Thoughts in a Haystack

It's strange to me that Larry wants to evade the "scientism" tag, when he's such a strong defender of it, even going so far as to say that personal taste in music is a scientific matter.

I think this kind of nomenclatural drift, where the word atheism indicates scientism but the word scientism indicates some horrible slanderous thing, is partly responsible for the difficulty in communication that always comes up with Larry on this topic. He thinks you are trying to call him names, rather than just naming him.

I do wish more people of the science-is-a-system-of-thought bent would take to heart your argument, though. Such a position deeply weakens science by restricting the ability to participate in it to the few, the proud, the pure of heart. The risk of corruption always lurks wherever there's a chance anyone may believe something non-naturalistic (even unconsciously).

Whereas science as a methodology is robust enough to be performed by biased practitioners, which is to say actual human beings.
 

I've told Larry often that "scientism" is a perfectly acceptable philosophy but he still takes it as some sort of insult. I suspect that he thinks calling it a "philosophy" weakens his status as a "scientist," even though he he keeps portraying science as just that.

... science as a methodology is robust enough to be performed by biased practitioners, which is to say actual human beings.

Exactly!
 

As I explained before, the real objective of pointing out that there are good and even great scientists who are also theists is that science is a methodology that can be well used by people of very different philosophies.

Yes, science can be used as a methodology by people with differently philosophies, but not coherently. "Science" the methodology follows from "science" the worldview/philosophy (as does the conclusion of atheism). It's a logical consequence. But science the methodology does not follow from a religious worldview. It doesn't make consequential sense for a religious worldview to employ science as a methodology. The reasons I've seen offered for doing so are transparently ad hoc excuses. They are just two things tacked together.

I agree that Larry is probably advocating a form of scientism. The problem is I've seen scientism most often defined as something along the lines of "the religious belief that science can answer all questions," which is such a wild mischaracterization of what proponents of a rational worldview are saying that it's little wonder the term is widely rejected.
 

Yes, science can be used as a methodology by people with differently philosophies, but not coherently.

Really? Ayala's science is incoherent? Do you have a better record?
 

"Science" the methodology follows from "science" the worldview/philosophy (as does the conclusion of atheism). It's a logical consequence. But science the methodology does not follow from a religious worldview. It doesn't make consequential sense for a religious worldview to employ science as a methodology.

If this were true it's hard to see how science could have come to be. It was developed by theists, sometimes quite fervent ones--Descartes, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Leibniz, Bacon, Harvey--not a metaphysical naturalist among them. Each of them thought the universe was regular, knowable, and had a God in it, who could only be known indirectly by studying his creation.

Science, quite literally, did follow logically from a religious worldview.
 

Really? Ayala's science is incoherent?

No, not his science. His worldview and his reasons for doing science are incoherent.

Science, quite literally, did follow logically from a religious worldview.

The scientific revolution was not the origin of science, nor was religion greatly instrumental in its development, except insomuch as that the development of science was contingent on the gradual abandonment of a previous reliance on religion and superstition.

That the regularity of reality was presumed by some to be a manifestation of the Christian god is clearly not a logical cosquence of Christian theology, as it equally logical to arrive at the opposite conclusion based on the same premises. So science is not a logical consequence of a religious worldview any more than the many "predictions" of Intelligent Design proponents are logical extensions of ID theory.
 

No, not his science. His worldview and his reasons for doing science are incoherent.

So you say ... based on your worldview. Frankly, I find that incoherent, since it can't account for an "incoherent" person like Ayala doing great science.
 

So you say ... based on your worldview.

No. Do you still have no grasp of the non-compatibility arguments after all this time? They go well beyond mere assertion.

Frankly, I find that incoherent, since it can't account for an "incoherent" person like Ayala doing great science.

The phenomenon of compartmentalization accounts for both the incoherence of Ayala's beliefs and his ability to do good science. Your expectation that a muddled worldview must necessarily lead to bad science is not one I share or would defend and is quite irrelevant to my arguments. It no more touches at the heart of the compatibility debate than the trite observation that many scientists are theists.
 

H.H., I don't think you thought too carefully about what you wrote. You had said, "science can be used as a methodology by people with differently philosophies, but not coherently." This though, can be rewritten as science cannot be used coherently as a methodology by people with differently philosophies. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it's what you said.
 

J. J. Ramsey, fair enough. To be more clear then, science can be employed correctly by someone with a faith-based worldview, but not in a manner that is compatible with a faith-based worldview. It is possible to construct a flawed rationale that allows one's scientific pursuits to operate essentially independent of their theistic worldview, but not as a natural extension of it. Faith and science do not "cohere" together as interrelated epistemologies. There is no coherent way to reconcile one with the other.

I would agree that compartmentalization does allow individuals to practice each more or less coherently so long as they are kept artificially disconnected, however.
 

H.H.: "To be more clear then, science can be employed correctly by someone with a faith-based worldview, but not in a manner that is compatible with a faith-based worldview."

But then you have to be clear what a "faith-based worldview" is. If a "faith-based worldview" means that someone is supposed to take everything on faith, then it is hard to see why such a one would even engage in experimentation in the first place. On the other hand, if part of one's faith-based worldview is that God has established an orderly universe, but that since God can make that order whatever he wants, one has to actually examine the universe and find out what that order is (instead of trying to reason out the order from one's armchair), then it is hard to see how that is inconsistent with the pursuit of science.
 

"To be more clear then, science can be employed correctly by someone with a faith-based worldview, but not in a manner that is compatible with a faith-based worldview."

You need to explain this more coherently. It is possible that we see compartmentalization differently. In this context, I see "compartmentalization" as accepting as true two or more things that cannot simultaneously be true. And I don't think you can name two things that Ayala believes that cannot be true at the same time.
 

Do you still have no grasp of the non-compatibility arguments after all this time? They go well beyond mere assertion.

As when you assert that Ayala is compartmentalizing? As Jim said, can name two things that Ayala believes that cannot be true at the same time.
 

Is it fair to challenge someone to point to two things Ayala believes that can't be true at the same time? Ayala seems pretty cagey about what his actual religious beliefs, if any, are. Then again, if Ayala isn't, I'd appreciate a pointer to something on his views.

Mike from Ottawa
 

HH,

"Science" the methodology follows from "science" the worldview/philosophy (as does the conclusion of atheism). It's a logical consequence."

It may be but, as a matter of fact, science as method is not a historical consequence of any 'Science: The Worldview'. Some folk think that facts matter. YMMV

"But science the methodology does not follow from a religious worldview."

Which falls far short of demonstrating that the two can't peaceably co-exist, particularly given the historical fact (however much you may dislike it) that much of the methodology of science was developed by people who did have a religious worldview.

One of your problems may be that you start from the assumption that one must either have a solely scientific worldview and nothing else or a solely religious worldview and nothing else. People are more complicated than that. For instance, even folk who are die-hard supporters of scientism, like Myers and Moran, don't in fact apply science to determine their own inner states. Before you object, re-read Myers' account of how they used science to determine whether or not he loved his wife and you'll see he never actually does that but instead describes the process of deciding whether she'd be a good partner, which is not the same thing at all. IIRC, Larry Moran simply ignored the question.

I would recommend the following view:

“ “Naturalism” (the idea that science can only work on natural, not supernatural, explanations) has become a bad word because it is mistakenly viewed as a philosophical commitment by scientists to atheism. Instead, science works by applying a practical naturalism in which scientists seek natural explanations, not because these are the only ones possible, but because they are the only ones we can test by reason and evidence (i.e., scientifically). ” [Massimo Pigliucci, Member; Jessica Gurevitch, Executive Vice-President; Dolph Schluter, President
Society for the Study of Evolution]

Mike from Ottawa
 

Is it fair to challenge someone to point to two things Ayala believes that can't be true at the same time?

Yeah, I think it is in this case. After all, his "scientific worldview," supposedly "coherent," led him to say "The phenomenon of compartmentalization accounts for both the incoherence of Ayala's beliefs and his ability to do good science." If he's going to make the assertion, he's the one who needs to have the empiric evidence.

BTW, re:

IIRC, Larry Moran simply ignored the question.

Actually, over at Wilkin's place, he disagreed with PZ but only by distinguishing our inner states from "knowing":

I am not PZ Myers and I don’t agree with his statements about whether emotional experiences are part of the scientific way of knowing. My position is that emotional experiences don’t count as “knowing” in the context of this discussion.

I find this strange not only because so much of every person's life is tied up in emotions (unless, going back to my original point, you are a pretty terrible person), but because there is a clear emotional context to how scientists form their opinions about which of the competing hypotheses in science is correct, which is obvious in the heat such debates often engender. How "coherent" is a "worldview" that would deny this?

The rest of what you say, Mike, is just about exactly my view.
 

J. J. Ramsey, a faith-based worldview would be one where faith is considered a valid epistemology or "way or knowing." It doesn't matter what particular beliefs an individual arrives at via faith, but how those beliefs are justified. So for instance, before one can accept the premise that god exists and wants us to use reason, we must accept that faith is a valid way of knowing, that personal revelation is a form of knowledge, and that independent confirmation can be wholly dispensed with.

But if that’s true, then all faith claims become equally epistemologically justified. There really is no way to adjudicate between competing faith claims, since each has as much merit as the other. People must resort to attacking one another’s personal characters or settling disputes by physical combat. Indeed, we have seen this unfortunate pattern play out throughout history. A worldview in which faith is a legitimate epistemology necessarily undermines itself. So one cannot justify rationality on the basis of faith, as that's an inherent contradiction. You cannot build a castle on a foundation of sand.

Furthermore, as Larry Moran already tried to point out, you can’t get there from the other direction either. If one adopts a rational, scientific worldview of applied skepticism, then one is prohibited from accepting truth claims on the basis of faith alone. Premises are like Chinese handcuffs. Once you put on your assumptions—whatever they are, faith-based or reason-based—you can’t take them off again without sufficient justification. To do so would be intellectually dishonest. Faith is the abandonment of reason. Reason is the eschewing of faith. Ayala’s claim that he can incorporate both into a single, coherent worldview is unsupported.
 

(con't)

Now one could, in theory, justify switching between epistemologies if sufficient cause could be given. Many theists and accommodationists have stated that there are limits to the kinds of questions science may answer, and so it doesn’t make sense to maintain a scientific worldview outside of a specific domain. But where is this boundary to be drawn? There simply is no good non-arbitrary place to put it. The most common boundary offered by theists is the supposed one between the material and the immaterial. Since science focuses on material phenomena, the supernatural is beyond its limits. This is an artificial demarcation, however, as Lenny Flank elucidates in this essay (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm). Science is not prohibited from investigating supernatural hypotheses.

The closest thing to a legitimate candidate is the boundary between subjective and objective claims of fact. Science cannot address subjective truth claims, so naturally theists have seized on this. They have gone to great pains to deliberately conflate these two huge epistemological categories: the subjective, or self-knowledge; and the objective, or knowledge of the external and universal. Yes, science only works for the latter. It doesn’t reveal subjective truths, only objective ones.

But here’s the thing. The claim that god exists in reality? That’s an objective claim. It’s exactly the sort thing science is supposed to address. Religious apologists love to treat the fact of god’s existence as a subjective claim, but unless one is willing to admit that god doesn’t exist outside of human minds, essentially adopting the atheist position, then it’s comparing apples to oranges. You can’t have it both ways. Either god is exactly like love, something which you can just know for yourself and doesn’t exist beyond yourself (and your god dies when you die), or god is a proposed entity that exists apart from humans whose existence must be established through scientific evidence. So this demarcation doesn’t justify switching epistemologies when considering theological questions. It’s just another red herring offered up in defense of the indefensible.

And John Pieret, pointing out an available possibility is not the same as making an accusation. I wasn’t accusing Ayala of compartmentalization, only offering it as a possibility in order to expose your false dichotomy. You said my explanation was incoherent because one couldn’t explain his ability to do good science unless his worldview and science are compatible. That’s simply false. There are many possibilities which could explain it (compartmentalization is but one, conscious dishonesty is another). The only point is that there is no need to accept Ayala’s claims at face value, and his ability to do good science isn’t ultimately germane to the issue.
 

Michael wrote:

It may be but, as a matter of fact, science as method is not a historical consequence of any 'Science: The Worldview'. Some folk think that facts matter.

Is the democratic ideal "all men are created equal" compatible with slavery? As a matter of historical fact, both can be found in the Constitution.

"But science the methodology does not follow from a religious worldview." Which falls far short of demonstrating that the two can't peaceably co-exist, particularly given the historical fact (however much you may dislike it) that much of the methodology of science was developed by people who did have a religious worldview.

And the Constitution was ratified by slave owners. Does this historical fact suddenly mean slavery is compatible with the democratic ideals of freedom and liberty? Obviously the fact that people are capable of maintaining contradictory views is not the same as justifying a contradiction. You aren't justified in saying religion and science are compatible simply on the basis that many people, some historical, believe they are.
 

@HH,

"You aren't justified in saying religion and science are compatible simply on the basis that many people, some historical, believe they are."

I never made such a claim, but was merely shooting down your arguments, which is not the same thing.

As to compatibility itself, I suppose it depends on what one means by it (and the Larry for whom this post was named seems to take Humpty Dumpty's approach), but I do think there are things science can't get at. One of these is supernatural causes for natural events, which is why intelligent design creationism isn't science. Science is also not capable of providing norms for behaviour of the sort we'd call ethical or moral. If one resorts to science to learn about the natural world where reason and evidence can answer questions and religion in areas that are beyond the reach of science, then they can be compatible in a way different from that of merely being resorted to by the same persons.

I do wonder if you are really so wed to scientism as your posts make you look. Do you profess not to know anything about your inner state or do you arrive at conclusions about your inner state only after examining evidence available to all as to what your inner state is?
 

H.H.: "J. J. Ramsey, a faith-based worldview would be one where faith is considered a valid epistemology or 'way or knowing.'"

That doesn't help much. First, what do you mean by "faith," and does it corresponding to what the religious adherents think it means? Second, faith is a way of knowing what? Just because someone has what he or she calls a religious faith does not mean that he or she thinks that "faith" is suitable for answering all kinds of questions.
 

I wasn’t accusing Ayala of compartmentalization, only offering it as a possibility in order to expose your false dichotomy. You said my explanation was incoherent because one couldn’t explain his ability to do good science unless his worldview and science are compatible. That’s simply false. There are many possibilities which could explain it (compartmentalization is but one, conscious dishonesty is another). The only point is that there is no need to accept Ayala’s claims at face value, and his ability to do good science isn’t ultimately germane to the issue.

But then we're just back to the point that you are asserting that his views are incompatible based on your worldview that the only valid epistemology is science. The possibility that Ayala's views are compartmentalized or dishonest doesn't support your claim that thinking that there is more than one epistemology is incompatible with science.
 

Science is not prohibited from investigating supernatural hypotheses.

Explain how science could distinguish a miraculous point mutation from a random one -- without making assumptions about what a supernatural agent's motives might be. In short, how would you empirically test which was which? Alternatively, explain how "science" can be done without empiric testing.
 

Explain how science could distinguish a miraculous point mutation from a random one -- without making assumptions about what a supernatural agent's motives might be. In short, how would you empirically test which was which?

Well, that would be the responsibility of the party that wanted to assert that a particular point mutation had a supernatural origin, wouldn't it? Science doesn't have to have a way to test the validity of every assertion one can make. It's up to the party making the assertion to offer a valid test. If they can't, so much the worse for them. If something cannot be tested by science, then it fails as an idea. But that's not a failure of science, it's a failure of the hypothesis. Lots of ideas are untestable. So? Lots of ideas are garbage. Science remains the only valid means we have of testing truth claims about objective reality (And note: We're always talking about objective claims here.)

But you certainly don't get to pretend your claim qualifies as truth under some other "epistemological framework" unless you can justify it. That's the sort of special pleading that galls me. Faith is a cheat for favored ideas that should rightly be rejected.
 

But then we're just back to the point that you are asserting that his views are incompatible based on your worldview that the only valid epistemology is science.

Well, no. I think I tried to lay out exactly why the two epistemologies aren't compatible.

The possibility that Ayala's views are compartmentalized or dishonest doesn't support your claim that thinking that there is more than one epistemology is incompatible with science.

I agree. But again, that's why I did more than simply assert it. I laid out exactly how one epistemology undermines the other. As far as I can see, it's you and Ayala who are merely asserting that science and faith are compatible epistemologies without even attempting to explain how one can reconcile the two.
 

And to be perfectly clear, I never said that science can adjudicate every supernatural claim. What I said that science is not prohibited from investigating the supernatural by definition. Science is capable of investigating any coherent, testable truth claim about objective reality regardless of whether the claim is material or immaterial in origin.

Furthermore, I said that if it's a truth claim that science cannot investigate because it's too vague, sporadic, what have you--then there is no alternately valid epistemology that can. All this talk about faith being a valid way of knowing amounts to nothing more than hand waving without a concrete example of how it would succeed where science fails. So how about it? How could faith distinguish a miraculous point mutation from a random one?
 

It's up to the party making the assertion to offer a valid test.

What is incompatible with science to say that there is no valid test? You just conceded that there are claims that cannot be tested. How do you get to the point that science (rather than scientism) requires that there be a valid test? In the end, all you are asserting is that faith is incompatible with scientism ... but we already knew that.

I think I tried to lay out exactly why the two epistemologies aren't compatible.

You haven't succeeded.

Science is capable of investigating any coherent, testable truth claim about objective reality regardless of whether the claim is material or immaterial in origin.

Nice petitio principii. Define claims of immaterial origin as testable and then say science can test them. Does away with the messy question of how.
 

As when you assert that Ayala is compartmentalizing? As Jim said, can name two things that Ayala believes that cannot be true at the same time.

Are there *any* methodolgical rules about what is true? Is it *true* that Jim said anything?
 

Science is not prohibited from investigating supernatural hypotheses.

Explain how science could distinguish a miraculous point mutation from a random one -- without making assumptions about what a supernatural agent's motives might be. In short, how would you empirically test which was which? Alternatively, explain how "science" can be done without empiric testing.

Why the caveat about supernatural agents motives? Those could be miraculous as well. As could all empirical tests -- apparently your view is that science is a methodology that signifies nothing, but in all your comments I am drawing the empirical conclusion that you don't really by it -- could all be a miracle though. :) BTW, I'm pretty sure lots of "science" is done without empiric testing.
 

Are there *any* methodolgical rules about what is true? Is it *true* that Jim said anything?

Sure. Under methodological naturalism, I assume that naturalistic events, such as electronic messages that reach my computer have natural causes such as a human being who calls him/her/itself "Jim".

Why the caveat about supernatural agents motives?

Here's why.

... apparently your view is that science is a methodology that signifies nothing

I can't imagine why you'd think so. I am simply recognizing the limits of our knowledge. Present day science obviously doesn't know everything. Does that make it meaningless?

BTW, I'm pretty sure lots of "science" is done without empiric testing.

Really? Name some please. String theory (more math than science) is about the only candidate I can think of but some scientists have rejected it on that basis and the rest are trying to figure out how to test it.