely nesessary or the polymer reactions really will take forever, millions years for each tiny addition of a molecule? -And finally, if one has a supply of all the amino acids needed for one manufactured part on the shelf the probability of them coming together into something functional (i.e. the flagellum), has been calculated, and the only complaint I've seen is that an error was made (that is not admitted) but, surprisingly, when the error is accounted for, the odds remaining still negate chance.-If chance doesn't work what is left? George's argument of endless time is not available. Life appeared in 200-400,000 years after the Earth cooled enough, and with what we know about extremeophiles, the time coujld be somewhat shorter. That time limit is part of the probabilidties.-I'll stick with design from an amorphous universal intelligence. I cannot know more than that. Except, I've got intelligence! Where did that come from? Yes, out of my brain. So how do we account for consciousness? I don't know. But I'm happy to have it. It is an amazing emergent quality that I enjoy. And I see that convergence is everywhere in evolution. Convergence is built into the process. Many attempts at the same result. Intelligence started evolution and convergence produced mine. Now you have a brief summary of my religion.
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Saturday, February 20, 2010, 16:15 (5388 days ago) @ David Turell
> If chance doesn't work what is left? George's argument of endless time is not available. Life appeared in 200-400,000 years after the Earth cooled enough, and with what we know about extremeophiles, the time coujld be somewhat shorter. That time limit is part of the probabilidties.- Brain half asleep this early AM. Note typos. Time limit for life 200-400 million years. Left out 3 zeros. Sorry. Must be accurate always. No errors or admit them immediately. Energy calories at breakfast got my brain going! Is the expression 'brain-fart' allowed?
)
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, February 20, 2010, 22:49 (5388 days ago) @ David Turell
DT writes: "If chance doesn't work what is left? George's argument of endless time is not available." -I'm not aware of ever arguing for endless time. And of course I have to keep emphasising that chance doesn't just work on its own but in conjunction with natural selection. -I just don't accept DT's statistics, which argue that evolution by natural selection from chance variation is too improbable. But lets not go over all that again here.
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Sunday, February 21, 2010, 01:21 (5388 days ago) @ George Jelliss
DT writes: "If chance doesn't work what is left? George's argument of endless time is not available." > > I'm not aware of ever arguing for endless time. And of course I have to keep emphasising that chance doesn't just work on its own but in conjunction with natural selection. > > I just don't accept DT's statistics, which argue that evolution by natural selection from chance variation is too improbable. But lets not go over all that again here.-I apologize for being facetious. 200-400 million years is rather short in the life of the Earth (4.5 billion years) for such a complex process as life to have arranged itself by chance. Natural selection starts after life appears. Darwin's evolution theory starts after life appears. I was discussing the appearance of organic life from inorganic startings.
The limitations of science
On 7 February at 14.59, under "Identity", I quoted an article in The Guardian about a Belgian who had been in a coma for seven years, but with whom doctors had been able to make contact by monitoring his brain activity. They got him to answer questions by either imagining wandering through his home, or playing tennis. This raised all sorts of questions about the nature of identity.-I haven't seen any follow-up to this article, but in yesterday's Guardian was another report on a different case which caused a sensation last November. This concerned a car crash victim (also Belgian) assumed to have been in a coma for 23 years, but who was "suddenly found to be conscious and able to communicate by tapping on a computer". This was called "facilitated communication". The implications once again are intriguing, or would be if the story was true. But now one of the doctors treating him has recanted. Herewith the relevant paragraph:-"We did not have all the facts before," he said. "To me, it's enough to say that this method doesn't work." Just three months ago the doctor was proclaiming that Houben had been trapped in his own body, the victim of a horrendous misdiagnosis, and only rescued from his terrible plight thanks to medical advances.-In my discussions with George, I'm constantly harping on my own unwillingness to dismiss subjective experience and anecdotal evidence, and I stand by the need for open-mindedness. However, this article, along with all the recent revelations of misinformation, errors and cover-ups, serves as a timely reminder that open-mindedness needs to be balanced by an appropriate degree of scepticism.
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Sunday, February 21, 2010, 17:38 (5387 days ago) @ dhw
> On 7 February at 14.59, under "Identity", I quoted an article in The Guardian about a Belgian who had been in a coma for seven years, > > > I haven't seen any follow-up to this article, but in yesterday's Guardian was another report on a different case which caused a sensation last November. But now one of the doctors treating him has recanted. Herewith the relevant paragraph: > > this article, along with all the recent revelations of misinformation, errors and cover-ups, serves as a timely reminder that open-mindedness needs to be balanced by an appropriate degree of scepticism.-Just a reminder that there is a situation where there is a 'real' person inside, but they simply cannot communicate except by blinking their eyes. It is called 'locked-in state'. So there are a variety of degrees. Assuming that a scan is telling the observer what the person 'might' be thinking is a huge leap of faith. Memories cover a large network in the brain, and so do religious experiences. Based on my reading I view scans as a very rough tool.
Evolution of Diversity (was The limitations of science)
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, July 29, 2010, 21:57 (5229 days ago) @ dhw
dhw ... sees no way chance can create the diversity of life ...-Try this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100726222316.htm-Segmentation is the secret behind the extraordinary diversification of animals.-"The researchers found that the genes controlling segment formation during embryo development are almost the same in drosophila (an arthropod) and in annelid marine worms, on which they concentrated their studies. These similarities led them to conclude that the genes had been inherited from a common ancestor, which was itself segmented. It also appears that vertebrates inherited this characteristic from an ancestor they share with the arthopods and the annelids. This is what the researchers are now seeking to confirm. This work supports the idea that segmentation only appeared once in the history of evolution and that it led to the broad diversity of animal groups possessing it."
--
GPJ
Evolution of Diversity (was The limitations of science)
by David Turell , Friday, July 30, 2010, 02:45 (5229 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw ... sees no way chance can create the diversity of life ... > > Try this: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100726222316.htm > > Segmentation is the secret behind the extraordinary diversification of animals. > > "The researchers found that the genes controlling segment formation during embryo development are almost the same in drosophila (an arthropod) and in annelid marine worms, on which they concentrated their studies. These similarities led them to conclude that the genes had been inherited from a common ancestor, which was itself segmented. It also appears that vertebrates inherited this characteristic from an ancestor they share with the arthopods and the annelids. This is what the researchers are now seeking to confirm. > This work supports the idea that segmentation only appeared once in the history of evolution and that it led to the broad diversity of animal groups possessing it."-Segmentation appears among the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion. Those fossils have no precursors in the fossil record, however, and so far is a giant jump, not a gradual change in evolution. The segmentation pattern is very useful to create diversity, but the Cambrian fossils were very diverse to begin with, with segmentation appearing in several of the original organisms of the original 50 species of which 37 remain. I guess the authors should review their thoughts to some degree. It is a chicken and egg problem. Was there segmentation before the Cambrian? No. So we see several segmentations appearing separately in a 5-10 million year period. Did chance create all this in a short period, or could there be another reason? I wonder.
Many thanks for your review! I really enjoyed seen this.
by Lissa Siddons , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 01:30 (4752 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Many thanks for having written this. I quite agree with your thoughts.
I like the template of your blog! It looks really awesome.
by Myles Jensrud , Friday, November 25, 2011, 09:24 (4746 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Cool website ! Many thanks for maintaining it. Keep posting that way.
The limitations of science
GEORGE: So according to dhw then everything is just a matter of opinion and we can never arrive at any agreement. The core of the problem then lies in dhw's statement: "I do put all these forms of evidence on an equal footing". This is his statement of his agnostic faith, which is not merely that "we don't know" but that "we cannot know". Because any evidence, however flimsy, must be given the same 50/50 valuation as every other. Every gap in the evidence is equally probable to be filled in every possible way, and on this methodology the sensible joining-up-the-dots solution is no more probable than any other.-Hey, hold on! First of all, finish the quote: "...equal footing, because in my view none of them are reliable enough to prove that life did or did not come about by chance, that the brain cells are or are not the actual source of consciousness etc., that there is or is not a God." I'm not talking about "everything". Furthermore, I'm talking about FORMS of evidence, not "any evidence, however flimsy". We are drawing a distinction between "subjective experiences" and "anecdotal evidence" on the one hand, and scientific evidence on the other. The fact that you and David have examined the scientific evidence and come up with diametrically opposite conclusions should be enough to demonstrate that the scientific evidence is not reliable enough to prove one theory or the other. There are certain subjective experiences and accounts which I consider to be just as important to my deliberations (I make no attempt to disguise the subjectivity of my judgement) as scientific theories for which there is (still) no evidence. But of course that same subjective judgement will be applied to every individual experience and anecdote. If a drunken Irishman assures me that he saw a leprechaun in the pub last Saturday night, I shan't believe him. But if my wife, David and BBella tell me about events for which there appears to be no rational explanation, I shall believe them. I shan't draw any conclusions from their anecdotes (nor in fact do they), but I shan't dismiss their personal evidence as "worthless" or "negligible". And so yes indeed, I give such subjective experiences the same 50/50 valuation as your personal conviction that some time in the future science will prove that the hugely complex mechanisms of life and evolution are capable of assembling themselves by chance. -I'm afraid I don't understand why my openness to such subjective experiences means "we cannot know". Admittedly that's the original definition of agnosticism, but I would still put myself in the don't-know category. We can only base beliefs on what we know or think we know now. Science is advancing at breathtaking speed. Maybe the project to build a brain will prove once and for all that consciousness and its many manifestations do have a physical source. Maybe the research project into NDEs will come up with something definitive. I have my doubts on both scores, but I'm not going to prejudge. I remain open to whatever form of evidence comes my way, and then I will apply my subjective judgement to its credibility. You clearly regard your personal beliefs as "the sensible joining-up-the-dots solution". All solutions involve joining up the dots, and "sensible" begs the obvious question of criteria. The difference between you and me here, though, is not the variety of gap-fillers, but the fact that I'm not prepared to ignore the dots that you consider to be unworthy of inclusion in the pattern.
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Thursday, February 25, 2010, 23:44 (5383 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "Maybe the research project into NDEs will come up with something definitive. I have my doubts on both scores, but I'm not going to prejudge. I remain open to whatever form of evidence comes my way, and then I will apply my subjective judgement to its credibility." - Look at van Lommel's website for an interesting take on NDE. He's the MD with the Lancet report we have all discussed.-http://www.towardthelight.org/neardeathstudies/pimvanlommelarticles.html
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, February 28, 2010, 21:01 (5380 days ago) @ David Turell
It's all just anecdote and fanciful speculation based on wish fulfilment. Nothing definite there at all.
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Monday, March 01, 2010, 17:31 (5379 days ago) @ George Jelliss
It's all just anecdote and fanciful speculation based on wish fulfilment. > Nothing definite there at all.-The Lancet article was peer reviewed as were the American and British articles. and the Lancet article prospectively put NDE's into a classification table and then followed the survivors with the result that it was statistically significant that more complex NDE's were associated with quicker mortality as time passed. That is just one finding in the article.-Your interpretation of this material as 'wish fulfilment' represents your own wishes. These are not anecdotal medical stories, but observed patients.I've had the same reaction to this phenomenon as van Lommel and Michael Sabom, "Light & Death". We are all cardiologists dealing in sudden death. Since biologic evidence keeps changing, please follow this material.
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 23:39 (5391 days ago) @ George Jelliss
My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognise his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project. > > By the way I was intrigued by your statement: "I could scarcely resist a cheer when I read Henk Tennekes' castigation of what he calls "hermetic jargon"." Where did he say that? And who is he?-Excellent discussion:- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/12/scientist-i-don%e2%80%99t-want-to-remain-a-member...
The limitations of science
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 18, 2010, 11:50 (5391 days ago) @ David Turell
I presume the scientology video at the end is just some sort of cruel coincidence - or else inspired advertisement placement - or is it some form of irony?-I totaly agree that many branches of science tend to be sealed off from one another and the general public by their jargon. This is why appointments such as "professor of the public understanding of science" are important and worthwhile developments. I've always tried to maintain a wide overview and not get too drawn into specialisms, although that is unavoidable to some extent. There is no point in knowing everything about one small corner and losing sight of the overall picture. That's why I say science is just a part of philosophy.
--
GPJ
The limitations of science
by David Turell , Thursday, February 18, 2010, 13:53 (5390 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> I presume the scientology video at the end is just some sort of cruel coincidence - or else inspired advertisement placement - or is it some form of irony? -Some websites are crassly commercial.