Philosophy and the rise of science

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;160151 wrote:

Just one complementary observation: science has been spectacularly successful in the realm of the physical sciences - physics itself, chemistry, and the application of the above to technology and engineering. However when science turns its attention to H Sapiens, or rather on ourselves, it is dealing with questions of a completely different nature. We are not stuff to be manipulated or things to be analysed. I object to the scientific and/or naturalistic accounts of human nature insofar as it attempts to subordinate said nature to 'the scientific method' by taking humans as objects of study. It is invariably patronising and simplistic.

Human behavior is a very complex system, and we have many biases about it. I've found many attempts to interpret it patronizing and simplistic--from popular psychology, to philosophical ramblings, to literature, poetry, and film. That is usually the fault of the person doing the interpreting though. There is also insightful psychology, philosophy, literature, poetry and film.

What exactly do you mean by "questions of a completely different nature"?

One thing that I don't get (still) is talk about scientism. It is rather like bringing up evangelism into every discussion of religion.

jeeprs, I would hope that the people I know would try and analyze me. That way they can know what I like and don't like, what activities I enjoy and which I hate. I would find that courteous not patronizing. Isn't patronizing when you arrogantly belittle someone? How does the scientific study of people inherently do that?

Quote:

I think what bugs me is people strutting around talking about 'a proper scientific understanding of life'. It always reminds me of Stalinist Communism. Look here old chaps, enough of all this religious obscurantism, let's turn the power of science on this business of being human. Sort it out in no time, eh? I get this a lot from the Dawkins-Dennett mob. Kind of this patient exasperation at our stubborn unwillingness to just submit to their obviously sensible explanations of life, consciousness and everything.

Can't we just ignore those people? It seems as pointless to discuss the merits of science in terms of arrogant college science majors (who are overrepresented on internet forums by the way) as it is to discuss religion in terms of evangelists sticking blindly to their faith.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;160170 wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "questions of a completely different nature"?

Well science has had its great success in the physical sciences, as we have said. Newton and Einstein, between them, came up with theories that describe an enormous range of phenomena in a few lines of equations. You can write the basic laws of physics on several A4 pages. And our ability to harness mathematical physics to both explain and manipulate physical reality is astonishing. So the question is, ought not we apply the same methodology to the realms which have traditionally been the domain of philosophy (and religion, in some senses)?

So - does life have any meaning beyond the personal? Are there other levels and planes of existence beyond the material? Are there laws, beyond the laws of adaptive necessity, which govern human affairs? And so on. I am not asking these questions to elicit answers. I am asking them to illustrate the 'questions of a different order'.

The scientific attitude will, I think, say that the answers must be reducible to physics, if not now, then in the future, when physics is 'complete'.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

So - does life have any meaning beyond the personal? Are there other levels and planes of existence beyond the material? Are there laws, beyond the laws of adaptive necessity, which govern human affairs? And so on. I am not asking these questions to elicit answers. I am asking them to illustrate the 'questions of a different order'.

Aren't these all metaphysical questions? You were saying "when we turn our attention on H Sapiens". These questions seem very different. If you weren't saying that science couldn't tell us a lot about H Sapiens then I misunderstood you.

jeeprs wrote:

The scientific attitude will, I think, say that the answers must be reducible to physics, if not now, then in the future, when physics is 'complete'.

In general science has the attitude that things are reducible to physics. Possibly I'm misusing the word reducible. But nowhere does it say that reducing things to physics is at all comprehensible, you know? It's more like, if you understand electromagnetic forces, that helps you understand the chemistry of neurons, which helps you understand the functioning of neurons, which helps you understand the functioning of certain parts of the brain, etc etc. Not "if you understand neurons, you understand politics and economics".

And there have been many ingenious scientific studies which deduce things about human behavior without going within 10 miles of an fMRI or microscope.

@kennethamy,

But I think yours is a sensible attitude. It is not the kind of attitude that I am taking issue with. Let's look at Kennethamy's OP again

kennethamy;159354 wrote:

Philosophy was forced to recognize that its old claim to discover truth and reality could not be seriously maintained when that was exactly what the empirical sciences were claiming. The only expedient philosophy had in response to that claim while continuing to maintain its own claim to be making discoveries about truth and reality was to try to distinguish between different kinds of truth and different kinds of reality.

So I am contesting this, or rather, asserting that there are 'different kinds of truth and different kinds of reality', although these are rather awkward ways of putting it. This question - are there different types of existence, levels of reality, and so on - are frequently debated on the Forum. I think the majority view is that there is not, something either exists or it doesn't, and whether it exists or it doesn't is a matter ultimately for science to determine.

Is it?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;160179 wrote:

But I think yours is a sensible attitude. It is not the kind of attitude that I am taking issue with. Let's look at Kennethamy's OP again

So I am contesting this, or rather, asserting that there are 'different kinds of truth and different kinds of reality', although these are rather awkward ways of putting it. This question - are there different types of existence, levels of reality, and so on - are frequently debated on the Forum. I think the majority view is that there is not, something either exists or it doesn't, and whether it exists or it doesn't is a matter ultimately for science to determine.

Is it?

But doesn't kenn go on to say that science discovers empirical truths about the world, and philosophy deals with truths about our concepts? Talking about existence and reality seems to go right in line with that. I believe he started a thread about existence.

It seems to me you are fine with science looking at the world empirically, and with philosophy examining concepts. But you say there is something more. But what that is has been (and still is) a mystery to me. I don't understand what I could know that would have to do either empirically with the world, or with my conceptualizing about the world. Isn't everything either real or abstract?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;159354 wrote:

Some here have bemoaned the scientific tendencies of contemporary philosophy, or at least, analytic philosophy. And, although I don't think these are really as pronounced as some think they are (whatever is meant by that-and that is an interesting question too) still, I wonder what such people would expect? Let's turn it around a little and ask what we would think of philosophy had it not changed with the rise of science, the most important development in Western civilization since the rise of Christianity, and certainly on a par with it. Not only could it not have happened that philosophy would not change in response to the rise of science, but it would hardly be philosophy had it not. Philosophy ought to respond to seminal changes in culture. Shouldn't it? The important question is how philosophy has responded to the advent of empirical science. I am talking here about the rise of analytic philosophy and its predecessors logical positivism and then, logical empiricism in the beginning of the 20th century. Philosophy was forced to recognize that its old claim to discover truth and reality could not be seriously maintained when that was exactly what the empirical sciences were claiming. The only expedient philosophy had in response to that claim while continuing to maintain its own claim to be making discoveries about truth and reality was to try to distinguish between different kinds of truth and different kinds of reality. But obviously, that had major problems of its own. Although, of course, it was certainly attempted. But, for various reasons, it failed to hold water, and certainly,failed to persuade, let alone, convince.

The next step was that of analytic philosophy (or at least some analytic philosophy since there were important exceptions). The step was to distinguish between science as a first-order discipline, and philosophy as a second-order discipline. Science was about the world, and it tried to discover empirical truths about the world. Philosophy, on the other hand, was not about the world (or not, at leas, directly). Rather is concerned the concepts we used to think and talk about the world, including, of course, the concepts science uses to talk and think about the world. For example, the concept of causation. So here was a division of labor, and the reduction, if not the complete elimination, of the original competition between science and philosophy. Science is talk about the world, and philosophy is, as Gilbert Ryle (one of the most prominent of the analytic philosophers) talk about talk. Philosophy was not an empirical discipline about the the world, but it was a conceptual discipline about our concepts about the world.

That may not be quite right. Important philosophers like Bertrand Russell, and W.V. Quine refused (for different reasons) to distinguish so sharply between science and philosophy. But even it it is not quite right, it seems clearly on the right track. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

philososphy is the importance of critical thought

science is the gathering of knowledge

both without corruption

@kennethamy,

Is everything either real or abstract?

Often I reflect on the fact that as living beings, or embodied beings, we appear as subjects in an objective realm. This after all is our apparent situation. It is implicit in many of the dialogs on the Forum, when it comes down to debates about the way in which phenomena can be conceived as objective or 'mind-independent' vs our internal or subjective or conceptual realities. It is felt that there are 'objective' truths which are the domain of science, and 'conceptual' truths which are the domain of philosophy. Often in debates about ethics, this comes up, in questions as to whether ethics are 'objective' (really there) or 'subjective' (originating in the cognizing subject.)

If we are considering 'truths about our concepts' or the reality of our subjective experience, then we are already in a difficult position. We are already considering questions of a different order to questions about the nature of objects. Why? Because in order to validate a concept, we presumably ascertain whether it corresponds to an objective reality. But consider the following:

In order to make the comparison between the conceptual and the objective, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?

The making of the comparison is itself a fact about which we have a belief. We have to believe that the belief about the comparison is true. How do we know that our belief in this agreement is "true"? This leads to an infinite regress, leaving us with no assurance of true belief. (Ref)

So if you really start to question the nature of your being-in-the-world you are already outside what can either be regarded as the proper domain of science. But it also might require questioning our sense of reality itself. If you ask yourself questions about how it is that the world appears as a function of your own cognitive apparatus then already you are exploring a perspective which is not the same as that of being a subject in an objective realm. It is asking yourself, what is the nature of being, or 'who am I'?, without accepting the account provided by the scientific meta-narrative (e.g. 'evolved primate').

Difficult questions, I know. You might think I am seeing things that aren't there, and you might be right. I don't want to be forcing this view on anyone. They are questions that occur to me.

@attano,

attano;160150 wrote:

What is Moore to me?
An academic, playing his part in life, concerned with carving a niche were his job would become useful, socially accepted and rewarded.
A fat cat looking forward to joining people like him in his club.
Somebody born old, waiving his hands to reassure that all naive belief is true, that the good feelings of the good people do have a market value in philosophy, and those that disagree are evil.
A dull form of platonism, totally stripped of pathos, assuming that we live in the best of possible worlds.
The prolonged manipulation of concepts near to intellectual onanism, in order not to cast a glance beyond his professor's desk.

Yes, I suppose it might be easy to see Moore in this way. It conflicts, however, with Moore's actual reputation among philosophers like Bertrand
Russell, and Wittgenstein, who greatly admired him. That might make you think that perhaps you are missing something. In fact, despite you view of him as someone who held that "all naive belief is true" his influence was quite revolutionary, since he made philosophers understand that it is even more naive to think that just because a believe is "naive" it is not profound enough to be true. Some philosophers seem automatically to believe that not only are commonsense beliefs not true, but more, that the fact that they are commonsense beliefs is a decisive reason for thinking they are false. Now, isn't that naive? And unphilosophical? What a revolutionary idea for philosophy-to defend commonsense! Who would ever think of such a thing, except a true revolutionary?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;160220 wrote:

Some philosophers seem automatically to believe that not only are commonsense beliefs not true, but more, that the fact that they are commonsense beliefs is a decisive reason for thinking they are false. Now, isn't that naive? And unphilosophical? What a revolutionary idea for philosophy-to defend commonsense! Who would ever think of such a thing, except a true revolutionary?

That's very G. K. Chesterton! Smile

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 10:33 AM ----------

Jebediah;160180 wrote:

I don't understand what I could know that would have to do [neither] empirically with the world, or with my conceptualizing about the world. Isn't everything either real or abstract?

I don't know if I am making some silly mistake (if I am, no doubt someone will tell me right away), but it seems to me that the answer to this question is very simple. I alluded to it the day before yesterday, in post #7 of another thread:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/5088-universal-game-hypothesis-kevin-thomson.html
There are a great many ways to talk about this. Whether Heidegger writes about it successfully, I don't know, but at least in simple, commonsense English, we are in the world, not outside it, and our being in the world is a way of knowing it. Presumably Schopenhauer also wrote about this. But you don't have to know anything about philosophy (I certainly don't know much!) to know it - and to be right about it, in a way of which even G. E. Moore might have approved. This "knowledge" is not always in competition with scientific "knowledge" (scare quotes because of ambiguity), but it sometimes is. When the two forms of knowledge compete, the issue is not always decided in advance, either way. And we simply can't dispense with either. We need both, we can't avoid either of them, and we have to endure the occasional tension between them.

@kennethamy,

jeeprs wrote:

I don't think that God is an hypothesis in the sense understood by scientists or those with a scientific outlook. So if you put forward a scientific hypothesis to 'prove' that God exists, then of course it will fail, and you will end up with a book title like that one.

But I'm sure you see how evasive this appears. You're claiming that X exists, but then alarming me that any position concerning X is not only not worth speaking about, but unfalsifiable. This is what makes these conversations so damn annoying and unimpressive. Any rundown shmuck can do the same thing - and be just as "successful" - with anything!

It's actually a rather interesting pattern that I've been seeing with modern God believers. New-age spiritualists have begun to mystify God to such a point now, that even the discussing of the word "God" is considered taboo, or at best, misleading! I honestly think people see just how silly these sorts of beliefs are for civilized human beings in the 21st century, and so they attempt to save face by stating that God cannot be described in language (I'm so entertained when I hear this cop out). It's sorta like that universal situation where the guy won't admit he's wrong even after people repeatedly show evidence of the contrary. The vaguer the explanation of "spiritual", "God", or any of that metaphysical nonsense, the less questions asked. The less questions asked, the less logic has a chance to step in, and the easier it is just to be intellectually complacent with some meaningless metaphysical position. Well, ain't that pretty.

But let me ask you this: What's the point of holding on? What is the motivation to even believe in God? That's the part I still don't get. Nevermind the God existing or not existing debate; I really don't give a ****. What fascinates me the most is why people want to believe so badly! And no, I don't think it's always for comfort. Many of these new-age spiritualists are mature, intelligent guys and gals, and don't choose to maintain their positions simply for comfort, I don't think. No, there's some sort of fascination with the metaphysical - people just don't want to accept that this is it, that what you see is what you get. Na, they continue to be falsely fascinated by that secret door. The secret door, that, by the way, can never be opened (its essence rests on this very feature!). Hell, they don't even try to approach it any more! All they care about is that it's there. That's all that matters.

Eh, fine I guess. This sort of mindset, while annoying, does cut down on the evangelism at least.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;160262 wrote:

What fascinates me the most is why people want to believe so badly! And no, I don't think it's always for comfort. Many of these new-age spiritualists are mature, intelligent guys and gals, and don't choose to maintain their positions simply for comfort, I don't think. No, there's some sort of fascination with the metaphysical - people just don't want to accept that this is it, that what you see is what you get.

Can you enlarge on what "this" is? By "what you see is what you get", you obviously don't mean literally just "see", but do you mean whatever you can learn by empirical observation and detached logical reasoning? What is your position on the status of scientific knowledge in relation to knowledge in general? If it excludes what might be called "personal" knowledge, then it's easy enough to understand why it would consequently exclude knowledge of any god or gods; however, it might be that you are quite willing to grant some sort of respectable status to informal, unscientific, unverifiable, unfalsifiable personal knowledge, yet still be an atheist. (That has been my own position for most of my life, although in recent years I have been shifting towards a baffled, reluctant, and tormented theism - feeling pretty much like Job, and not at all comfortable!)

@kennethamy,

I think to answer your question fully, I would need to know what this:

Twirlip wrote:

however, it might be that you are quite willing to grant some sort of respectable status to informal, unscientific, unverifiable, unfalsifiable personal knowledge, yet still be an atheist"

means.

What I meant was that the prospect of the unexplainable fascinates people, and they desire to believe in these unsupported positions because of this fascination (well, I'm sure there are other reasons - and in fact I'm searching for them!).

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;160265 wrote:

I think to answer your question fully, I would need to know what this:

Quote:

means.

What I meant was that the prospect of the unexplainable fascinates people, and they desire to believe in these unsupported positions because of this fascination (well, I'm sure there are other reasons - and in fact I'm searching for them!).

I don't know how to rephrase my question to make it clearer, because I'm not sure why it isn't already clear, but I'll have a go.

You're objecting to a certain kind of knowledge (or rather, knowledge-claim). That kind of knowledge, or belief, about gods, spirits, and so on, is (or claims to be) of persons; it is situated within the broad category of knowledge of persons by other persons (or indeed, of knowledge of a person by that same person). My question was designed to elicit what you feel and think about this broader kind of knowledge - because, without knowing how you think and feel about personal knowledge in general, it is impossible to gain any kind of understanding of why you reject that particular kind of personal knowledge or belief that is designated as "religious" or "spiritual".

If your rejection of spiritual or religious knowledge or belief is because of a rejection of the larger category of personal or existential knowledge or belief, then it is that larger rejection which is surely the issue (especially in the context of this thread, which is not about religion or spirituality as such), and it would almost certainly be a waste of time to debate the more specific question of religion or spirituality.

If, on the other hand, you are quite happy to embrace some sort of existential, non-scientific, personal knowledge, but remain some kind of existentialist atheist, the conversation would go in a quite different direction.

(Your speculation as to the motives of those who accept religious or spiritual knowledge or beliefs does not explain your own motives for rejecting such knowledge or beliefs, and I don't want to speculate in return as to what they might be!)

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;160262 wrote:

New-age spiritualists have begun to mystify God to such a point now, that even the discussing of the word "God" is considered taboo, or at best, misleading!

But of course it is misleading. It is misleading because those who have no interest in the actual subject, such as yourself, will then begin to pick up on the word and start to argue about it.

The idea that the very Name is sacred and ought not to be pronounced, is not my idea, is not a new-age idea, and is not even a new idea. The origin of the word Yahweh was actually a form of word composed of consonants that could not be spoken. But of course that was forgotten, and then it became something that could first of all be spoken about, and then argued about. Then you have the whole god vs no-god debate. Had about enough of that.

Zetherin;160262 wrote:

Many of these new-age spiritualists are mature, intelligent guys and gals, and don't choose to maintain their positions simply for comfort, I don't think. No, there's some sort of fascination with the metaphysical - people just don't want to accept that this is it, that what you see is what you get. Na, they continue to be falsely fascinated by that secret door. The secret door, that, by the way, can never be opened (its essence rests on this very feature!).

Have you ever seriously considered where it might be, how it might be found, and what it might take to open it? How would you go about it?

@kennethamy,

Twirlip,

Isn't all knowledge personal... to someone?

You want to know my motive for refraining from believing things which I have no good reason for believing? I suppose I advocate logic. It seems so strange to me that people will apply reason to almost every other facet of their lives, but when it comes to considering this metaphysical nonsense, reason is forgotten. It's strange and fascinating, like I said.

jeeprs wrote:

Have you ever seriously considered where it might be, how it might be found, and what it might take to open it? How would you go about it?

No, and neither should you. Unless you wish to keep on this elusive, mystical wild goose chase.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;160277 wrote:

You want to know my motive for refraining from believing things which I have no good reason for believing?

No, not at all. How do you take that from what I wrote? (Rhetorical question.)

What I did ask was what you meant to indicate by the word "this" when you wrote, "people just don't want to accept that this is it".

(By the way, my own personal escape from "this" was pure mathematics, not religion. But my "this" may not be at all the same as your "this", and I can't pretend to know what your "this" is, unless you tell me.)

Please excuse the following late and extensive editing, but you're almost bound to quote some of my post #53 back at me, and we're going to go round in circles. Let me try to forestall that.

Of course I understand that you reject religious or spiritual belief because you consider such beliefs to be illogical, irrational, unreasonable, etc. But that is not the point of my question (not my first and more important question, about "this", but my second question, about why you reject religious or spiritual beliefs). I was trying to get at a definition of just how large a category of beliefs you reject as illogical, irrational, unreasonable, etc. Is it restricted to the specifically spiritual or religious, or does it embrace all that is not scientific?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;160277 wrote:

No, and neither should you. Unless you wish to keep on this elusive, mystical wild goose chase.

Consider me warned.

@kennethamy,

Twirlip wrote:

What I did ask was what you meant to indicate by the word "this" when you wrote, "people just don't want to accept that this is it".

Sorry, I thought I explained this. Again, I simply meant that I've seen a pattern of people desiring to believe in that which is allegedly unexplainable. "This" was simply that which could be explained with reason and logic, that's all. By the way, that particular sentence wasn't really the most noteworthy, so I hope you didn't just disregard everything else.

jeeprs wrote:

Consider me warned.

As I said, I'm most interested in why people desire to believe in the spiritual. If you don't mind sharing, why do you desire this? Why do you find it important to believe in something you can't even articulate?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;160285 wrote:

Sorry, I thought I explained this. Again, I simply meant that I've seen a pattern of people desiring to believe in that which is allegedly unexplainable. "This" was simply that which could be explained with reason and logic, that's all.

I did ask, "do you mean whatever you can learn by empirical observation and detached logical reasoning?", and as far as I can see, you didn't confirm, until now, that that was (more or less) what you meant.

(I say "more or less", because I assume you aren't actually a philosophical rationalist, as your words seem to imply!)

Zetherin;160285 wrote:

By the way, that particular sentence wasn't really the most noteworthy, so I hope you didn't just disregard everything else.

I'm getting a sinking feeling about the way this part of the thread is going! My impression was that you were diverting it somewhat, into what was likely to be a sterile bout of head-butting over questions of the existence or non-existence of gods, spirits, spooks, and so on, whereas what the thread was supposed to be mainly about was science, in relation to philosophy.

My questions to you were mainly aimed at nudging the debate more back on-topic, by asking whether your objections to religion and spirituality were founded on a more general scientism.

But are you saying that it is I who am diverting the argument, and failing to pay proper attention to what you mean, and only seizing on some minor or irrelevant part of it?

Zetherin;160285 wrote:

As I said, I'm most interested in why people desire to believe in the spiritual.

Of course that is an interesting topic, but I still don't quite see why it should dominate this thread.

Zetherin;160285 wrote:

If you don't mind sharing, why do you desire this? Why do you find it important to believe in something you can't even articulate?

There are two questions there.

In answer to the first (as it applies specifically to religion, etc.):

I don't desire it at all. I would really love it if you or anyone else could convert me back to atheism. I'm not joking! My "beliefs" are no picnic. The only person I know whose beliefs about God and so on were anything like mine blew his brains out.

(There's a kind of circle here, because I indirectly involved myself with religion by getting involved with someone who rather predatorily tried to evangelise me, for her Pentecostal form of Christianity, after I had tried and failed to kill myself. It is quite possible that I have been brainwashed by her into a particularly abusive form of religion; however, I have done what I can to think my way through it all, and I can't in all honesty deny that I now believe something myself. I can't blame it all on someone else's weird beliefs - much though I would love to be able to do so, and return to my old, sane, enlightened, and decently liberal way of thinking!)

As for the (quite distinct) second question:

Because life is incredibly complicated and confusing and mysterious; science is only the bit of it that we can understand (by trying very hard); and we need to have "negative capability", to recognise and deal with all the stuff that we can't understand. It is just a matter of honesty and realism (not dishonesty and escapism).

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;160258 wrote:

That's very G. K. Chesterton!

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 10:33 AM ----------

Yes. It never occurred to me before, but I see what you mean. Something like, The Man Who Was Thursday. (I never thought I was so insightful!). But in the context of previous philosophical thought, it was the apparent that was hidden. It is like Poe's Purloined Letter.

Wittgenstein said, that "nothing is hidden". We only believe it is.

Philosophy Forum

Philosophy and the rise of science

Quick Links

My Account

able2know