tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3762192419111023197..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Charles Harper: ScientismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88848877923662280752007-04-25T04:34:00.000-06:002007-04-25T04:34:00.000-06:00Alonso fyfe, in a recent exchange I was a part of ...Alonso fyfe, in a recent exchange I was a part of concerning the E8 figure mapped by David Vogan's team, some of us talked about two things, the number of actual dimensions of the universe and the possible ways those would impinge on our known and experienced lives. Of course it was all speculation, given the complexity of the eight dimensions dealt with by Vogan it would clearly be impossible for even all of the possible implications to be known. Would that change that they were there and impinging on our lives entirely unknown to us? No. <BR/><BR/>One thing about that last sentence you will notice that I haven't used the word "fact" because there would be no facts, since a fact becomes one only through its being known. So there would be no "variable" in an equation for these, that wouldn't make them any less real.<BR/><BR/>Math is not something that exists outside of human experience, so far as we know. The handful of indications that simple numbers are perceived by a few other species doesn't change that as far as we know human beings are the only species in the universe which has math. It is a product of our experience of the physical universe and is extended through logic, which is also a product of our experience of the physical universe. Math is a part of the physical universe. <BR/><BR/>Any proposed being outside of the physical universe might or might not be conditioned in part or in full by the same limits as the physical universe, there isn't any way of knowing. Math cannot be used to say anything about anything outside of the physical universe because it can't address things removed from the physical universe. Remember, we don't even know if there are other, equally effective, means of addressing the physical universe in other species. It is entirely possible that math is the product of genetics and a different chemical basis of life could produce different methods.<BR/><BR/>On the question of funding. Since it seems to be the assumption that scientists have the right and responsibility to speak on religion and other topics outside of their specialities, who better to defend their work and secure their funding. My sister is a biologist who spends most of her time tracking down funding, her work wouldn't exist without it. The least scientists can do is come down from Olympus to talk to the people who are footing the bill. Who knows? Maybe learning how to explain themselves could improve their thinking. It really doesn't matter what you or I think about the appropriateness of the public being more interested in science that is "in the public interest" because, I promise you, that consideration does matter. And if they don't understand the science, why should they trust scientists with their hands out just on the word of the scientists? Would you fund Dr. Radin's work on his word alone? I assume he would like more funding to carry it out. <BR/><BR/>You seem to assume I'm asking scientists to address their work in terms of religion when I not only never have but think that would be entirely inappropriate. I think a lot of the blame for the mixing of religion into science, in the mind of the general public, can be laid at the feet of people from Thomas Huxley (whose work I happen to have read and have thoroughly enjoyed) to Richard Dawkins who have gone way past what was necessary in addressing religious issues. Huxley had to defend evolution on the basis of its being true, he really didn't have to go after every last word Gladstone said on the subject. I really do think that the Gaderine swine controversy, while entertaining, was rather gratuitous on his part. I assume that less egocentric scientists would like to minimize the future strife which will arise with religious people. If that is true then making common cause with liberal religious people and even such evangelicals as are open to science would be a lot more profitable than in following a line of invective that really has had rather disappointing results after a hundred fifty years of trying.nolvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35241640447428111452007-04-24T21:51:00.000-06:002007-04-24T21:51:00.000-06:00olvlzlWhen scientists ask for public money somebod...<B>olvlzl</B><BR/><BR/>When scientists ask for public money somebody has to make a case that there is some public reason for the research, this is true. However, I would argue that it is not the scientist's job to explain themselves and their work to the public. Rather, any good body of scientists have reason to belong to an institution. That institution, in turn, can hire specialists, not in science but in communication, to do the job you mention.<BR/><BR/>Still, this is tangentical to the focus of my post. It is one thing for the public to say, "In order to get public funds you should show that your research performs a public service." It is quite another to say, "In your to get public funds you have to speak kindly about my religion." The latter demand is not appropriate.<BR/><BR/>It is also a bit foolish, since if the science is in the public interest, it is the public that suffers when they say, "You criticized my religion, so you can't have public money."<BR/><BR/>As far as my claim about scientists speaking to the existence of God, I say that scientists can speak to the fact that, "There is no God variable in my equations." This is something that a scientist can say, and it is objectively true when he says it. It says nothing about things that lie outside the scientific equations.<BR/><BR/>However, since those equations explain and predict real-world events, if somebody wants to add a God variable, he will have difficulty.<BR/><BR/>If that God variable does not influence the equation (if its predictions and explanations do not change), then the God variable is impotent. If it improves the equation, making it better able to explain and predict real-world phenomena, then God has been shown to exist. However, if it makes the equation worse - if it makes explaining and predicting real-world events less accurate, then those errors will likely contribute to greater human suffering. It means policies will not have the predicted or desired effect.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36007425440489906462007-04-24T11:02:00.000-06:002007-04-24T11:02:00.000-06:00I'm sorry I haven't been able to give your post th...I'm sorry I haven't been able to give your post the attention it deserves- and people say I write long ones, so that serves me right - it says a lot I can agree with. Two things jump out:<BR/><BR/>In so far as politics impinges on science it absolutely does matter that scientists both explain themselves and their work to the public who votes. Otherwise it leaves science open to any cheap pol or faith-based huckster who wants to gain power by attacking it or its funding. There isn't anything about the politics of science that makes it different from any other area of life. Scientists can't lie about the conclusions they draw from their work, it wouldn't be science if they did, but they had better find ways to get a constiuency for it or they will suffer some kind of consequences.<BR/><BR/>Another thing is that science isn't some realm of mental activity that is really different from others. It uses methods and proceedures that, at best, try to insure that its assertions are as close to reality as possible but there isn't anything separating it from a continuum of other mental activities. Unless someone has mastered the entire range of science and math and has complete reliablity in the materials and methods at hand, they don't have complete certainty. The best that can be hoped for is great reliabilty not complete reliability. This level varies among the sciences and among scientists, not a surpirse to anyone here I'd imagine, but the habit is to pretend that all science attains the highest level of certainty when it doesn't. <BR/><BR/>I'd quibble about what you say about anything that science can say about religious matters. Anything proposed to be supernatural, non-physical or otherwise beyond observation and measurement is not something that science can say anything about. How can anyone know if there isn't any observation or measurement? How can any aspect of math or science be assumed to be relevant to questions of religion? Science is absolutely able to address any assertions religion makes about the physical universe just as history and archeology can address any of the allged history it asserts, those have a physical, observable, measureable component that absolutely can be addressed by science. But the purely supernatural claims are entirely unreachable and the recently and unfortunately re-introduction of argument by analogy and pseudo-baseian pretensions don't change that. Luckily, everyone is free to not believe or believe as they see fit.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24222614579838929662007-04-22T06:16:00.000-06:002007-04-22T06:16:00.000-06:00ErgoI agree that there is no sharp distinction bet...<B>Ergo</B><BR/><BR/>I agree that there is no sharp distinction between 'is' and 'ought'.<BR/><BR/>As I typically phrase it: the only distinction that exists is between 'is' and 'is not'. 'Ought' either belongs in the 'is' category, or the 'is not' category (that is to say, in the category of make-believe).<BR/><BR/>Putting 'ought' is the 'is not' category. However, doing this implies that we remove 'ought' from any discussion of real-world actions or real-world policies.<BR/><BR/>Putting 'ought' in the 'is' category means that it is something that we can study scientifically, as soon as we pin down what part of 'is' it is.<BR/><BR/>I argue that 'ought' = 'is such as to fulfill the desires in question'.<BR/><BR/>And 'moral ought' = 'is such as to fulfill maleable desires that tend to fulfill other desires'<BR/><BR/>David Hume, I argue, defended something similar.<BR/><BR/>'Moral ought' = 'Is such as to realize character traits that are pleasing and/or useful to self and/or others'.<BR/><BR/>The thing is, 'ought' has to refer to reasons for action. Desires are the only reasons for action that exist. The problem with Ayn Rand's 'ought' is that it required the existence of <I>intrinsic values</I>. Intrinsic values are as mythical and make-believe as God.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50327474153114975672007-04-22T02:51:00.000-06:002007-04-22T02:51:00.000-06:00Your argument that value cannot be "extra-scientif...Your argument that value cannot be "extra-scientific"--to use your term--is the same as that made by Ayn Rand when she insisted that moral theory could be conducted as an objective science. She argued that there can be NO division between fact and value, between *is* and *ought*; the proper methods of arriving at values from facts are possible and grounded in reality. Values are a species of facts.<BR/>For more on this, I'd refer you to Leonard Peikoff's essay entitled "Fact and Value"-- you can do a google search for it. It's a good read pertaining to your train of thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com