Scientific Arrogance

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

As for this one, I'll say there may be some circular reasoning in here, or it may be a matter of your assumptions.

Of course there is -- there is ALWAYS circular reasoning if one makes an absolute statement in the negative. But I have yet to see a non-circular counterargument that suggests we CAN have access to absolute truth or knowledge, so I think I deserve a pass on this one

Given we would disagree on what can be known, you wouldn't accept much of what I would say in answer to this.

Well, I don't know what you plan on saying, but if it's something like God will reveal absolute truth you'd better show me why as a skeptic I should believe that. And if you believe that rational meditation can somehow reveal absolute metaphysical truths, you'd better show me why I should believe that the turnings of inner logic correspond to truth. But beyond that I really don't know what you'd plan on saying.

I would take this to mean that since I cannot repeat your memory, it is not scientific evidence.

However, I would agree with you that your memory is "known" simply because I have no reason to call you a liar or insane (at least not yet). So, I guess we do have an example of what is known outside of science.

No, this is just an example of something that is "known" to an individual, but it's only known through that individual's experience. Scientific knowledge can be known generally because the experience has been systematized and therefore be demonstrated credibly to others. There's a threshold of rigor beyond which something ceases to be anecdotal and begins to be scientific. But that's a gray area that begins with individual experience and ends with highly rigorous controlled experiments.

Of course not all science is experimental, with the human genome project being an enormous example. So sometimes science is simply using tools to fill in blanks.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Well, I don't know what you plan on saying, but if it's something like God will reveal absolute truth you'd better show me why as a skeptic I should believe that.

As I said, that would belong in a different forum. But I'm not in a rush to go that direction at the moment.

IMO, being a skeptic is the easy route - the least challenging. Anyone can do it. I'm aware of the weaknesses in my own logic. Given enough time to study anyone else's, I'm convinced I can invent an alternative. I've been in those debates where the skeptic is willing to go to absurd lengths for whatever reason - because they're convinced they're right, but can't put the logic together, because they don't want to change their mind, because they don't want to lose, because they're scared of the implications of a different view, whatever the case may be.

Not interested.

I'm willing to discuss all the different philosophical questions, but not to serve as target practice for someone who needs to shore up their insecurities.

I'm not saying that's what you'd do. Like I said, I don't really know you that well. But I assume you get the point.

I'm off to dig up this "Kuhn" guy.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

IMO, being a skeptic is the easy route - the least challenging. Anyone can do it.

You find it more challenging to unquestioningly accept things?

I've been in those debates where the skeptic is willing to go to absurd lengths for whatever reason

As you say you don't know my point of view that well, so I'd suggest for starters that you be more skeptical of your own stereotype about skeptics.

I'm willing to discuss all the different philosophical questions, but not to serve as target practice for someone who needs to shore up their insecurities.

Bizarre, we've barely even had a conversation on this topic other than my briefest mention of being skeptical -- I do get your point, but I think you need to revisit your own insecurities as well. It's ok to agree to disagree.

I'm off to dig up this "Kuhn" guy.

Look up the article about him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[Resha Caner]

I already have the article up on Kuhn. Once I get through it, I think it would be more interesting to discuss that. For my part, it's not insecurity with the other topic, but a certain weariness.

Originally Posted by Aedes

It's ok to agree to disagree.

And this is a useless platitude.

Originally Posted by Aedes

You find it more challenging to unquestioningly accept things?

Who said I don't have questions? What I'm willing to accept is that I am finite.

But I started it, didn't I? OK. If you're interested in discussing other things with me, I guess I'll ask: What specifically do you want to discuss, and in what forum would it be most appropriate?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

And this is a useless platitude.

No, it's not useless and it's not merely a pleasantry. Not everything has to be debated to the point of resolution, because not everything can. And since you're already levying stereotypes about how I must be lazy and insecure like all other skeptics (before we've even debated anything), frankly I'd rather not debate anything with you at all.

Who said I don't have questions? What I'm willing to accept is that I am finite.

So am I. Which is exactly why I find it ridiculous to talk about absolute or infinite truths as if we can somehow ever know them.

But I started it, didn't I? OK. If you're interested in discussing other things with me, I guess I'll ask: What specifically do you want to discuss, and in what forum would it be most appropriate?

Yes, you did start it. As for which forum I don't even know what you want to talk about. This forum is about science. If you want to talk about epistemology go into the epistemology forum. If you want to talk about God then go to the religion forum. And if you want to put up walls about your fatigue and stereotypes and how skeptics are lazily taking the easy path, and thereby preclude all debate whatsoever with someone who differs from you, then I'd suggest finding a different website to post on.

[Resha Caner]

I sense that you're getting angry.

If you feel I've insulted you, then you misunderstand. I merely wanted to explain my reluctance in pursuing a discussion on knowing absolute truth. That reluctance comes from past experience, not anything that has happened here.

I take your statement that we cannot know absolute truth as an assumption you have made. I make a different assumption. So, from the very beginning we head in completely opposite directions. Do you see it any differently?

Do you think I could give you a (flawless) logical system for absolute truth that you would accept? Do you think you could give me a (flawless) logical system precluding absolute truth? Then where do we go from here?

I could say this. IF God exists, then he can reveal absolute truth.

You can call that a straw man, and thereby sidestep whether y follows from x. Or you can choose to accept the statement, but then deny that I could ever prove God to you.

You seem knowledgeable enough that I think you're aware of all this. That is where my weariness comes from - restating all the arguments we have both probably been through before. If we could take it into new territory, that would be very intriguing to me.

[Arjen]

Aedes, :|

I think I am going to argue just one point for this moment. I quite seriously think you are refuting yourself. I am going to give a few examples of your refutations; bith sides of it. Perhaps I misunderstand something, but I would like to get to the bottom of it.

First of all you seem to use the word metaphysical in the sense of divine, or supernatural. Metaphysical merely means reason. I believe you are calling it a dichotomy.
I realise that many people have used it in many ways, but since around 2500BC people have started to realise that this has two seperate parts: the reason and the transcendental (or according to some transcendent). I don not think this is a dichotomy because everything belongs to the whole and everything has the same seperation. Whatever the case may be there is a difference between thinking and the thinker, the act and the actor and ofcourse creating and creator.

In a way I think you know this because you refer to it. I also think that you somehow are unwilling to admit it. Here are a few quotes of yours that show you refuting yourself.

If you're talking about absolute truth, there is a fairly easy three part answer for you:

1) Science has no access to absolute truth, so no, it cannot
2) Nothing else has access to absolute truth either
3) Who cares about absolute truth anyway?

Of course not, because the scientific method does not philosophize about what is science and what is not. All it does is propose a method of study that limits bias. You can use the scientific method to investigate the absolute truth of God's existence -- but no methodology is going to allow you to establish it or not, so who cares?

This one is nicest. Here you are creating the same "dichotomy" in your own reasoning and then denying it again:

But what you're doing here is creating (what I regard as) a false dichotomy between that which is empirically observed and that which is not. The thing is that EVERYTHING we know about the world is garnered from sense data and communication. Even knowing where our limbs are in space is from proprioceptive sense data. Try to eliminate ALL sense data to figure out what is known in its absense. To understand what we know in the absence of empirical experience you would need to envision someone born without vision, hearing, olfaction, taste, discriminative touch, pain sensation, temperature sensation, vibratory sensation, balance, proprioception, vestibular sensation, and visceral sensation. That would be someone with pure unempirical knowledge.

So even Descartes had it slightly wrong when he surmised that he knew he was a thinking being. In the end, deprived of all, you don't get to I think, therefore I am. In the end, all that's left without senses, is I. And you can't get anywhere from I alone. That I is the same I experienced by a mouse or a hummingbird. It's the I of volition, and it's way beneath the rational self.

The difference between that which is a priori (I) and that which is reason (Arjen or my ego) is exactly what I am on about. In this reasoning you pinpoint it. The problem with it is that you also deny that and call it a dichotomy.

Could you please clarify?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

So, from the very beginning we head in completely opposite directions. Do you see it any differently?

But that doesn't preclude a productive conversation. Of course it won't necessarily produce one either.

Do you think I could give you a (flawless) logical system for absolute truth that you would accept? Do you think you could give me a (flawless) logical system precluding absolute truth? Then where do we go from here?

I could say this. IF God exists, then he can reveal absolute truth.

Yes, it's a conditional that doesn't actually assume knowledge of God. It's like saying IF we can know absolute truth, THEN we can know absolute truth. But it requires absolute knowledge a priori to make that statement non-conditional. And unless you have it in advance, then you're in no different a position than I'm in -- you're speculating based on a POSSIBLE scenario that isn't absolutely known -- it's based on a faith position; and you're not claiming on rational grounds that absolute knowledge actually is accessible.

If we could take it into new territory, that would be very intriguing to me.

Well, how about this last exchange -- can there be a rational or logical argument in favor of absolute truth? Or can this only be a faith position?

[Resha Caner]

From a purely theological view, it would be said that man cannot find God of his own volition. Rather, God must approach man and reveal himself. So, if you push me into that corner, I will say it is a matter of faith.

However, I see nothing to say that God refuses to approach man through reason. Or, saying it in a different way, once someone comes to accept absolute truth, it seems a reasonable thing to accept it.

Before he accepts absolute truth, it seems an unreasonable thing to accept it.

So, arguments do exist for absolute truth. But, as I have already said, if you set out with the purpose of finding a flaw in an argument, you will find it. Even I, who accept absolute truth, can find the imperfections in the arguments I've seen. Every measurement is imprecise, but if it falls within certain limits, I accept it despite the imperfections.

I could turn the question around to you, asking if a logical system exists to exclude absolute truth. But it would be the wrong question to ask. It's like starting a race at the finish line.

Instead, I would ask you this: is there anything you know that was not arrived at scientifically? But that is a question of epistemology, so I'll move it there.

To end this thread closer to where it began, I'll say I think modern science still has a large degree of arrogance. You are correct that it has surrendered some of the positivist claims it once promoted. But it now holds on to "if science can't do it, nothing can", which, IMO is the pinnacle of arrogance. Again, as I said, it equates to a religious "there is only one way" type statement.

If one is willing to accept that science has limitations, that current theories are accepted by science even though our measurements are imprecise and our theories are most likely incomplete, I do not understand how that leads one to such confidence that only science will solve future problems or add future knowledge - even for questions science claims as its exclusive turf.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

From a purely theological view... arguments do exist for absolute truth.

Yes, that is faith based. To say that God speaks to humans through reason is already a faith-based statement. Even the most hardcore of medieval scholastics could not avoid founding their ideas on faith-based concepts.

I could turn the question around to you, asking if a logical system exists to exclude absolute truth.

I didn't say there's no such thing as absolute truth. All I've said is that it cannot be known. And it doesn't take a logical system -- it just takes the knowledge that humans are not omniscient.

Instead, I would ask you this: is there anything you know that was not arrived at scientifically?

EVERYTHING I know I have learned through sense data and experience. Science is merely the formalization of this in order to understand the physical world. What do you find so obscure about this?

To end this thread closer to where it began, I'll say I think modern science still has a large degree of arrogance.

Based on what in particular? Have you ever picked up a scientific journal before? If so, what of its text or content demonstrates the arrogance of modern science?

But it now holds on to "if science can't do it, nothing can", which, IMO is the pinnacle of arrogance.

Based on what do you contend this? Who said that? Who wrote it?

If one is willing to accept that science has limitations, that current theories are accepted by science even though our measurements are imprecise and our theories are most likely incomplete, I do not understand how that leads one to such confidence that only science will solve future problems or add future knowledge - even for questions science claims as its exclusive turf.

Ok, when philosophy and theology come up with a cure for cancer, engineers a fuel-efficient car, or discovers a new species of dinosaur I'll go along with you. Until then scientific limitations will only be overcome by advances in science.