Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Reading this thread makes me want to find my p-zombie and beat him up.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

*sigh*

Why does having something scientifically explained necessarily have to take all the wonder, beauty, and potential out of it?

 

[paximperium]

To feed our natural drive for knowledge, you mean? It's hard to assess because scientists are obsessed with objectivity, yet materialism indicates that objectivity is just a behaviour.

Nick

Actually no.

Objectivity basically means consistency and reproducibility and is limited by the tools we have. An presupposition of science is causality and objectivity is one facet of this.

Our natural senses as tools are limited and flawed. In the 1800s we could not objectively determine the composition of atoms just as today we still cannot objectively look into a black hole.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

We humans have this interesting ability for knowing what kinds of observations are most likely to be only private, and which ones are likely to also be publicly observable. What science has offered is unique in the sense that it has also shown us that what we previously though would only stay within the parameters of private experience, isn't necessarily so.

Science itself has illuminated the apparent relativity of the "subjective"/"objective" divide. I.e., it's not the division that's problematic, but rather the difficult task of formalization and systematization, so that we might gain maximal reliability.

 

[Nick227]

Well this demonstrates a poor understanding of evolution, and how people think.

What was favored by evolution was abstract thought, it permited things like planning with others about responces to events, and permitted forethought.

This also permited the development of tools that where a significant survival advantage. Philosophical thought is not something that specificialy evolved but is a side effect of advantageous thought processes.

I'm not disputing that abstract thought is favoured. I'm pointing out that in all liklihood actual phenomenology is strongly "survive and procreate." How the world appears to us, through our senses, is dictated by these needs, not any desire for a philosophical or scientific understanding of the nature of reality.

Thus the desire for understanding many of us experience could be the result of simply a conflict of different aspects of evolution. Our thinking processes are driven to "want to understand." Our phenomenology was created to help us eat, defend ourselves, and mate.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

That objectivity is a phantasm, as much as is subjectivity, is really beside the point. Science isn't objective. That's just the Fox News spin created by the Royal Society.

There is no objective. That's part of the reason why I dislike that word. What we see is intersubjectivity -- though, of course, the subject itself may be more fantasy than reality.

Evolution, if this theory is correct, has indeed left "us" with a particular way of viewing the world. "We" have no choice but to see the world as ordered, since order is the only means by which we could exist and by which our brains could work in the way they do.

Nothing is undermined. To argue an undermining of science is to buy into the spin and not the reality. It simply *is*. Everything simply *is*. Ultimately, 'we' cannot tell anything else about it.

The bottom line with science is that it works. It works for creatures like us. So, let's go with it.

Ultimate reality? Can't get there from here. Too much baggage from the outset.

I would largely agree. Yet to me there still remains this mass delusional belief in science as some oracle to provide us with understanding of our world and who we are. I don't like that so many people place so much faith in something which, upon clear close examination can be seen to be delusional.

My point is that objectivity is evolutionarily favoured, and this is why it is attractive, not because it actually offer a means to understand the nature of reality.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Actually no.

Objectivity basically means consistency and reproducibility and is limited by the tools we have. An presupposition of science is causality and objectivity is one facet of this.

Our natural senses as tools are limited and flawed. In the 1800s we could not objectively determine the composition of atoms just as today we still cannot objectively look into a black hole.

Objectivity can provide consistency for sure. As long as the neurological functions which support the organism's sense of self are in good working order (along with sensory systems, tools, machines, etc) then it can give very consistent results. And objectivity feels good. When I worked in a lab, years ago, it always felt great to get data and interpretations replicated by another team, and crap when they didn't. No doubt about it. However, none of this means that science or objectivity actually allow us to understand the nature of reality. Science just allows us to consistently manipulate reality. That's handy for the organism but it does not tell us so much really.

I appreciate your point about machines. Machines augment our natural facilities in our quest for knowlege. But there are still big issues for science around selfhood. Materialism, unlike most idealism, demonstrates that selfhood must be a process (well, materialist monism does anyway) not something innate to the collection of particles which comprises the functioning organism. This does leave science and objectivity as mere behaviours, as I see it. Tools regardless. Science feels good. It does not necessarily tell us much.

Nick

 

[Mashuna]

However, none of this means that science or objectivity actually allow us to understand the nature of reality. Science just allows us to consistently manipulate reality. That's handy for the organism but it does not tell us so much really.

Surely being able to consistently manipulate reality gives some understanding as to its nature?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would largely agree. Yet to me there still remains this mass delusional belief in science as some oracle to provide us with understanding of our world and who we are. I don't like that so many people place so much faith in something which, upon clear close examination can be seen to be delusional.

My point is that objectivity is evolutionarily favoured, and this is why it is attractive, not because it actually offer a means to understand the nature of reality.

Nick

I see two ways to comment: (1) But it does provide us with understanding of our world and who we are (not only pragmatically, but theoretically, it provides us with the means to negotiate, understand and survive the environment we encounter and to understand and interact with other human beings); and (2) of course, it cannot provide us with the certainty of ultimate reality (our knowledge is necessarily boot-strapped from our evolutionary inheritance).

But, science isn't concerned with the nature of ultimate reality. It is concerned with understanding as much of it as possible, whether we can arrive at the heart or not. We have to accept the fact that we may never be able to reach it, but we should also consider the possibility that the general problem-solving ability that is "us" may also be the necessary tool to enable understanding of ultimate reality. What better than a mind forged through survival to "get the truth"?

While I can see both sides of this coin (and to mix a metaphor beyond recognition), I agree firmly with the "we can't get there from here" camp. I think we are too limited.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Seems to me the only thing under threat is a rather unsophisticated "Teen Scientist" view of Science: Science doesn't offer a way out of the cave (as this view seems to promise). From this you seem to draw the conclusion that we are stuck in the cave, when in fact there was no cave to begin with!

But I am guessing I misunderstand your concerns, could you explain what brought on this moment of (existential?) doubt?

Jeroen.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I see two different questions here (and correct me if I'm wrong, Nick):

One is: Can materialism really tell us all about reality?

And the answer is, like several have already noted, most likely: No.

There are several reasons for this, but I think they can mainly be boiled down to the fact that we are inside reality, looking out. This keeps us from seeing reality in its entirety.

However, materialism does not make the claim that we can know all, only that all is ultimately knowable.

The other question is about evolition, and is a very different question. It is a religious question and seems to stem from the hope that evolution could somehow be discredited on scientific grounds. The short answer here is: Sorry, it can't.

Hans

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Seems to me the only thing under threat is a rather unsophisticated "Teen Scientist" view of Science: Science doesn't offer a way out of the cave (as this view seems to promise). From this you seem to draw the conclusion that we are stuck in the cave, when in fact there was no cave to begin with!

Good point. If it is the case that we can't get there from here, it is also necessarily the case that there is a projection, created by us here.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Good point. If it is the case that we can't get there from here, it is also necessarily the case that there is a projection, created by us here.

Correct, which is not to say that it can't be very useful to postulate a "there" (i.e. objectivity) this usage did not develop (dare I say "evolve") because it served no purpose.

But in the end, there is no there there, there is only different instances of here. What is great about the scientific method is that it (largely) succeeds in abstracting away the irrelevant bits of the different moments an obsevation takes place and allows us to reliably predict what "here" will look like under different circumstances.

 

[Dancing David]

I think you may be a bit mistaken as to the process of natural selection. It doesn't so much select for certain traits or behaviors, as select against. Too slow? Welcome to the lunch menu. Too stupid to get out of the rain? Welcome to death by pneumonia. Having large brains that cause us to want to know what causes things may simply be an accident or a by-product of another feature that proved advantageous (general intelligence). Since wanting to know what causes things and what things are made of isn't necessarily a debilitating trait (unless you are Archimedes), natural selection most likely will not select against organisms displaying this trait.

Thanks Hokulele, I am not reading N227 as he is on IGNORE for me, but that is well put.

My candidate for large brains is , upright gait>narrow pelvis, neotany of infant>greater develoment of brain.

Nich starts with Plato and works backwards from there.

 

[Dancing David]

What is selfhood?

An illusiory lable applied to transitory physical states in organic beings.

 

[Dancing David]

*sigh*

Why does having something scientifically explained necessarily have to take all the wonder, beauty, and potential out of it?

because stars being granis of sand in a large area is daunting.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/index.html

If you put in .4 mm for a grain of sand as the sun you find out alpha proxima centauri is 7.2 miles away.

If you put in .0625 then it is 1.1 miles.

So the sun as a grain of sand is not in a cathedral, it is in a small town or large town.

And that we are on a fleck around that sand grain and can see things very far away is too cool for some.

 

[Loss Leader]

Thus I think it is fair to say that if materialism and evolution theory are true then the value of science must be undermined.

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an essay.

 

[Nick227]

I see two ways to comment: (1) But it does provide us with understanding of our world and who we are (not only pragmatically, but theoretically, it provides us with the means to negotiate, understand and survive the environment we encounter and to understand and interact with other human beings); and (2) of course, it cannot provide us with the certainty of ultimate reality (our knowledge is necessarily boot-strapped from our evolutionary inheritance).

But, science isn't concerned with the nature of ultimate reality. It is concerned with understanding as much of it as possible, whether we can arrive at the heart or not. We have to accept the fact that we may never be able to reach it, but we should also consider the possibility that the general problem-solving ability that is "us" may also be the necessary tool to enable understanding of ultimate reality. What better than a mind forged through survival to "get the truth"?

While I can see both sides of this coin (and to mix a metaphor beyond recognition), I agree firmly with the "we can't get there from here" camp. I think we are too limited.

My concern is essentially that science charges about hither and thither, doing this and that. Its actions are constantly portrayed in the media as some great knowledge-seeking activity. It is not. It is simply manipulating reality from the objective perspective. The whole exercise does not seem to me to be much driven by conscious awareness but rather a bunch of haphazard assumptions, most of which scientists seem blissfully unaware of.

Our investment in science is massive and scientists regard the reproducibility of results almost as some sort of deity. Yet objectivity is finally entirely reliant on just a handful of brain processes to partition our phenomenology into "I / not I." I mean, when you step back for a moment or two...it's not impressive, really it's not.

Personally, I think the world would be a far better place if some Dawkins type would really take on objectivity - the myth and the reality.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The other question is about evolition, and is a very different question. It is a religious question and seems to stem from the hope that evolution could somehow be discredited on scientific grounds. The short answer here is: Sorry, it can't.

Hans

Actually, I was more pointing out that science can be at least partially discredited on evolutionary grounds!

Objectivity is massively favoured through natural selection. We need a highly tangible and objectivized world in order to get our basic needs met. Our seeking behaviour and phenomenology reflect this completely. However, this does not mean that objectivity is inherently a meaningful means for examining that world for the purpose of understanding it.

Nick

 

[Mashuna]

My concern is essentially that science charges about hither and thither, doing this and that. Its actions are constantly portrayed in the media as some great knowledge-seeking activity. It is not. It is simply manipulating reality from the objective perspective.

Why do you see these two things as mutually exclusive?