Scientific Arrogance

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Aedes, yes, worldviews are relevant. More on that in a bit...

Except that naturalism isn't a world view or a philosophy.

This does not come down to evolution vs. creation, at least not for me.

But it's worth mentioning since it's central to most religion vs science conversations.

Aedes, why did you bring this up? Did I ever present this as science? Did I ever ask for this to be taught? I think I was very clear that I did not see that as scientific evidence, and I posted that story in the relgion forum, rather than the science forum for a reason. I don't really appreciate it being taken grossly out of context and then used against me here.

It's just an example, I'm not "using it against you." If you'd like to provide other examples worthy of discussion that's fine.

Science has no explanation whatsoever as to what happened there, nor can they. It was once and done, and there wasn't any reasonable explanation (as attested to by many surpised and confused doctors). That's where science stops.

That makes no sense, I mean medicine isn't pure science to begin with. It's a multidisciplinary field that employs a lot of science but it ISN'T science per se. Unless we're going to go do an autopsy on every single patient (live or dead) there will be a lot of clinical scenarios that we don't understand. In fact we avoid lots of diagnostic tests because they're expensive or low yield or can potentially cause harm, or can yield findings that we can't explain -- and by doing this we operate very probabilistically and using mainly pattern recognition in medicine. So we don't even attempt a scientific explanation most of the time. And there is so much we don't understand in medicine that to have surprised and confused doctors is not particularly unusual. No science there, no naturalism, just skepticism about the scientific 'omniscience' of doctors -- and seeing as I am one myself (and I love the profession) I'm not just speaking as a pure cynic either.

If a scientist, for whatever reason, wanted to continue studying the event and looking for natural explanations, and if he finds out something relevant, that's fine, I've got no problems with that. But he should not make any premature "scientific" claims about it, without nuetral and substantial evidence, simply because he want's to support or defend his naturalist worldview.

So you mean that it would be a "premature scientific claim because I want to support or defend my naturalist worldview" for me to say that you PROBABLY walked into the room, rather than indulge the idea that you appeared there because someone cast a spell? Exact same phenomenon, just a different scenario. There's nothing wrong with assuming that most things that happen conform to our repeatedly experienced understanding of the way the world works.

I wonder if that has created an acedemic culture which, probably unintintionally, opperates in "defence mode". This could provide a somewhat universal, but not necessarily scientific, motivation for (1) attacking religion where they can, and (2) promoting naturalism.

Who is more defensive? I'd argue it's the people who forced Galileo to retract his treatise, the Kansas school board, William Jennings Bryant and his clients in his case against Scopes, and people who generalize about 'scientific arrogance' based on their annoyance with a few individuals. You seldom -- in fact virtually NEVER see science commenting on (let alone contesting) religion in classrooms, symposia, or journals. Sure, Dawkins and Sagan and others will become culturally identified with science, but they're hardly representative of it.

How much could things like this affect modern science? I don't know, maybe less than I think. But, then again, maybe more than most suspect.

I'm interested in examples, not generalizations. Those are worthy of discussion. You didn't seem to want to take on the journal articles I posted before from PLoS. Feel free to find articles in Scientific American, the Science Times (from the Tuesday NY Times), Discover, National Geographic, or Smithsonian, which are all written for a lay audience. We can look at them and try to tease out evidence that supports your ideas. Maybe then we'll see eye to eye a bit more.

I have noticed this, appreciate the respect which you show towards such vastly diferent, and sometimes antagonistic, worldviews.

It's because I think in the end most of us have the SAME worldview. We feel, love, and fear the same way, for the most part. It's these abstract intellectual spheres where we get a Kant vs Mill or a Leibniz vs Spinoza issue -- and in the end they don't matter that much, because we are social and empathetic beings deep down and our priorities are similar.

By the way, if we haven't already gotten as far as we're going to get, I wouldn't mind starting a new thread soon, so I don't have to keep this conversation going under the heading of "Scientific Arrogance", which I don't think really has much to do with our current discussion, and adds a bit too much of an antagonistic feel to it, IMO.

Either way is fine -- I think it's appropriate to the subject, but I always enjoy discussing it with you. You are very patient with me, and I try to do likewise for you, and this is the style of interaction that makes a site like this worthwhile. Even when we take exception, we don't resort to accusations of "self-refutation" and fallacy and attack one anothers' education -- as others in this thread will do.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

I've never asked that science infuse their findings with unsupported claims about miracles (so please don't accuse me of that) ... But, teaching in such a way that indoctinates a worldview that excludes the possibility of miracles (or knowledge outside of science in general) doesn't belong in a classroom either, because that naturalism- not science.

It would be nice if science could be neutral, but I'm not sure it can be. Isn't that the point? To make a conclusion. One idea is accepted, and another is rejected.

I know the people I work with don't think any philosophy is involved. They've accepted the "it is what it is" line. They try to be objective, but philosophy is involved whether they see it or not. Many scientific endeavors certainly seem to be morally neutral, obvious, self-evident, etc. Even I think so at times.

Then someone comes along with a great new idea, and I see how blind I was.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Except that naturalism isn't a world view or a philosophy.

Well, I'm still not sure what you're driving at here. I've read about naturalism in textbooks, found it in numerous dictionaries (thanks to our discussions), and heard it used in converstations. Of course I'm willing to listen to any objections, but I think its up to you show me why all those sources are wrong.

Originally Posted by Aedes

That makes no sense, I mean medicine isn't pure science to begin with....

I believe I have clearly pointed out that my example wasn't science quite a few times now, from the very begining in fact. But a couple of posts ago you said that I was annoyed at a contradicting scientific viewpoint. I was pointing out that (1) there is no contradicting scientific view point, which I can now assume you agree with, and (2) that I think you bringing it up in such a way showed how you were confusing naturalism with science, which I'm not sure that you'll agree with. Anyway, you brought the topic into this discussion, and I'd be more than happy to set it aside, unless you think it has further relevance.

Originally Posted by Aedes

There's nothing wrong with assuming that most things that happen conform to our repeatedly experienced understanding of the way the world works.

Agreed. A belief in the general orderliness of the universe in the West grew hand in hand with Theism. I don't find them at odds whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Who is more defensive?

That's a good question, though I think to ask who is more defensive is kind of irrelevant, because to whatever degree one side or the other is simply reacting is the degree to which they are failing at their own job. Certainly "religion" has a lot to answer for, and I probably blame them(us) as much or more for the antagonism we have now than anyone else.

Originally Posted by Aedes

I'm interested in examples, not generalizations. Those are worthy of discussion. You didn't seem to want to take on the journal articles I posted before from PLoS.

Well, as far as the jounals and such, I don't think I'd get very far. But, even if I was qaulified to citique such things, I don't think that's where I would be raising questions. I don't think that scientists are doing "bad science" within the plausability-structure that's in place, in fact I think they're doing a great job. If you want a more specific event for us to discuss, we could talk about Tylor's theory and Wilhelm Schmidt's later refutation to see how vastly different "objective" conclusioins can be based on fundumental worldview differences and/or vested interest. I just ran into these two guys while reading a book recently, and found them interesting. I've still only checked out a few sources of info on the subject, so if we discuss it it'll be a learning experience for me at least.

Originally Posted by Aedes

It's because I think in the end most of us have the SAME worldview. We feel, love, and fear the same way, for the most part. It's these abstract intellectual spheres where we get a Kant vs Mill or a Leibniz vs Spinoza issue -- and in the end they don't matter that much, because we are social and empathetic beings deep down and our priorities are similar.

Well, I do think we share a lot of the same values, though certainly very few if any of them are universal. But that's a little different from the idea of worldviews, which govern many important aspects of our lives and societies, and vary greatly from place to place and from person to person.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Either way is fine -- I think it's appropriate to the subject, but I always enjoy discussing it with you. You are very patient with me, and I try to do likewise for you, and this is the style of interaction that makes a site like this worthwhile.

Agreed. I'm fine with sticking with this thread, but I do want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to prove that science is arrogant, and I'm certanly not trying to argue that you or anyone else on this forum is.

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

It would be nice if science could be neutral, but I'm not sure it can be. Isn't that the point? To make a conclusion. One idea is accepted, and another is rejected.

I know the people I work with don't think any philosophy is involved. They've accepted the "it is what it is" line. They try to be objective, but philosophy is involved whether they see it or not. Many scientific endeavors certainly seem to be morally neutral, obvious, self-evident, etc. Even I think so at times.

Then someone comes along with a great new idea, and I see how blind I was.

Yeah, it's a tricky business for sure. I never realized just how tricky it is till I started hanging out around here. I think the thing I take issue with is the indirectly but forcefully communicated ontology and epistemology that permeates accedemia, which also leaves "science" as the only legitimate authority. So, realizing how complex and integrated it issue is, I'm starting to wonder if "nuetrality" is even an option. And honestly, I have no idea what would ever motivate acedemia to attempt it, as the current situation leaves them in charge, and any "signs of weakness" would probably be exploited by some frustrated Christians. What a mess.


Honestly, I'm starting to feel rather tired of the subject. But maybe that's just cause I didn't get much sleep last night... We'll see how I feel tomorrow.

[Aedes]

More than anything, I find people in science to be nearly giddy about the subject they study -- they think it is the coolest thing in the world. And the other predominant viewpoint is that people think they're studying something very important.

These are the two attitudes that I think are common in science. And among those who teach science I think both attitudes are held.

This is a degree of investment in a subject, but it is not a 'worldview' or 'philosophy'. A worldview by my reckoning takes on a lot more than mere epistemological and methodological debates. Most other things that you'd deem a worldview will take on social, ethical, moral, and perhaps metaphysical attitudes too. The schema that you call 'a naturalistic worldview' in my opinion (for what it's worth) pertains only to epistemology -- not a holistic worldview. This is important, because labels aside my contention all along has been that your idea of a worldview is virtually synonymous with my idea of sheer scientific epistemology -- and scientific epistemology does NOT choose to ascribe phenomena to "supernatural" forces.

But still, if you truly mean a worldview, then you're looking at a tiny minority of people like Iconoclast who seems indeed to have a worldview grounded solely in scientific discussions -- and who does derive nonscientific beliefs directly from the discipline of science.

Most people, however, keep the discussions centered around epistemology -- and even condescension to creationism or miracles or whatever doesn't constitute a worldview. It just constitutes a negative attitude towards a contrasting epistemology, and this is often stripped of any 'worldview' aspects (of course unless you're David Hume or Richard Dawkins).

[NeitherExtreme]

It seems we use the word "worldview" a bit differently, but that's not surprising. I recently read the book "Naming the Elephant" by James Sire, which is a study of worldview as a concept. One of the interesting things about it is how nebulous the word has been since it's introduction many years ago. It's meant many things to many people, so I'm not surprised that we might get confused over it.

Anyhow, I agree that naturalism is not a complete worldview, it is just a small, but influential, slice of any given persons worldview. Anyhow, I'm happy with the discussion so far, and I'm sure we'll be back here agaiin before we know it.

Till next time,
Luke

[britishboy112]

In defence of science, I would say that the amount of positive things that science has contributed has been massive.
A belief that I have about science and scientists is that it is a form of peaceful leadership if you think about it.
Take Newton for example, the work he accomplished especially with regards to calculus may not have led anybody at the exact time to something obvious, but nobody can deny today the massive influence his written work has been, & the extent to which it has contributed massively to science. From his work there have been many new advancements in science & I'm just talking about calculus alone here. This is a philisophical debate in itself, not that I want to hijack this thread, but I am not yet allowed to open a thread.