Science and Philosophy (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 10, 2011, 19:56 (4771 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY (b_m): Yes, I am contrasting science and philosophy as you have defined it above. My criticism of science is not that they dare draw conclusions, that is something we are all guilty of. My criticism of scientist is that they break their own rules. They are not objective. They have an ideal, a goal, for example evolution, and they expend all of their energy looking for evolution. The problem with this is that it blinds you. You can't see the forest for the trees. All they will ever find is evolution, because that is all they are looking for. Understanding and wisdom comes from sitting back, putting yourself to the side, and letting all of the pieces fall into place as THEY see fit, not as you see fit. (Sorry for personifying data, but you get the idea.)

I have a great deal of sympathy with this line of thought, but I do feel that it needs refinement and qualification. When scientists draw philosophical conclusions from their findings, they certainly lose objectivity, but that is the nature of belief, and I don’t think you would deny David or Dawkins their right to believe what they want. Your criticism is therefore of those scientists who set out to prove a theory and ignore all the factors that contradict that theory. The history of science is littered with disgraceful examples of material being suppressed, refused publication, or even faked, and there is never any shortage of scientists prepared to bully their way to grants and glory regardless of “truth”. But it is unfair to cast all scientists in the same mould. You have taken evolution as your example. Darwin (an agnostic) considered vast quantities of information before proposing his theory, and was scrupulous in setting out the “difficulties” it had to surmount. Every aspect of it has since undergone intense scrutiny, and in some cases major adjustments. There are still huge gaps in the theory (e.g. the fossil record, the problem of innovation), but the vast majority of scientists do still believe in the basic tenets, not because they are blinded but because those tenets make perfect sense and have been confirmed by observation (e.g. natural selection). I don’t know how many scientists are actively engaged in direct research on the subject, but I don’t think you can expect them now to sit back, put themselves to one side, and let all of the pieces fall into place. Their job is to test which pieces do and which don’t fall into place. Fossils won’t come knocking on their door, and new organs won’t sprout in their back garden. If the theory of common ancestry is wrong and if – let us say – God created every species separately, the gaps will be forever unfilled and may well increasingly undermine people’s belief, but current research (e.g. on genetics and epigenetics) appears to support the idea that organisms themselves do adapt and innovate of their own accord. In any case, much of this research is relevant to far wider fields than that of evolutionary theory. The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing and multifaceted, and in my view the scientific method of active observation and experimentation should not be denigrated because of the failings of individual scientists.

You have still not explained what you mean by “understanding” and “wisdom”. Your method won’t come up with solutions to medical or technological problems, for instance, but it does work wonderfully well in the creative process. Any playwright or novelist will tell you that the characters must do “as THEY see fit, not as you see fit”. You have, however, agreed that you are distinguishing between science and philosophy, and if so, I don’t think you can expect scientists to become philosophers! To each his own.

I had objected to your linking your theism to appreciation of life’s wonders, and you are prepared to withdraw that comment. The rest of your post is clear up to the final remark that Dawkins’ and the Pope’s “appreciation is tied to the material and social, because the proof or disproof of their pet ideas has material and social consequences.” I can’t read their minds, but I honestly don’t think their wonderment is tied to their beliefs. I think they would both continue to admire the complexity of living organisms, the beauty of a sunset, the rhythms and harmonies of a Beethoven symphony, even if their disbelief/belief in God were proved wrong. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

Finally, thank you for your patience in dealing with my nit-picking.

For David: by “unapologetic theist” I assumed Tony meant that he did not feel the need to apologize for or defend his theism (a mixture of both meanings). Nor would I dream of asking him to! My objection was to the link between theism and appreciation, as above, and he has graciously clarified what he really meant.