Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[Nick227]

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.

Personally I would figure our bizarrely large brain size results more from our capacity to imitate.

It's the same with computers. The more stuff there is out there the more processor speed, the more hard drive you need. It seems to me largely driven by the capacity to copy.

Nick

 

[Darat]

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

You've set up a contradiction. Your second paragraph precludes you being to make the claim in the first sentence.... or if you say your first paragraph is correct then it contradicts your second paragraph.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

The people to chide about that are not the scientists but the media. The media creates this false impression of science and scientific endeavors. It is much like folks who complain about "evolutionary theory" when what really pisses them off is a particular application of evolutionary thinking to an unsolved problem -- like, humans have language because of x. That is not evolutionary theory. That is someone's idea of how natural selection might result in a certain trait. This is often coupled with media frenzy -- look the scientists have explained the origin of language -- just like when some new gene is discovered that might play into a behavior and it becomes "the aggression gene" or "the I want to shag blondes gene".

It's all just misrepresentation of science.

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

I don't know, but I think that takes it a bit too far. Not a deity, but certainly highly, highly important. Reproducibility of results is precisely how we know that some bit of info is reliable.

As to taking on objectivity, philosophers have been doing it for years. They just don't write as well as Dawkins, so no one reads their stuff.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

You've set up a contradiction. Your second paragraph precludes you being to make the claim in the first sentence.... or if you say your first paragraph is correct then it contradicts your second paragraph.

Interesting observation.

The contradiction might stem from the unnecessary distinction between knowledge-seeking and manipulation. They appear to merely be two sides of the same coin.

 

[Nick227]

You've set up a contradiction. Your second paragraph precludes you being to make the claim in the first sentence.... or if you say your first paragraph is correct then it contradicts your second paragraph.

It is somewhat paradoxical, I must admit! However, natural selection as a theory, if correct, does not require objectivity to be correct. It is simply that we typically validate theories through repeated reproduction of test results. In the specific case of natural selection it seems to me rather that the data do largely fit the theory, objective analysis regardless. Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not completely clear for me.

If natural selection is correct, then as I see it objectivity must be considered highly favoured and this should reduce its value as a bias or error reducing tool. Objectivity can be classed as primarily a behaviour.

However, in considering these things, I do see another issue which I hadn't previously thought of. The human organism is a relatively complex system, selfhood regardless. Thus a case could be made that this relative complexity and functional integrity confers at least a reasonable degree of value to objective analysis, regardless of whether the organism itself considers it has selfhood or not.

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process. It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism. There is no actual point of observation merely the sense of it. As I see it, this must hurl a heap of doo-doo at objectivity and cast it into troubled waters, however you cut it. Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

In the specific case of natural selection it seems to me rather that the data do largely fit the theory, objective analysis regardless. Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not completely clear for me.

It seems to me that here you go again contradicting yourself: This data you speak of, which to you seems to fit the theory, is derived from objective evaluation of it in the first place – that’s why it is considered reliable, and that’s why the theory is ultimately considered plausible.

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process. It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism. There is no actual point of observation merely the sense of it. As I see it, this must hurl a heap of doo-doo at objectivity and cast it into troubled waters, however you cut it. Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

No. If we must choose between ontology and reliability of observation, ontology must sway. What’s the point with any particular ontology if it doesn’t follow the empirical findings?

 

[Nick227]

The people to chide about that are not the scientists but the media. The media creates this false impression of science and scientific endeavors. It is much like folks who complain about "evolutionary theory" when what really pisses them off is a particular application of evolutionary thinking to an unsolved problem -- like, humans have language because of x. That is not evolutionary theory. That is someone's idea of how natural selection might result in a certain trait. This is often coupled with media frenzy -- look the scientists have explained the origin of language -- just like when some new gene is discovered that might play into a behavior and it becomes "the aggression gene" or "the I want to shag blondes gene".

It's all just misrepresentation of science.

Well, yes, fair enough. But at the same time I don't see so many scientists protesting that science isn't really all it's cracked up to be. They do seem to be fairly happy to play along.

I don't know, but I think that takes it a bit too far. Not a deity, but certainly highly, highly important. Reproducibility of results is precisely how we know that some bit of info is reliable.

For sure, if that bit of info relates to survival or procreation. But for attempting to consider the nature of reality, all reproducibility of results does is confirm that if you "push here" then this and this happens.

As to taking on objectivity, philosophers have been doing it for years. They just don't write as well as Dawkins, so no one reads their stuff.

Oh, I didn't know that. Anyone specific?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

It seems to me that here you go again contradicting yourself: This data you speak of, which to you seems to fit the theory, is derived from objective evaluation of it in the first place – that’s why it is considered reliable, and that’s why the theory is ultimately considered plausible.

But if the theory is true is it not true evidence regardless, assuming of course there is no evidence to the contrary? Does the materialist not conclude that laws and principles can exist regardless of whether people have tested them or not? Simply because a theory is validated by objective evaluation does not mean that the principles it expounds did not exist prior to evaluation. If it subsequently diminishes the value of objectivity itself...so what?

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

But if the theory is true is it not true evidence regardless, assuming of course there is no evidence to the contrary? Does the materialist not conclude that laws and principles can exist regardless of whether people have tested them or not? Simply because a theory is validated by objective evaluation does not mean that the principles it expounds did not exist prior to evaluation.

Ultimately, it is only provisionally true. If there’s reliable evidence against it, then it cannot be said to be true in any meaningful sense. Again, you seem to have it backwards; it’s reliable evidence that makes a theory provisionally true.

You seem to imply some kind of “true truth” might exist, like “ultimate reality” in stead of just plain old reality. If that is the case, then I suggest it would be better to stick with 2 + 2 = 4; that’s true truth.

If it subsequently diminishes the value of objectivity itself...so what?

Again, the valuable thing with science is that it does the exact opposite: if reliable data diminishes the value of the theory... so what?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

For sure, if that bit of info relates to survival or procreation. But for attempting to consider the nature of reality, all reproducibility of results does is confirm that if you "push here" then this and this happens.

Yes, but it may relate to survival because it accurately reflects what is really out there. How else could a blind watchmaker account for more babies?

Oh, I didn't know that. Anyone specific?

Nick

Richard Rorty for one. Most of the post-sturcturalists have much to say about the absence of clear objectivity.

Derrida is all about decentering, but it's hard to pin down what he thinks because virtually all of his writing is an extended philosophical jokey word-game.

 

[Nick227]

Ultimately, it is only provisionally true. If there’s reliable evidence against it, then it cannot be said to be true in any meaningful sense. Again, you seem to have it backwards; it’s reliable evidence that makes a theory provisionally true.

Personally, I would say that it is rather the lack of reliable contradictory evidence that carries more weight. This regardless, it seems to me that a theory can still be simply true. It can be that the principle of natural selection is simply true. We cannot ultimately validate it, to the nth degree, but this does not mean that actually it hasn't dictated the progress of life upon this planet since organisms began forming.

Thus, if the theory of natural selection undermines the value of objectivity...so what? Where precisely is the contradiction occurring? All that is happening is that one theory is potentially diminishing the value of one perspective. Natural selection is just a principle. It can take place regardless of whether humans can validate it or not. It needs humans to call it "natural selection" and to comprehend it, but it is otherwise not depending on humans to operate. The same cannot be said of objectivity.

Now, if objectivity can raise some serious objections to the theory of natural selection then of course all bets are off. But, for this observer at least, in the event of this not happening I am fine that the "natural selection-objectivity" memeplex can start to break up a little!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Yes, but it may relate to survival because it accurately reflects what is really out there. How else could a blind watchmaker account for more babies? (bold mine)

Well, I would say that evolution is again causing one to consider that this "may" has more weight to it than might be realistic. Predelictions towards science or philosophy don't seem to me to be likely evolutionarily favoured, evidenced perhaps but the distinct lack of sexiness associated with either profession. I mean, if all the ladies went for philosophers or scientists...

I figure the reasons for the survival of these disciplines comes down to the degree to which they can piggy-back onto other needs. Science does well because it examines how we can make life easier and philosophy anyway struggles.

I don't understand your comment about the babies, btw. Thanks for the other info.

Nick

 

[Wowbagger]

Are you suggesting that there's a better way to obtain knowledge, Nick?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process. It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism. There is no actual point of observation merely the sense of it. As I see it, this must hurl a heap of doo-doo at objectivity and cast it into troubled waters, however you cut it. Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

First of all, can you explain how another metaphysic, say, idealism, makes "selfhood" into something other than a process?

Second, what else could any method of examination be except an attempt to see the world from a certain perspective? Is there some world underlying this one that is perspective-neutral?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I figure the reasons for the survival of these disciplines comes down to the degree to which they can piggy-back onto other needs. Science does well because it examines how we can make life easier and philosophy anyway struggles.

That is because metaphysics is largely nonsense. Other aspects of philosophy, such as ethics, are useful.

~~ Paul

 

[godless dave]

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

Non sequitor. "There is no actual subject" does not follow from "selfhood is merely a process".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, I would say that evolution is again causing one to consider that this "may" has more weight to it than might be realistic. Predelictions towards science or philosophy don't seem to me to be likely evolutionarily favoured, evidenced perhaps but the distinct lack of sexiness associated with either profession. I mean, if all the ladies went for philosophers or scientists...

I figure the reasons for the survival of these disciplines comes down to the degree to which they can piggy-back onto other needs. Science does well because it examines how we can make life easier and philosophy anyway struggles.

I don't understand your comment about the babies, btw. Thanks for the other info.

Nick

The comment about the babies is code for evolution.

If evolution has equipped us with the type of mind that survives hostile environments, it may well do so because it provides those minds with the means of understanding reality, even ultimate reality.

A basic premise of materialism is that there is no mind -- no large, imposing knight in the forest -- behind it all. It (whatever it is) doesn't care. So who we are as beings that survived the hostile environment that *it* is, may provide us with a uniquely useful approach to *it*.

The point you mention is that there is not necessarily a connection between the way our minds work and what ultimate reality *is*. But, it may be the case that there is a necessary connection between the two. That simply is a distinct possibility, and evolution would actually be the best explanation as to why that would be the case -- because it would provide survival value. Survival means that you can negotiate your environment; and, for beings like us, that means understanding what we see so that we may alter our response set.

But, as Phaedrus pointed out before, you are positing a kind of Platonic ideal behind the world with this -- the idea that there is an ultimate reality. We speak of it all the time here, but when you get down to it, does that idea really make any sense except as a projection of the way our minds think?

There may be no cave from which we need to escape. Or, even if there is, it would necessarily be the case that we couldn't even see the walls -- we would experience those walls as something in our environment. We can see only what is here and available to us. We are necessarily stuck by our own boot-strapping, but that does not mean that we cannot progress in knowledge about what we describe. Just look around -- we've progressed from turtles all the way down to vibrating bits of energy assuming different harmonic forms.

In a sense, it doesn't make sense to speak of *ultimate reality*. That is why so many folks say that metaphysics is a waste of time. Those who are new to the site who hear that message immediately assume they are speaking to philistines who couldn't think their way out of a box. But some of the folks here, as I'm sure you know full well (and I don't consider myself one of them since I'm still trying to learn all this stuff), are highly philosophically sophisticated and simply don't want to mince words.

Look, for instance, at Darat's and Paul's short replies. They capture the whole argument in a few words. Their replies are not unsophisticated. They hit exactly Rorty's position -- what difference does it make? That sounds trite, but it is actually pretty important when you look further into monism. If we haven't solved a problem in 2500 years there may be a very simple explanation -- the 'problem' is either unapproachable or is not a problem at all. The 'problem' (as in *ultimate reality*) may simply be a word game.

 

[Darat]

It is somewhat paradoxical, I must admit! However, natural selection as a theory, if correct, does not require objectivity to be correct.

...snip...

For us to conclude it is correct requires the use of the tool that created the theory. But that means the theory itself carries within it the same flaw you think you've spotted with the tool that's the contradiction at the heart of your argument.

It is simply that we typically validate theories through repeated reproduction of test results. In the specific case of natural selection it seems to me rather that the data do largely fit the theory, objective analysis regardless. Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not completely clear for me.

...snip...

Without using "science" how do you conclude that the "the data do largely fit the theory"?

If natural selection is correct, then as I see it objectivity must be considered highly favoured and this should reduce its value as a bias or error reducing tool. Objectivity can be classed as primarily a behaviour.

...snip...

Yes it can be defined simply as a behaviour and that can be a very useful way to use it. However that is only one of its useful definitions, for instance another useful definition is "what would happen if no one was here to observe" which is not a behaviour, science can and does use variations on these useful definitions and swaps between them which can cause some confusion (especially when people start talking about a cat in a box).

However, in considering these things, I do see another issue which I hadn't previously thought of. The human organism is a relatively complex system, self-hood regardless. Thus a case could be made that this relative complexity and functional integrity confers at least a reasonable degree of value to objective analysis, regardless of whether the organism itself considers it has self-hood or not.

...snip...

If you are using the "behaviour" definition of objective than self-hood has nothing to do with it, it does not follow that a behaviour has to have "self-hood", indeed the evidence is rather overwhelming that most behaviour occurs without any "I" arising or getting involved at all.

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process.

...snip...

Just to pause for one moment, I hold that all monisms are the same, monism on its own really just boils down to saying "there is stuff", it does not carry any baggage as to what that "stuff" is. Given that what do you mean by "materialist monism", I presume you are adding an assumption as to what that stuff is?

It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism.

...snip...

Yes and no.

...snip... Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

Nick

Which takes us right back to what I asked in my first post. Pragmatically what does it matter?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Personally, I would say that it is rather the lack of reliable contradictory evidence that carries more weight. This regardless, it seems to me that a theory can still be simply true. It can be that the principle of natural selection is simply true. We cannot ultimately validate it, to the nth degree, but this does not mean that actually it hasn't dictated the progress of life upon this planet since organisms began forming.

Well, this appears to boil down to semantics now. I’m also pretty sure evolution is a fact and that natural selection, in one form or another, has indeed dictated the progress of life. Nevertheless, the implications aren’t that easy to distinguish because, if we are to understand how natural selection works, we must necessarily move beyond simply uttering the words of it, and find a more detailed form of explanation. There still seems to be some variation among scientists on that particular point.

Hence, when you talk about a theory simply being true, regardless of evidence, it lacks the sort of meaning one would expect when you move on to discussing the implications of it. You seem to enclose natural selection into a sort of black box – natural selection is true whatever it is – which consequently drives the implications you make towards something without content.

Ultimately, what the theory of natural selection tries to portray simply happens (regardless of how we portray the process); whether the theory can completely explain all that it happening, is somewhat unclear. Therefore, the theory of natural selection must be validated through evidence, because it’s necessarily an epistemic question when its boundaries are stretched and implications are derived from it. In other words: You must know what you talk about, preferably in a more detailed form, before reliably assuming what those implications in effect are.

Thus, if the theory of natural selection undermines the value of objectivity...so what? Where precisely is the contradiction occurring? All that is happening is that one theory is potentially diminishing the value of one perspective. Natural selection is just a principle. It can take place regardless of whether humans can validate it or not. It needs humans to call it "natural selection" and to comprehend it, but it is otherwise not depending of humans to operate. The same cannot be said of objectivity.

The theory doesn’t undermine the value of objectivity because it’s built on objective evidence, and that is what keeps the theory afloat. It however undermines other theories because it has good evidence to back it up, whereas rival theories don’t. The only thing that could undermine the current theory of natural selection would, again, come through objective evidence. Hence yet again, reliable evidence seems to have the last word when talking theory here. It’s the nature of evidence that decides if a theory is to be rejected all together or merely modified, and how.

What you seem to denote to, is the totality of process-X, which a theory tries to encapsulate by giving it a name and a definition, but where it’s still unclear if all the details are accounted for. But even here it seems somewhat doubtful if the implications you seem to postulate are the correct ones, because you venture into vague normative territory. So, process-X undermines the value of objectivity in regards to what?

 

[Nick227]

First of all, can you explain how another metaphysic, say, idealism, makes "selfhood" into something other than a process?

Idealist philosophies frequently resort to dualist or pseudo-dualist elements - souls, watchers, ground of being, this kind of thing.

Second, what else could any method of examination be except an attempt to see the world from a certain perspective? Is there some world underlying this one that is perspective-neutral?

~~ Paul

This is true, but objectivity to me frequently masquerades as something more. To answer also WB, I do not see it that there is necessarily "a better way", but more that understanding the reality of the situation is worthwhile.

Nick