Raw (A)Theology: Scientific Method

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Scientific Method

Can someone give me a scientific justification for why it is necessary to only go about belief formation according to the scientific method?

9 comments:

pepisteuka said...: I can't.; 7/9/06 4:30 PM
Chris said...: Outstanding! (On so many levels.)

First as a basic philosophic question, "how do we decide what to accept as real?" or even "by what method do we know what is true?"

Second as a debate tactic. If you don't like the question or think it may cost you your central point, reject the premise.

Third as bait to fall into a tautology. "A scientific jusification for science."

To give my basic opinion on the question taken at face value (with an assumtion that it was prompted by the God question), it's not at all necessary to use the scientific method to form your beliefs. In fact almost no one does. Few people outside the scientific community could even define the scientific method if asked (speaking of which), let alone would think to apply it to their world view.

I'll feel the need to specify on 'beliefs' a little. I'm not talking about morals. Most people have an innate moral sense which is reinforced from youth by parental guidance on socially acceptable behavior. What I mean by 'beliefs' are a person's considerations on the big questions like "who are we?", "why are we here?" and "where are we going?", which is to say the existential stuff. These are most often formed by supposition and reason based on personal observation and are very heavily influenced by the people around you when you're young and the society that you live in. The foundation your beliefs will come to rest on are the things you accept as fact. These are the things you assume or take as given when formulating your beliefs.

While not necessary to use to determine your beliefs, the scientific method it is the best way to determine what is fact. This goes (some would argue goes especially) for the facts upon which you rest your beliefs. If too many of these foundational assumptions are later shown to be fallacy, the belief system loses meaning.

If (to grab a totally random example) one of the facts on which you base your beliefs is the existence of God, someone who doesn't see evidence for and therefore questions that fact might ask to see your evidence. If the evidence produced is not conclusive or testable or even demonstrable, they may then ask why it is you consider the notion to be true.

Hope this answered your question.

If anyone else wants to jump in a put words to their own method for determining their beliefs, has thoughts on how people at large do it or just thinks I'm completely off my rocker, I love to hear about it.

Yours in Science,
-Chris; 9/9/06 1:53 AM
Derek said...: ”If (to grab a totally random example) one of the facts on which you base your beliefs is the existence of God, someone who doesn't see evidence for and therefore questions that fact might ask to see your evidence. If the evidence produced is not conclusive or testable or even demonstrable, they may then ask why it is you consider the notion to be true.”

‘Testability and demonstrability’ are valid forms of evidence, you say. I think I agree but perhaps you could be more specific. I’m curious if you think that testability and demonstration are valid types of evidence for all subject matters (including empirical claims, mathematical claims, theological claims, etc.) or rather those types of evidence are only veridical concerning empirical claims?

While waiting to see what you think I’ll say what I think. It seems to me that it’s obviously the case that empirical claims are assessed in such ways, but so are host of other subjects. For instance say a mathematical claim is made like ‘the square root of 49 is 7’ and I’m not to good at math so I don’t know if it’s true or not, it’s possible for someone to demonstrate it’s truth by teaching me what a square root is and so on, and/or once I learn how to do the math I can test the math for myself to see if it’s true.

Or take something like a dumbed-down version of St. Anselm’s ontological argument:

1. God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. God exists.

If the premises (1) and (2) are true, then so is (3). This argument itself is a demonstration of God’s existence (at least Anselm took it to be, and if the premises are true, then going though the steps IS demonstrating God’s existence, and thus is a form of evidence gathering). Furthermore, if one might be extremely skeptical of the arguments conclusion or find the premises contentious, one could begin questioning the arguments validity in which case one would be ‘testing’ data.

The point I’m trying to make here is that finding the square root of 49 and knowing where Anselm went wrong (or right?) is a matter of evidence gathering in the key of ‘testability’ and ‘demonstrability’, but clearly the examination of the subjects in question is not in any way an empirical research project; no empirical data was ever mentioned. As such, under the criteria of ‘testability’ and ‘demonstrability’ both mathematical truths as well as theological truths (if there are any), for instance, are clearly within the scope of science proper.

But if that’s true, then empiricism (the idea that the only things that can be known to exist are things perceived with the senses) is false and naturalism (the idea that the only things that exist are physical things) is an open question.

I’m curious if you would agree.

I’m Derek by the way, I’m a friend of Louis’; it’s good to meet you Chris.; 9/9/06 4:59 AM
Louis said...: "Second as a debate tactic. If you don't like the question or think it may cost you your central point, reject the premise."

Outstanding! As a debate tactic: if you cannot defend the rationality of your position when the burden of proof weighs down on you, point out your opponent's debate tactic.

The rejection of the premise in this case is most certainly called for during anyone's search for truth.

This is so, because, as you have claimed, some claim that,

"the scientific method it is the best way to determine what is fact."

Your Empiricism presupposes things that you cannot verify empirically. My question is meant to uncover that the methods of modern science are philosophical assumptions, and cannot be justified by the scientific method.

That we should trust our senses is a philosophical assertion that our senses did not come up with, nor can they justify.

That 'a belief is true because it is tested repeatedly' is a statement made from induction, which is an activity that your mind does (not your senses).

If you start with the belief that what you scientifically test is true, then I ask you to show me by means of scientific tests, that your starting point is true. Certainly the best way to determine what is fact can itself be determined to be fact by its own proposed method?

I have come to a place in my life, where I am now trying to find peace in the fact that I love disclaimers. Let me make a big fat, important one: the assumptions you are making may indeed be good, but it is very important to understand that you formed these assumptions based on reason, not modern science.

Even though I accept empirical evidence as important, I maintain that empiricism is false; it is self-defeating.

You have, throughout your posts, hinted at reason as a valid means to finding truths. But I contend that if you can know things without the use of the senses, then you can know things that can't be perceived by the senses.

Although we have both agreed with Dawkins, that God's existence cannot be proven (by the modern scientific method), that does not mean that it is not reasonable.; 9/9/06 2:27 PM
Chris said...: Derek,

"If the evidence produced is not conclusive or testable or even demonstrable..." I did not mean this to be taken as me saying (because I wasn't) that there are no things offered as proof of the existence of god that can be demonstrated. What I meant was that some things people will offer as proof like, "i just know He exists but can't explain how" can't be demonstrated and can only accepted or rejected. In addition, some proof offerings which can be demonstrated can't be tested. Then of couse some offerings (Anselm) can be tested logically/philosophically.

‘Testability and demonstrability’ are valid forms of evidence, you say. I think I agree but perhaps you could be more specific. I’m curious if you think that testability and demonstration are valid types of evidence for all subject matters (including empirical claims, mathematical claims, theological claims, etc.) or rather those types of evidence are only veridical concerning empirical claims?

Testability and demonstrability aren't themselves forms of evidence. Demonstrability is the ability to show evidence to someone else and testability is being able to check the veracity or falsifiablity of said evidence. They are methods used to prove something as true or factual, or disprove it as false.

(IMHO, one of the greatest resourses is the Wikipedia. I often go there for clarification of terms.)

"Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.

The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses. For example an observer wishing for evidence that the sky is blue need only look at the sky.

Evidence in science
In scientific research, evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards proving or disproving a hypothesis."

I agree with this definition. Please note the difference in definition of evidence for science and for philosophy. Philosophic evidence is not necessarily empiric evidence.

Or take something like a dumbed-down version of St. Anselm’s ontological argument:

1. God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. God exists.

While I try to avoid cheap shots in such talks, I can't help but point out that "dumbing-down" Anselm's argument is an exercise in redundancy. I'll more seriously address this argument in a different post.

The point I’m trying to make here is that finding the square root of 49 and knowing where Anselm went wrong (or right?) is a matter of evidence gathering in the key of ‘testability’ and ‘demonstrability’, but clearly the examination of the subjects in question is not in any way an empirical research project; no empirical data was ever mentioned. As such, under the criteria of ‘testability’ and ‘demonstrability’ both mathematical truths as well as theological truths (if there are any), for instance, are clearly within the scope of science proper.

Incorrect reasoning by way of misassumption. First, mathematics does not necessarily use the scientific method. Second, the Anselm argument is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of god. It falls clearly in the realm of logic and philosophy and is testable but only with reason, not empiricism. Math, as mentioned, is a little more contentious:

"Mathematics has both similarities and differences compared to other fields of science. It is similar to other sciences, because it is a rigorous, structured study of topics such as quantity, structure, space, and change. It is, however, different in its method of arriving at results. Mathematics as a whole is vital to the sciences — indeed, major advances in mathematics have often led to major advances in other sciences. Certain aspects of mathematics are indispensable for the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences)."

this link:

"If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science. Karl Popper believed that mathematics was not experimentally falsifiable and thus not a science. However, other thinkers, notably Imre Lakatos, have applied a version of falsificationism to mathematics itself. In his 2002 book A New Kind of Science, Stephen Wolfram argues that computational mathematics deserves to be explored empirically as a scientific field in its own right."

is worth clicking on and reading the section indexed. It speaks to the issue. Math, it could be said, overlaps science a great deal but also overlaps philosophy. In fact the field of mathematics may be the bridge between logic/philosophy and the natural world of science.

The math/Anselm juxtaposition then doesn't work as a parallel to a science/philosophy juxtaposition. Mathematical propositions and theological propositions can however be seen as philosophic parallels. Once either is logically/philosophically proven true it might then be able to be applied to the natural world and ipso facto would fall under the purview of natural science proper.

Louis,

(quoting me)
"Second as a debate tactic. If you don't like the question or think it may cost you your central point, reject the premise."

Outstanding! As a debate tactic: if you cannot defend the rationality of your position when the burden of proof weighs down on you, point out your opponent's debate tactic.

I think I may have touched a nerve. You've reacted with a "nuh uhh, you are!" response. You did actually read the rest of my post, right? I little past my friendly jibe about your tactic I explained how "...it's not at all necessary to use the scientific method to form your beliefs." In that I don't believe the scientific method is the only way to form one's beliefs I bear no burden of proving that it is.

(again quoting me)
"the scientific method it is the best way to determine what is fact."

"Your Empiricism presupposes things that you cannot verify empirically. My question is meant to uncover that the methods of modern science are philosophical assumptions, and cannot be justified by the scientific method."

I see you did keep reading. And there appears to be some confusion.

Some how everyone seems to have gotten the impression that my only interest is in things which can be shown to exist empirically. This is simply not the case.

I've been trying to figure out where in the discussion this focus on my supposed raging empiricism came from and how things have gotten so far off track and I think I've figured it out. Let's go back to my first post.

"Christianity may be philosophically tenable, it is however patently not scientifically reasonable."

I then went on explain why I don't feel Christianity works from a scientific point of view. No, that can't be it. Then I went into why, from a philosophic point of view, it doesn't appear to be the best worldview. I even offer four reasoned, logical, non-empiric arguments against the Christian thesis, one each from Epicurus, Hume, Shelley, and Ingersoll.

"That we should trust our senses is a philosophical assertion that our senses did not come up with, nor can they justify."

Uh..., alright.

I did say, "Not being able to sense god myself, I'm left with applying logic and reason to the premise of god...", and then proceeded to pose and answer four rhetorical questions about god only one of which was of a strictly empiric nature.

To be clear, I've never claimed to be a strict empiricist, nor have I asserted I would only accept empiric evidence as proof of god. As stated in my first post, " ...I've just not seen any thing nor heard any argument to suggest there's an overriding supernatural entity."

I didn't think I had, and I certainly never meant to imply a singular reliance on science and by extention the scientific method in the bigger questions of my beliefs or personal philosophy. The notion of God can certainly be examined both scientifically as well as logically/philosophically.

What I am interested in finding, if it in fact exists, is some evidence of the deity be it empiric or reasoned. A logical, reasoned, irrefutable argument would do in lieu of empiric data. In considering the existence of supernatural propostions like god, argumentative evidence (I'm guessing) would be easier to come up with than scientific evidence so why not take the easier route.

"That we should trust our senses is a philosophical assertion that our senses did not come up with, nor can they justify."

Uh, ok. No problem with that.

"That 'a belief is true because it is tested repeatedly' is a statement made from induction, which is an activity that your mind does (not your senses)."

You're not quoting me, are you? I don't think you are, but I did say, "I firmly believe that if something is true it can be tested and will withstand any rigour." In restrospect, that was an over simplification. I'm not sure why you keeping thinking I believe that the senses perform cognitive fuctions.

"... the assumptions you are making may indeed be good, but it is very important to understand that you formed these assumptions based on reason, not modern science."

I think what you're trying to get to is the Philosophy of science.

"If you start with the belief that what you scientifically test is true, then I ask you to show me by means of scientific tests, that your starting point is true. Certainly the best way to determine what is fact can itself be determined to be fact by its own proposed method?"

This may (or may not) help answer your question.

"Even though I accept empirical evidence as important, I maintain that empiricism is false; it is self-defeating."

Would you mind elaborating on this point. All kidding aside, I don't understand your reasoning for this.

"You have, throughout your posts, hinted at reason as a valid means to finding truths."

Hinted? Me?

"But I contend that if you can know things without the use of the senses, then you can know things that can't be perceived by the senses."

Absolutely.

"Although we have both agreed with Dawkins, that God's existence cannot be proven (by the modern scientific method)...

I think you may have made a typo but I'm not sure. Dawkins' point was that God's existence cannot be dis-proven, but that doesn't not suggest that he does exist. I am sure he'd say that he agrees with you that God's existence can't be proved either, and further that God's inability to be proved empirically speaks not to a short coming in the scientific method or even the limits of the current level of scientific knowledge and technology, but to the simple fact he likely doesn't exist. But then that's Dawkins' for you.

"...that does not mean that [God's existence] is not reasonable."

I'll need more to see Christianity as reasonable, but as you said, we've got time.

-C; 12/9/06 6:27 AM
Louis said...: chris,

sorry about misinterpretting you here. your response straightened me out. i now understand and agree with everything you're saying here, and i retract any call for you to justify empricism, as you have made it clear that you do not hold it to be true. i am looking forward to your answers to dane's survey, and was wondering if i could add one more question: do you happen to be a naturalist? maybe we should all each put a list of what we consider fundemental questions together for each other to fill out?

derek,

i agree with dane that an ultimate authority should be self-justifying, and i think that the bible would ideally be presupposed as true in a dispute regarding a claim about god. indeed, as we are not asking chris to give up his presuppositions about what should be the ultimate authority on the matter, why should we? why do we have to play on his grounds and not he on ours? and i agree that this results in an impasse. so why not shift our conversation into a new gear, and probe our worldviews for coherency? that said...

dane,
i actually agree with derek's desire to hold you to high standards of interpretation here. i happen to agree with you that the bible is god-breathed, and affirms no proposition contrary to truth, but i don't think that the verses you furnished will justify that claim when offered by themselves. i also think that the bible declares reason as a valid means to gather knowledge, and i don't think that it will be counterproductive to agree to use our common ground with chris to seek the truth together. nevertheless i think there is plenty of room in here for choosing to form some arguments based on biblical claims, demonstrating the coherency of the christian worldview. just don't expect it to be the silver bullet that convinces someone whose view already precludes your premise.; 13/9/06 7:44 AM
Chris said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 13/9/06 6:02 PM
Chris said...: "... i retract any call for you to justify empricism, as you have made it clear that you do not hold it to be true."
-Louis

To be clear, I do hold epiricism to be valid. I'm wondering by what line of reasoning you do not.

"That we should trust our senses is a philosophical assertion that our senses did not come up with, nor can they justify.

That 'a belief is true because it is tested repeatedly' is a statement made from induction, which is an activity that your mind does (not your senses)."

"Even though I accept empirical evidence as important, I maintain that empiricism is false; it is self-defeating."

You accept empiric evidence as important but then ultimately reject it completely. Could you clarify this?

You seem to feel a posteriori knowledge is worthless and wholly illusory. (Am I gonna have to start calling you 'Neo'?) Do you feel that this discussion, Derek, Dane, myself are all figments of your imagination conjured by your subconcious or maybe by god as a mental exercise for you? That is actually a valid philosophic argument and these forms I've downloaded and am filling out certainly aren't involuntary commitment papers.

Kidding.

Seriously though, is your only believing a priori knowledge because you've accepted that scientific proof (by definition a posteriori) of god is almost certain to not exist, or is it some theosophical reason?

Wait, I think I may have figured it out. You feel that your mind/soul exists on some supernatural plane and interacts with the natural world via your body. Your senses provide 'empiric' data about the natural world to your incorporeal self and your mind uses that data to grow or improve or simply entertain itself, but because it's destination is ultimately the supernaural 'king of heaven', the natural world is ephemeral and in the end almost inconsequential. Try not to do anything stupid and hurt your soul while waiting to get into the everafter where your real being will begin. Is that it?

"maybe we should all each put a list of what we consider fundemental questions together for each other to fill out?"

Not a bad idea. You want to start a thread for suggestions of questions?

btw, hey Derek, nice to meet you as well. Embarrassed I forgot my manners earlier.; 13/9/06 6:39 PM
Louis said...: I don't only accept a priori knowledge, sorry to give the wrong impression. And it seems that you do not only accept empirical evidence, so I guess we have some common ground. To clarify, I was using "Empiricism" to reference the belief that empirical evidence is the only veridical kind. But I took a look at Wikipedia (a good source of definitions when talking about things online, I guess...), and it seems that my definition wasn't the one that the majority of other people operate under.

My whole point in this thread was to refute what I called "Empricism", but it has been made clear that it is unnecessary, and that I was operating under an atypical definition.

Am I getting this right?; 14/9/06 11:57 AM

Raw (A)Theology

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Scientific Method

9 comments:

New Philosophy Blog

Bookmark

Classic Posts

Blog Archive

Blog Categories

Active Philosophers

Philosophy Resources

Atheist Links