Agreed! However, It does not change the meaning of of my post. Choice of words (on my part) was not good but still we Believe in materialism and do dot have any empiric evidence to support our belief sadly resembling the situation with religious people. I do not, by any means, claim that it's the same situation, far from it. I am only pointing to the fact that the scientific community and practice is not absolutely clean from unsubstantiated "beliefs".
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?
I was going to leave this, as there are plenty of materialism versus (insert some metaphysical concept here) threads already in R&P. But I figured I might as well put something in that will only be ignored.
In all of my years of studying HPS, I've never come across the term 'materialism' outside of discussions that have to do with alternatives, such as idealism or dualism. In other words, I've never come across a scientist who has taken the a priori position of materialism in the context that idealists seem to claim. I can only conclude it is a strawman, in which case.
What science does is arrange observations into some sort of a system of cause and effect, according to rules. It cannot and does not propose the ultimate foundations for those rules. It does not state it is set into a matrix of a mind, a computer, a butterfly's dream...it simply states 'it is'. Observations are descriptions afforded by our senses and nothing more.
Science cannot and does not state particles exist as solid little lumps of stuff outside of our experience. It states that all observations appear to be governed by consistent laws that we can describe through a methodology. That's all it does. No claim is made on whether it really is or isn't like this - we can only ever say it appears to be so. That was the whole damn point of the Vienna Circle's manifesto, to prevent such claims from being seen as scientific.
THAT is materialism, at least from the perspective of science. It stops at the laws and makes no attempt to weave them into anything deeper. Why? Because such a thing is impossible, and useless. Unless there is something to observe to differentiate laws that arise from a single mind from laws that arise from a universal computer (ala The Matrix) from a butterfly's dream, they are all equal conjectures that contribute nothing to our understanding of those very laws. Hence science ignores the concept until it has something to grasp.
Yet idealists don't do this. They insinuate that this very claim of laws IS a foundation in its own right, and therefore feel satisfied that they can present a compatible theory of their own on equal terms. Thus the word 'materialism' is born, and the strawman of it being the basis of science. A pseudoargument springs up out of this, appearing to be between scientists who claim the universe is more than it appears and those whose agenda it is to make sure idealism isn't left out of the discussion.
Nobody is stopping anybody from having their pet views. If it helps you to sleep at night to believe that the laws are arranged by fairies, are all in your head, arise from an eternal computer, are the dreams of a sleeping god...go for it.
For my money, I have absolutely no idea what the ultimate prote hyle is, and cannot even begin to guess. I have no problem with ignoring the question for now. I even suspect it's an impossible question to answer. Just don't misrepresent science as thinking it has done so.
Athon
I appreciate your effort you put to explain your view. Agreed that materialism is more of a philosophical term than scientific theory. HOWEVER, some kind of philosophical perspective is leading scientists. Otherwise, why not agree with "Intelligent Design" and thus interpret completely otherwise geological findings (and dating methods etc.)? In the same way, belief in "strong" dualism (such as is also called "substance dualism") would have influence on brain research or say medical definition of death and so on. Strong materialist reductionist view would push for certain methodologies while systems (emergence) approach would dictate other scientific methodology and explanations. Now, I am talking from a point of view of a biologist (where complexity of systems is the name of the game) a field that is very relevant to the views I have expressed and maybe it is less pertinent to other fields of science. I still do believe that even in physics a dualist might tend to explain behavior of the extremely elementary particles in terms of "spirits" or non physical phenomena.
Shortly put, these explanations (mentioned in your post as:"What science does is arrange observations into some sort of a system of cause and effect, according to rules") that scientists give to observed phenomena are the fruits of minds that have certain a-priori paradigms and not others.
No argument there, however that is different to saying that materialism is fundamentally a scientific principle. Again, the only situation I've ever heard it is when it is posed as a contrary position to a philosophy such as idealism.
In any case, there are all manner of philosophies that drive scientists as distinct, individual people. Throughout history, many are driven to understand their deity's 'creation', so the generalise scientists under a purely materialistic banner is demonstrably false.
That's one hell of a non-sequitor you have there, I'm afraid.
For one thing, ID is dismissed because it makes no observable claim, therefore cannot be distinguished from a non-ID universe. It has nothing to do with whether it is an ideal or materialistic. Such a distinction makes no sense in science.
You also seem to have ignored my entire post. I'll summarise my point, in case you missed it - science is unconcerned with what can be speculated until there are observations that can distinguish them. THAT is the sole philosophy that concerns science. THAT is the materialism that underlies science - the nature of the rules that seem to govern the universe. If an idea adds nothing to our understanding of how observations are related, it is not supported.
No, it wouldn't. Not in the slightest. Why? Because in science, it would be a question of how the observations are related in a predictable manner. The origins of those observations have zero impact. Separating them into fields of 'material' and 'ideal' is a meaningless concept.
There is one caveat to this - if the ultimate origins of an observation aren't related to symmetrical laws. However even if it is not a logical impossibility, it is a rather useless belief to have, especially scientifically. As I said before, you're welcome to have it as a personal belief, but as far as science goes the assumption works quite well.
Sorry to say this assertion is easily put to rest by showing that a lot of scientists who have had an impact on the scientific methodology (arguably even most) weren't materialists at all, at least in the sense you're insinuating. A good proportion of Greek philosophers maintained there was no way of knowing what the prote hyle was, for instance. Throughout history, science philosophers have admitted that there is no way for science to know, or have started from an assumption that was essentially dualistic. So very few influences on the modern scientific paradigm can be shown to be materialistic in your sense.
Essentially, even the most meagre understanding of the history of science shows you're wrong in your assertion that there is a materialistic, a-priori position that underpins it.
Athon
Thanks for saving me the hassle of a response, blobru. My sentiments exactly.
Throwing the dictionary at somebody to show how a word is used is like throwing a cookbook at them to show what food tastes like. Far better is the quick road test - if you go out and ask a scientist if they believe the Earth revolves around the sun, how many do you think would negotiate your use of the word 'believe' unprompted? I'd venture a vanishingly small percentage. Why? Because in the context we're discussing, belief is typically taken to refer to an acceptance of a claim.
To flip the token, if a scientist stood up and said 'I believe that evolution explains the diversity of species on this planet', I wonder how many here would be quick to criticise them for embracing it only as a matter of blind faith. Rather, I think most people here would simply nod and agree.
Athon
Its not at all as different as you're assuming.
People arrive at beliefs on the back of evidence. Evidence, to remind you, is an observation that increases or decreases your confidence in a cause or a context. As such, there is no objective system for determining what is and what isn't evidence. It's personal. Obviously some methods for determining this are more useful than others at leading to predictable outcomes, hence why science has developed.
Yet in both cases confidence in a belief is still increased or decreased by a range of factors. In religion, most of them are social factors. Science cannot escape those same social pressures that reinforce religion, which was more or less the point Kuhn made. Yet because criticism is valued in science, paradigm shifts can occur and move closer to objectively useful answers.
Both result in beliefs. Beliefs in both cases are influenced by evidence. Evidence, however, is determined according to different systems.
Athon
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
The "systems" you refer to are not comparable. Superstitious beliefs and evidence based beliefs are profoundly different.
The former is based on rational thought the latter is based on emotion and conditioning. Philosophers may very well confuse the two in order to spin their theories, but It's all so much wind and bluster. Science deals with the real world; religion and superstition deal with fantasy. With all due respect, I believe your views may be interesting and provocative but they are fanciful at best and unfortunately show a disdain for reality.
To Athon
Well, it seems we do not agree on some aspects of how scientists work. I can put a finger on one basic difference between our views. My impression is that you stick to a more idealist view of science (I don't see major disagreement between us on the definition of science and the way it works) while I am talking on the less elegant and admirable practice of it. From what you wrote it seems that you would not agree a bit with Kuhn on the influence of the human environment on the scientists' work. Now, in certain labs you might find groups that technically are practicing science in a way very much as you described (very little philosophy, results, explanation, prediction, etc. The way we all know it), but major directions and interpretations are driven by views of the world. I can give many examples of how these BELIEFS (as such) has been driving the very practical methodology. I will give you one out of several that come to my mind simultaneously. Hans Spemann, an embryologist (biology), a Nobel Prize winner (1935) believed in a system approach to living matter. It reflected heavily on his methodology. This was in an era when very mechanistic reductionist philosophy did guide scientific practice in terms of methodology (in life sciences). A student of his, believing in the more common belief conducted a very successful experiment based on reductionism approach. While Spemann went on and published these results and acknowledged their validity as scientific, he refused to follow this promising route ("promising" not according to him, according to most others though) and stuck to more holistic approach to embryology according to his BELIEFS that there were irreducible properties to life that should be investigated accordingly. So, this time I am not referring to materialism but to another philosophical view – same conclusion and claim!
Well, it seems we do not agree on some aspects of how scientists work. I can put a finger on one basic difference between our views. My impression is that you stick to a more idealist view of science (I don't see major disagreement between us on the definition of science and the way it works) while I am talking on the less elegant and admirable practice of it. From what you wrote it seems that you would not agree a bit with Kuhn on the influence of the human environment on the scientists' work. Now, in certain labs you might find groups that technically are practicing science in a way very much as you described (very little philosophy, results, explanation, prediction, etc. The way we all know it), but major directions and interpretations are driven by views of the world. I can give many examples of how these BELIEFS (as such) has been driving the very practical methodology. I will give you one out of several that come to my mind simultaneously. Hans Spemann, an embryologist (biology), a Nobel Prize winner (1935) believed in a system approach to living matter. It reflected heavily on his methodology. This was in an era when very mechanistic reductionist philosophy did guide scientific practice in terms of methodology (in life sciences). A student of his, believing in the more common belief conducted a very successful experiment based on reductionism approach. While Spemann went on and published these results and acknowledged their validity as scientific, he refused to follow this promising route ("promising" not according to him, according to most others though) and stuck to more holistic approach to embryology according to his BELIEFS that there were irreducible properties to life that should be investigated accordingly. So, this time I am not referring to materialism but to another philosophical view – same conclusion and claim!
Quite the opposite, in fact. Throughout this thread I've been quite clear that I'm referring to how science is done, and less the ideology. Science is a social exercise, and as such can't escape social influences. Both you and PS seem to be missing this, so either it's me not being clear enough in my writing, or you're both simply ignoring my points for a straw man of your making. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and try to be clearer, yet I'm starting to suspect a lot of this stems from you simply ignoring my points and continuing to make assertions.
Again, not at all. I'm quite a fan of Kuhn's work, although as I've said a number of times I prefer Lakatos's attempt to reconcile paradigms with falsification.
How do you define 'the world'? There is no such thing as a single worldview amongst scientsts - it's a key feature of the demarcation problem. There may be common elements in how it is practiced and discussed, but as you seem to flippantly allude to it varies considerably.
I've worked with scientists who subscribe to all manner of philosophies, from dualist to purely idealist. There is no single 'driving force'. You've also ignored the part where I highlighted the fact more scientists throughout history have not been materialistic in the sense you allude to, but have openly stated that it is an impossible position to
My point is that the opposite of idealist is not materialist. Science itself does not naturally tend towards describing anything as the ultimate reality - that is the bit you seem bent on ignoring (or I simply have not been able to convey).
Two points - I'm not sure how a systematic approach to studying a phenomenon arises exclusively from your definition of materialism. Can you logically explain this?
And secondly, so what? I'm not denying that there are scientists who have been motivated by a search to describe something more fundamental than the current laws. But I have never come across a scientist who has done so with a belief that it would be THE fundamental form of reality as idealists do.
Of course. I'm familiar with the era - vitalistic theories were being argued as mechanistic by one camp for much the same reason. But you're confusing mechanistic views with materialistic ones; they're not the same thing. Mechanistic views claim there are discernable laws governing the system. No mechanist has ever claimed to know what creates those laws - it simply states that there is physics (and chemistry...although by this stage it was accepted that chemistry was just physics), and logically all we observe fits into this field.
You're making two errors here - one is to generalise science according to a few select philosophical views of some scientists, and two that mechanistic reductionism is mutually exclusive to idealism, hence represents materialism. Only idealists claim this.
Huh? We're dicussing materialistic views underpinning science, and you now state your golden example is not a reference to materialism at all? I can't see how that is the same claim at all.Athon
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That is right on the money IMO.
I guess we were missing each other. Sorry if it was me who was responsible for the misunderstanding. If you look back at our postings you will see that my claim started as one not referring exclusively to materialism. I made the argument that even scientists (and not only religious people) stick, many times, to beliefs rather than to well corroborated theories. The EXAMPLE I used was the belief in materialism (I gave this one because I assumed that materialism pertained to most contemporary scientists). In another, historic, example ,that I found very suitable for proving my point, I used mechanism. So, materialism was just one example to support my point. And I was not ignoring the contents of your posts. I guess this feeling of yours stems from the above mentioned misunderstanding.
Athon
Ah, fair enough. I came across a rather relevant quote by Michael Faraday yesterday that you might find interesting (I certainly did):-
"All our perception and knowledge of the atom, and even our fancy, is limited to ideas of its powers: what thought remains on which to hang the imagination of [a particle] independent of the acknowledged forces? ...Now the powers we know and recognise in every phenomenon of the creation, the abstract matter in none; why then assume the existence of that of which we are ignorant, which we cannot conceive, and for which there is no philosophical necessity."
So while I can never say that no scientist would presume to think differently to what I've quoted here, I think there is no better man to represent the power of scientific thought than Faraday. A fair quote to shake hands on, don't you think?
Athon
Last edited:
Raze
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 238
Exactly. Arguing that science more accurately reflects reality won't change their opinion that it is just "another religion." But a dictionary will at least leave them with nothing of an argument.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Faraday was far off the mark! By assuming "the existence of that of which we are ignorant" modern models of the atom were developed over time.
It is true that all we actually have and will ever have is "its powers." Nevertheless, it's the modeling of the atom that enabled physicists to develop and refine our understanding of the nature of matter and energy. A brief look at the development of atomic theory will demonstrate how stifling Faraday's attitude would have been to the development of atomic theory. ATOMIC THEORY
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
The aether theory was quite prevalent in its time. It was an attempt to explain physical phenomena (the wave behavior of light), not unlike dark matter, which is hypothesized to explain galactic structure. Both are as far from religion as you are from rationality.
I'm not even sure where to begin here, this is so wrong. Faraday's vision of atomics (and subsequently his influence on others such as Lord Kelvin and Maxwell) revolutionised how we dealt with atoms. Prior to that, they were little more than vague particles and became virtually useless when it came to explaining Faraday's experiments. However, seeing them as points and force lines while reconciling the different forces with one another is what made the theory useful.
Stating Faraday's idea would have 'stifled' atomic theory is pathetically laughable, much like saying Einstein's views would have 'stifled' the theory of gravity.
Athon
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
At times like this, it's a good idea to invoke Feynman:
"That's not right. It's not even wrong."
I can appreciate a difference on opinion when it comes to interpreting experiments, or conclusions, or making predictions...and HPS breeds dissenting views like patches of moisture breeds mildew. History is a fickle mistress.
But given that modern atomics is all about the interactions of forces, and atoms are viewed not as little solid balls of stuff but points of origin of various forces, anybody who knows anything about the discussions on electromagnetics during the mid to late nineteenth century would know that this idea started right there with Faraday's speculations. Although he never clearly articulated it, I suspect the quote I gave was influenced by Ampere's (and others) hypotheses on electricity being some sort of fluid. Faraday's comment was in response to giving entities more properties than can be observed. I don't think there are any physicists today who would seriously side with Ampere's conjecture over Faraday's.
Athon
.
Wasn't it Pauli who said that?
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Quite so. How well do you think they understand the context of Faraday's comments about the existence of the atom?
.
I'm afraid I'm not qualified enough to judge that. But to me it seems that Faraday was off the mark as you said. I might be wrong though, since I don't know enough about this.
Last edited: