Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[Nick227]

It seems to me indisputable that science is a useful thing for changing the shape of our world, making life easier and creating exciting TV. But can it actually tell us anything about the nature of reality? I would consider both materialism and evolution theory as pointing toward science being of limited value.

Considering materialism, it seems to me inevitable that if materialism is true then selfhood is simply a process. If selfhood is merely a process then there is no actual subject (as in subject-object) and so no actual objectivity. Objectivity collapses into simply a behaviour, and not something which can be used to make meaningful statements about how reality is. This has to seriously undermine the value of science.

Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.

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

Nick

 

[paximperium]

I don't get the question.

Science is a tool. It's primary use is to create a model of nature that approximates reality to the best of out understanding. I don't see how it is undermined at all.

 

[Nick227]

I don't get the question.

Science is a tool. It's primary use is to create a model of nature that approximates reality to the best of out understanding. I don't see how it is undermined at all.

But is it realistic to consider that it has much chance here? It seems to me that natural selection has caused us to want to know what causes things and what things are made of, and likely to want to consider that they are material (tangible). But that simultaneously, natural selection has created a phenomenology to fulfil entirely different functions - survival and reproduction. Thus, is it realistic to consider that science can likely tell us anything about the nature of reality aside of why we want to know?

Relating to materialism, what I would say we do know is that if materialism is correct then selfhood is just a process. This means that although we experience a division between subject and object, this apparent division occurs only through the action of specific neurological functions driven to exist again through natural selection. Thus objectivity is actually just evolutionarily derived behaviour, and science likewise. If there is no actual objectivity, if objectivity is simply behaviour...then what is science, aside of a tool to change our surroundings?

Nick

 

[paximperium]

But is it realistic to consider that it has much chance here? It seems to me that natural selection has caused us to want to know what causes things and what things are made of, and likely to want to consider that they are material (tangible). But that simultaneously, natural selection has created a phenomenology to fulfil entirely different functions - survival and reproduction. Thus, is it realistic to consider that science can likely tell us anything about the nature of reality aside of why we want to know?

But that is the limitation of human perception and function and yet we still manage to overcome these limitations by creating models and analogies. Particle physics, cosmology and quantum physics are as anti-human perception as you can get and yet we still manage to do so.

We may hit a point where a specific facet of "reality" becomes impossible for the human mind to comprehend...at that point, does it matter anymore?

Relating to materialism, what I would say we do know is that if materialism is correct then selfhood is just a process. This means that although we experience a division between subject and object, this apparent division occurs only through the action of specific neurological functions driven to exist again through natural selection. Thus objectivity is actually just evolutionarily derived behaviour, and science likewise. If there is no actual objectivity, if objectivity is simply behaviour...then what is science, aside of a tool to change our surroundings?

Nick

Science is a tool. It is a tool used to understand our surroundings, nothing more, nothing less. As a tool it has flaws and it comes with presuppositions. It cannot do everything but it sure is the best tool we have to figure out the reality of nature.

It may be a flawed model of reality but as long as we get it close enough, does it really matter?

Do we have anything better?

 

[Darat]

Pragmatically what does it matter?

 

[paximperium]

Pragmatically what does it matter?

Why are you so much more elegant than my long drawn out essay?

 

[Hokulele]

It seems to me that natural selection has caused us to want to know what causes things and what things are made of, and likely to want to consider that they are material (tangible). But that simultaneously, natural selection has created a phenomenology to fulfil entirely different functions - survival and reproduction. Thus, is it realistic to consider that science can likely tell us anything about the nature of reality aside of why we want to know?

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.

 

[Twiler]

What is selfhood?

 

[Theophage]

How can materialism and evolution undermine science, when it is science that gives evidence for evolution and (to a somewhat limited extent) materialism?

Is that the same as saying that science is self undermining?

 

[the PC apeman]

What is selfhood?

Fascination with the ability to be fascinated by navel gazing.

 

[Nick227]

Science is a tool. It is a tool used to understand our surroundings, nothing more, nothing less. As a tool it has flaws and it comes with presuppositions. It cannot do everything but it sure is the best tool we have to figure out the reality of nature.

It may be a flawed model of reality but as long as we get it close enough, does it really matter?

Do we have anything better?

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

 

[Nick227]

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.

I agree. We are driven to want to understand causation. But the phenomenology that surrounds us was created to enable the organism survive and procreate. Our senses are developed for this.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Pragmatically what does it matter?

Well, it depends just how deep a desire for truth evolution created in your particular body. Objectivity is favoured as a socially-reinforcing, selfhood-reinforcing behaviour, but I would say that if you are really monist materialist then objectivity can clearly be seen to be a fantasy. So, one is left with a decision to make...do you forsake the fantasy for whatever else is left...do you quit monism or materialism....or do you ****** off and find something better to do with your time?!

Nick

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Considering materialism, it seems to me inevitable that if materialism is true then selfhood is simply a process. If selfhood is merely a process then there is no actual subject (as in subject-object) and so no actual objectivity. Objectivity collapses into simply a behaviour, and not something which can be used to make meaningful statements about how reality is. This has to seriously undermine the value of science.

What do you mean by "there is no actual subject"? What sort of subject-thing has to exist in order that there be a subject/object dichotomy? Are you sure it's not really just a spectrum based on the relative universality of observations?

Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.

Agreed. There is no way to know "what actually is."

~~ Paul

 

[Nick227]

What do you mean by "there is no actual subject"? What sort of subject-thing has to exist in order that there be a subject/object dichotomy? Are you sure it's not really just a spectrum based on the relative universality of observations?

I don't quite understand your last question. What I mean, however, by "there is no actual subject" is just that. The assumption of objectivity is that there are phenomena within the field of examination which are irreducibly different - specifically "I" and "other stuff." And that thus there is one system "I" examining another system "not I." This is the basis of objectivity. But this presumption is simply created by a number of brain processes derived from evolution. There is nothing innately real about it. Thus although objectivity can be seen to be evolutionarily favoured, this does not give it any innate value as an investigational tool. Objectivity feels great, but this does not mean it is actually useful.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

How can materialism and evolution undermine science, when it is science that gives evidence for evolution and (to a somewhat limited extent) materialism?

But evolution is not necessarily reciprocally altruistic here! And materialism not necessarily caring. Science may have supported these two philosophies but they will not necessarily do the same for science. The three might have made an effective "memeplex" for some years but, you know what they say...three's a crowd!

Nick

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't quite understand your last question. What I mean, however, by "there is no actual subject" is just that. The assumption of objectivity is that there are phenomena within the field of examination which are irreducibly different - specifically "I" and "other stuff."

Why do you think so? Objectivity is just an attempt to eliminate inconsistencies due to different observers. I don't think "I" am fundamentally different from any other component of reality.

And that thus there is one system "I" examining another system "not I." This is the basis of objectivity.

It is clearly true that I am not the entire universe. But the system I am examining includes "I."

But this presumption is simply created by a number of brain processes derived from evolution. There is nothing innately real about it.

There is nothing inately "real" about anything.

Thus although objectivity can be seen to be evolutionarily favoured, this does not give it any innate value as an investigational tool. Objectivity feels great, but this does not mean it is actually useful.

Why not? If a bunch of people carefully observe a phenomenon and reach the same conclusions about how it operates, then there is an advantage over one or two people taking a quick glance and jumping to conclusions. So objectivity is useful.

It is certainly possible that our conclusions about external reality are clouded by the fact that we evolved to experience the external world in certain ways. Perhaps we are fooling ourselves and the external world is just a bowlful of green jello. As I said above, there is no way to know what "really is," but that does not make objectivity worthless.

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't quite understand your last question. What I mean, however, by "there is no actual subject" is just that. The assumption of objectivity is that there are phenomena within the field of examination which are irreducibly different - specifically "I" and "other stuff." And that thus there is one system "I" examining another system "not I." This is the basis of objectivity. But this presumption is simply created by a number of brain processes derived from evolution. There is nothing innately real about it. Thus although objectivity can be seen to be evolutionarily favoured, this does not give it any innate value as an investigational tool. Objectivity feels great, but this does not mean it is actually useful.

Nick

Yeah, but keep in mind that the whole "science is objective" bit was simply a means by which the Royal Society sought to keep out of the poor graces of the church. They feared that the church might interfere with scientific investigation on the grounds that it was one person's view (think Galileo, though that affair was much more complicated). That is why they adopted the stance of providing "objective" views of the world and also the reason why they decided to use passive voice for reporting data. It's sort of like "objective journalism" which was a marketing ploy of the New York Times back in the day. It worked to sell newspapers, but it didn't describe reality.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why are you so much more elegant than my long drawn out essay?

He's British?