Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Coyne Gives Away the Store
Jerry Coyne has responded to Ken Miller's piece (parts of which I thought were less than fair) and, in doing so has expressed a view of science which, if accepted by American courts, would guarantee that science could not be taught as true in our public schools, but could only be taught as a one philosophy out of many or in comparative religion classes. Specifically, Coyne states:While science and theism (i.e., the view that God acts to change things in the material world) are compatible in the trivial sense that some people adhere to both, they are incompatible in the philosophical sense of being harmonious world views.Science can be taught as true in American public schools precisely because it is deemed not to be a "world view" but, instead, is a methodology (though not the simplistic one unfortunately often taught) that can be consistently applied by people of many different philosophies and theologies or lack thereof. In other words, that science is something separate and apart from either philosophy or theology.
Fortunately for American school children, Jerry Coyne does not determine what science is -- which may account for his frustration that so many science organizations have failed to take his preferred position on the subject of science and religion. And, it is to be hoped, we will, with help from people like Ken Miller, continue to be able to teach science for what it is: the best tool we have for exploring the natural world.
.
Labels: Accommodationism Incompatiblism
Comments:
<< Home
Science is a way of knowing and a worldview. Coyne is right and so are many philosophers.
I'm sorry if America has boxed itself into a corner by an over-reliance on lawyers to defend science.
Maybe we should get rid of the lawyers?
I'm sorry if America has boxed itself into a corner by an over-reliance on lawyers to defend science.
Maybe we should get rid of the lawyers?
It has nothing to do with lawyers defending science, it has to do with the idea that government should not be able to force religion or philosophy on its citizens. Do you think that is a bad idea?
BTW, who are these philosophers who think science is just another philosophy?
Historically it's always been easier to get rid of (or corrupt) scientists that it is to get rid of lawyers (the corruption part takes care of itself).
BTW, who are these philosophers who think science is just another philosophy?
Historically it's always been easier to get rid of (or corrupt) scientists that it is to get rid of lawyers (the corruption part takes care of itself).
I think it's deeply unfortunate that contemporary culture warriors on both sides have gladly accepted the elevation of 'science' into a worldview. But does it follow that science is, or ought to be, worldview-neutral? I'm not entirely sure. It's tempting to say that if a worldview requires one to neglect or reject an important scientific discovery, then there's something amiss with that worldview. However, I don't think that that is as great an epistemic sin as it's made out to be. It's one thing to say that one's worldview requires one to reject a scientific discovery; quite another to insist that one has in one's possession an 'alternative' discovery which is not inconsistent with one's worldview.
The matter is further complicated by a philosophical tradition, embodied in our legal institutions, which insists that the government ought to be neutral with respect to world-views. (This is what it means to be 'liberal' in one important sense of the word.)
What I'm not sure of yet is whether the sort of worldview-neutrality of the government that is contested between liberals and reactionaries is the same sort of worldview-neutrality that is contested between theistic evolutionist, design advocates, creationists, atheist evolutionists, etc.
The matter is further complicated by a philosophical tradition, embodied in our legal institutions, which insists that the government ought to be neutral with respect to world-views. (This is what it means to be 'liberal' in one important sense of the word.)
What I'm not sure of yet is whether the sort of worldview-neutrality of the government that is contested between liberals and reactionaries is the same sort of worldview-neutrality that is contested between theistic evolutionist, design advocates, creationists, atheist evolutionists, etc.
It's one thing to say that one's worldview requires one to reject a scientific discovery; quite another to insist that one has in one's possession an 'alternative' discovery which is not inconsistent with one's worldview.
What Miller is doing, IMO, is pointing out the limitations of scientific knowledge to leave room for theists to pour their god into. Coyne's criticism that it is a god-in-the-gaps argument is valid on a philosophical level but, in the absence of Miller claiming that it is a scientific result and/or science actually having a reasonably complete answer in any area claimed to be a gap, it is not a valid scientific critique.
What I'm not sure of yet is whether the sort of worldview-neutrality of the government that is contested between liberals and reactionaries is the same sort of worldview-neutrality that is contested between theistic evolutionist, design advocates, creationists, atheist evolutionists, etc.
While there may be ... well ... philosophical distinctions to be made between them, as a practical matter, the law not going to go to any great lengths to sort those out, expecially where those categories largely track the liberal/reactionary divide.
What Miller is doing, IMO, is pointing out the limitations of scientific knowledge to leave room for theists to pour their god into. Coyne's criticism that it is a god-in-the-gaps argument is valid on a philosophical level but, in the absence of Miller claiming that it is a scientific result and/or science actually having a reasonably complete answer in any area claimed to be a gap, it is not a valid scientific critique.
What I'm not sure of yet is whether the sort of worldview-neutrality of the government that is contested between liberals and reactionaries is the same sort of worldview-neutrality that is contested between theistic evolutionist, design advocates, creationists, atheist evolutionists, etc.
While there may be ... well ... philosophical distinctions to be made between them, as a practical matter, the law not going to go to any great lengths to sort those out, expecially where those categories largely track the liberal/reactionary divide.
John asks,
It has nothing to do with lawyers defending science, it has to do with the idea that government should not be able to force religion or philosophy on its citizens. Do you think that is a bad idea?
It's up to Americans to decide what they want but if accepting science means rejecting Christian fundamentalism or voodoism then, yes, government should be able to "force" philosophy on its citizens by teaching science in the schools.
There are a quite a few other philosophies that the US government "forces" on its citizens. Why aren't lawyers excited about the fact that the American government makes citizens accept the death penalty and reject gay marriage?
The American government also "forces" its citizens to deny that free health care is a basic human right. That's an anti-socialist philosophical position. Are all lawyers upset about that?
John, everything is a philosophy of some sort or another. If you accept that methodological naturalism is the best way to discover truth then you are adopting a philosophy (worldview) that's going to conflict with many religions.
If that also conflicts with the American Constitution then change the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with lawyers defending science, it has to do with the idea that government should not be able to force religion or philosophy on its citizens. Do you think that is a bad idea?
It's up to Americans to decide what they want but if accepting science means rejecting Christian fundamentalism or voodoism then, yes, government should be able to "force" philosophy on its citizens by teaching science in the schools.
There are a quite a few other philosophies that the US government "forces" on its citizens. Why aren't lawyers excited about the fact that the American government makes citizens accept the death penalty and reject gay marriage?
The American government also "forces" its citizens to deny that free health care is a basic human right. That's an anti-socialist philosophical position. Are all lawyers upset about that?
John, everything is a philosophy of some sort or another. If you accept that methodological naturalism is the best way to discover truth then you are adopting a philosophy (worldview) that's going to conflict with many religions.
If that also conflicts with the American Constitution then change the Constitution.
If you accept that methodological naturalism is the best way to discover truth then you are adopting a philosophy (worldview) that's going to conflict with many religions
No non-totalitarian government should be mandating what "truth" is. Truth is ultimately subjective. Your truth and mine are two different things, otherwise we'd be the same person.
Government should, however, be in the business of objectively and pragmatically looking after the welfare of its citizens, and that definitely includes teaching science. And yes, pragmatism is a philosophy, but it makes no claims to ultimate truth.
No non-totalitarian government should be mandating what "truth" is. Truth is ultimately subjective. Your truth and mine are two different things, otherwise we'd be the same person.
Government should, however, be in the business of objectively and pragmatically looking after the welfare of its citizens, and that definitely includes teaching science. And yes, pragmatism is a philosophy, but it makes no claims to ultimate truth.
# posted by 
: 6:24 PM
: 6:24 PM
Why aren't lawyers excited about the fact that the American government makes citizens accept the death penalty and reject gay marriage?
As far as I know, the goverment doesn't teach those positions are true and if they try the ACLU will be on their case. There is a difference between government advocating a political/philosophical position and enforcing the laws that are democratically enacted and are not unconstitutional. We're working our way through the question of whether bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional at this moment and lawyers are excited about it.
The American government also "forces" its citizens to deny that free health care is a basic human right. That's an anti-socialist philosophical position.
Indeed, our government can't force socialim on the electorate. When the elctorate votes for it, it will be implimented ... if it isn't unconstitutional. One thing our Constitution does force on its citizens is democracy.
John, everything is a philosophy of some sort or another. If you accept that methodological naturalism is the best way to discover truth then you are adopting a philosophy (worldview) that's going to conflict with many religions.
Science has a philosophy (as to what it is and how it works) and your personal philosophy will dictate how you react to science. But the methodology is not a philosophy. There's a difference between my accepting science and using the government to prosyletize my belief about it. If I can do that, so can the creationists and who do you think would win that political battle?
If that also conflicts with the American Constitution then change the Constitution.
I cannot express my gratitude for your advice on my country's governnment ... really I can't.
As far as I know, the goverment doesn't teach those positions are true and if they try the ACLU will be on their case. There is a difference between government advocating a political/philosophical position and enforcing the laws that are democratically enacted and are not unconstitutional. We're working our way through the question of whether bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional at this moment and lawyers are excited about it.
The American government also "forces" its citizens to deny that free health care is a basic human right. That's an anti-socialist philosophical position.
Indeed, our government can't force socialim on the electorate. When the elctorate votes for it, it will be implimented ... if it isn't unconstitutional. One thing our Constitution does force on its citizens is democracy.
John, everything is a philosophy of some sort or another. If you accept that methodological naturalism is the best way to discover truth then you are adopting a philosophy (worldview) that's going to conflict with many religions.
Science has a philosophy (as to what it is and how it works) and your personal philosophy will dictate how you react to science. But the methodology is not a philosophy. There's a difference between my accepting science and using the government to prosyletize my belief about it. If I can do that, so can the creationists and who do you think would win that political battle?
If that also conflicts with the American Constitution then change the Constitution.
I cannot express my gratitude for your advice on my country's governnment ... really I can't.
The distinction here between a methodological commitment and a world-view has got to be important. One's world-view will surely influence how one responds to the methodology, esp. where the methods yield results that conflict with one's worldview. But that doesn't mean that the commitment to the methods is itself a worldview.
So even if the government is required to be neutral about worldviews (or about 'comprehensive doctrines', as the philosopher John Rawls liked to say), the government is not violating that neutrality by teaching the methods of empirical science.
It would be violating worldview-neutrality if it were to teach that empirical sciences are necessary and sufficient for all knowledge, and it is around that point where the line between science as method and 'scientism' as worldview becomes fuzzy. But so long as science educators stay far from that line, the only complaints will be the reactionaries, who do want the use the coercive powers of government to advance a very specific worldview -- theirs.
Post a Comment
So even if the government is required to be neutral about worldviews (or about 'comprehensive doctrines', as the philosopher John Rawls liked to say), the government is not violating that neutrality by teaching the methods of empirical science.
It would be violating worldview-neutrality if it were to teach that empirical sciences are necessary and sufficient for all knowledge, and it is around that point where the line between science as method and 'scientism' as worldview becomes fuzzy. But so long as science educators stay far from that line, the only complaints will be the reactionaries, who do want the use the coercive powers of government to advance a very specific worldview -- theirs.
<< Home
