Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[Nick227]

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

~~ Paul

But will it finally hack it in the great meme battle for survival and continuance? Philosophy needs some pretty hefty tag-team partners, if you ask me, if it's going to make it to the next round. The study of consciousness has provided a good start, I think, but there could be tough times out there.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

I'm not personally bothered with any "ultimate reality." As mentioned, it's likely just our inherited seeking behaviour that causes us to imagine such a thing and want to uncover it. As already mentioned my main problem with objectivity are the claims made in its name. Whilst we consider that objectivity tells us something meaningful about reality there is the possibility that we overlook something that may become manifest to us when we fully grasp its limitations.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening. We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

 

[Mashuna]

We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

I think I must be misunderstanding how you're using the term 'objectivity'

In what way are we born biased toward objectivity? I thought that objectivity was something that science had to work to achieve, due to our natural tendency to fool ourselves (for good evolutionary reasons).

 

[gentlehorse]

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening.

Why?

We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

Science is a tool for obtaining knowledge. The tool for obtaining knowledge actually-- Knowledge is tentative. Ontology is dead. Feeling good is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

 

[paximperium]

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening. We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

No. Objectivity is often counter to group think. Objectivity is often counter intuitive.

It completely goes against what you are claiming and you are now watering the definition down to something that sounds like subjectivity. Your claim is completely and utterly false.

 

[Hokulele]

Nick, in addition to what others are saying, I also think you may be conflating objectivity with isolationism. There is a pernicious idea (promoted mainly by the media) that science should be restricted to the lab, and the object being studied should be isolated, restrained, and basically removed from interaction and context. While that may be true for some types of work (chemistry jumps to mind), it is extremely untrue for most scientific work. I know the term "holistic" has been hijacked by various types of woo, but it really is necessary for much of science and medicine to study not only elements of an object or organism, but those elements in context of the system and the environment.

For example, in several of your arguments concerning the brain/mind issue as it applies to evolution, you seem to isolate the brain from the rest of the creature, the creature from the rest of its species, and the species from the rest of the ecosystem. At a certain point, this can lead to false conclusions. I cannot really see how one can argue for natural selection being affected by/affecting one feature of the human animal alone, without taking into account how that one feature affects/is affected by the other parts of the human body (such as one poster's discussion of upright posture) or even the evolution of the human social structure.

You seem to be taking a bit of a reductionist view here, but maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

ETA: Egad, on a re-read, I sound like a structuralist! Meh, I guess I need to re-read Derrida.

 

[Nick227]

I think I must be misunderstanding how you're using the term 'objectivity'

In what way are we born biased toward objectivity? I thought that objectivity was something that science had to work to achieve, due to our natural tendency to fool ourselves (for good evolutionary reasons).

For me, objectivity clearly reinforces one's sense of self and of belonging to a group. It feels good to be objective. There is a clear sense of personal boundary. There is a clear sense of a similar group, all doing the same. Accepting oneself and one's role within in a group is to me a maturation. Objectivity facilitates this and so to me will clearly be evolutionarily favoured. There's of course nothing wrong with this. It's good.

Also, for me, and I think fairly typical of the male of the species, is the desire to know "just what is going on" in the world and with the human being. I like to think that there are groups of people in lab-coats dotted around the world working hard at understanding "what is going on," providing information that I can access if I want.

So, objectivity gives me a feeling of security. It gives me the sense that I know what is going on and that it's been tested and agreed upon. I can feel a part of the group if I wish.

However, all this objectivity finally is is simply group behaviour that also reinforces selfhood. It's like a group investigation into something really, if we're honest I think, purely because it can make us feel good and feel secure. Whether it actually leads anyone into an actual understanding of the world seems to me rarely debated and generally overlooked in our desire to feel secure and a part of a group.

I'm not saying that an alternative to objectivity needs to be more reinforced. I'm not suggesting everyone descends into subjective fantasising about life and causality. Indeed I would consider objectivity a healthy antidote to such behaviour. And of course sometimes to be objective when all around you are wallowing in god-delusions or whatever is to take a considerable stand against the norm. I'm merely pointing out that science is really more about group behaviour than anything else. I'm being objective about objectivity itself.

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening.

…undermines objectivity in regards to what? Maybe in regards to an idealized straw man gazing out at “ultimate reality”?

Anyhow, let’s play along and see if there’s a different conclusion to your assertion. If objectivity is evolutionary favoured, shouldn’t it then be counted as a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one (in terms of value)? At least here we could say that: Objectivity has served us well in regards to survival and continuation, because it has provided us with more reliable information about our external surrounding. Surely reliable information allows for a better survival advantage than unreliable information, especially in the long run. How is this not a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one?

We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Even if we were born biased towards objectivity, I assume it would be because it is indeed a great method for knowing what is going on, which eventually allows us to feel good since it has also allowed us to survive a rather hostile environment to begin with. There’s no feeling good, or belonging to a group, or assuming identity in the group, if you’re dead.

 

[arthwollipot]

Seems to me that Nick is arguing in favour of solipsism.

 

[Nick227]

Anyhow, let’s play along and see if there’s a different conclusion to your assertion. If objectivity is evolutionary favoured, shouldn’t it then be counted as a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one (in terms of value)? At least here we could say that: Objectivity has served us well in regards to survival and continuation, because it has provided us with more reliable information about our external surrounding. Surely reliable information allows for a better survival advantage than unreliable information, especially in the long run. How is this not a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one?

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is. The information our senses provide to us, and the means by which we create effective representations of this information, are driven by natural selection. We experience the representation as "me surrounded around by other things" because this perspective is useful for food, defence and sex. Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Nick

 

[Darat]

Nick if I understand your last post right - you hold a position that I agree with - "Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should." However I go back to my standing question -pragmatically what does it matter?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not personally bothered with any "ultimate reality." As mentioned, it's likely just our inherited seeking behaviour that causes us to imagine such a thing and want to uncover it. As already mentioned my main problem with objectivity are the claims made in its name. Whilst we consider that objectivity tells us something meaningful about reality there is the possibility that we overlook something that may become manifest to us when we fully grasp its limitations.

Nick

Yes, agreed. It is also possible and likely that the thing we overlook is not available to us in any circumstance, but, then, that can't matter to us.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is.

The distinction between help to survive & procreate and understanding our world is somewhat artificial because we cannot step outside our limitations, although we can, and have, expanded our boundaries through objectivity, by creating extensions to our basic senses.

That’s probably as good as it’s going to get: Using extensions and constantly expanding our knowledge, while never reaching the ultimate perspective (which to us is probably always going to be a mere notion).

Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Well, that would depend on the domain where it’s applied and what results people are satisfied with.

Objectivity can be seen as undermined if the expectations were too high to begin with.

 

[Nick227]

Nick if I understand your last post right - you hold a position that I agree with - "Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should." However I go back to my standing question -pragmatically what does it matter?

Because whilst the belief exists that objectivity is likely to "get there," something that could arise in the acceptance that objectivity likely will not get there could be blocked from taking place.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Yes, agreed. It is also possible and likely that the thing we overlook is not available to us in any circumstance, but, then, that can't matter to us.

It could matter to us in that the emotional reactions created by accepting that we can't get what we seek could be significant here.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The distinction between help to survive & procreate and understanding our world is somewhat artificial because we cannot step outside our limitations, although we can, and have, expanded our boundaries through objectivity, by creating extensions to our basic senses.

Machines, yes.

That’s probably as good as it’s going to get: Using extensions and constantly expanding our knowledge, while never reaching the ultimate perspective (which to us is probably always going to be a mere notion).

Well, in considering that selfhood is simply a process, the higher aspects of which are manifest really only at the level of the functioning organism, then it can be seen that really a lot could be being missed. Objectivity is self-dependent. Yet selfhood, as in the "I" aspect of selfhood, occurs relatively late in the day, only with thinking. Thus objectivity needs a lot of brain processes running properly in order to operate. You need representations. You need selfhood. You need thinking taking place creating this sense of "I." You need a mental reconstruction of the representations to create a perspective based around selfhood. This machine, this objectivity machine, needs quite a lot to crank up, so to speak.

I think when this is seen it inevitably can't help but lead to questions. Is the degree to which objectivity is needed for basic survival also mirrored in the degree to which it is needed to know more about who we are and what our world is?

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I think when this is seen it inevitably can't help but lead to questions. Is the degree to which objectivity is needed for basic survival also mirrored in our desire to know more about who we are and what our world is?

I would say that so far it has yielded quite much, even in areas that aren’t directly involved in fulfilling our basic day-to-day survival needs (albeit perhaps indirectly later on). We simply don’t know how far our progress can go. The rate of new discoveries seems to be increasing rather than levelling out, and also illuminating areas some would have thought weren’t accessible to us at all, ever.

Objectivity is one of the most reliable means we have for understanding the world we live in, even though it seems quite plausible that understanding itself is a kind of physical process, thus making the process of knowing intimately related to the reality we seek for.

 

[Darat]

Because whilst the belief exists that objectivity is likely to "get there," something that could arise in the acceptance that objectivity likely will not get there could be blocked from taking place.

Nick

Sorry I really do not follow this - if we are limited to way we can interact with "reality" (whatever it 'is' and of course if that statement even means anything at all) we are limited. We can't both be limited and then somehow not be limited.

 

[gentlehorse]

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is.

It provides us the avenue by which we can increase our (probabilistic) knowledge of that which is knowable. The "who and what we are" of which you speak can be addressed in terms of that which can be directly or indirectly observed. In short, it can be addressed to the extent that evidence and our increasing body of knowledge allows. If you are looking for a means to understand "who and what we are" beyond that which can be observed, then you are no longer being objective. While one might address the subject, positing ideas that will sway the emotions of the masses, the resultant information will not be reliable. One will be making stuff up because it sounds and feels good. One can get rich doing this, of course.

The information our senses provide to us, and the means by which we create effective representations of this information, are driven by natural selection. We experience the representation as "me surrounded around by other things" because this perspective is useful for food, defence and sex. Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Nick

Agreed. "Later emerging human needs" (asthetics, for instance) are fulfilled in many ways by that which we "measure" subjectively. I like the Beatles. A lot.