Wednesday, May 09, 2012

 

Philosophy or Science or ... ?


Elliott Sober, one of the best philosophers of science working today, is getting "worked over" by the Gnus.

Sober allegedly delivered a talk, in the words of Jason Rosenhouse, "on the subject of whether it is logically possible that God could be subtly directing the mutations that arise in the course of evolution, even though biologists routinely describe those mutations as unguided."

Sober disputes that characterization:
Jason Rosenhouse needs to read more carefully. The point of my lecture was not that "it is logically possible that God could be subtly directing the mutations that arise in the course of evolution." The point was the evolutionary biology, when properly interpreted, is silent on this question, just as it is silent on the question of whether determinism is true.
Jason calls this:
... another annoying tendency of certain philosophers. I am referring to the endless turf protection. The relentless nattering not about the arguments themselves, but about classifying the argument within the proper academic discipline. Obviously to go from the facts of science to nontrivial conclusions about God you are going to have to add to your argument some assumptions about God's nature and abilities. If that transforms the argument from scientific to philosophical then so be it. Can we please now move on to the more important question of determining whether the arguments are any good?
Others might call this being intellectually rigorous about your argument rather than "endless turf protection." Indeed, Jason even quotes Sober making the same point:
There may be good reasons to reject theism, but these are philosophical reasons, not consequences of evolutionary biology.
Jason's pique seems to be Sober doesn't feel the Gnu urge to go on to make those philosophical arguments for him.

And speaking of intellectual rigor or the lack thereof, enter Jerry Coyne. After quoting, with apparent approval, Jason's admission that the arguments are philosophical rather than scientific, Coyne blithely denies it:
I argue again that if there should be evidence for God, but there isn't, then we have more confidence that God doesn't exist. And that existence is an empirical rather than a philosophical question. The existence of a supernatural being cannot be decided through philosophy or reason alone: it requires observation or experiment. (That's why the ontological argument isn't any good.) If there is indeed a beneficent and omnipotent God, there should be evidence for it (prayers should be answered, we should see miracles, innocent children shouldn't die of leukemia). But there isn't any—any more than there is evidence for Bigfoot.
One wonders what scientific evidence there might be for the assertion that "there should be evidence for God."

But after all that prologue, we come to what interests me. Coyne summarizes the help people are trying to give him in philosophy in private emails as boiling down, among others, to this:
All the good arguments against God's existence are not scientific, but philosophical. I don't agree. You can't argue against the existence of something that affects the world on philosophical grounds alone. There has to be some appeal to evidence. Even the argument from evil is not totally philosophical: it uses the empirical evidence of undeserved evil combined with the philosophical premise that such evil is incompatible with a loving and powerful God.
So, just appealing to empiric evidence makes an argument "scientific"? Then what are we to make of this
moronic spiel by Ellis Washington?:
In America we have record-shattering snowstorms and cold fronts from Florida to Alaska. Presently there is snow in 49 of our 50 states. Global-warming patron saint Al Gore is nowhere to be found because he knows he would be laughed to scorn at any venue where he appeared. Even a Senate committee hearing discussing the impacts of global warming was canceled last week due to record-breaking snowstorms in America's capital. 
Ordinary citizens can just look out their windows and see that the premise behind anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is a complete deception that the United Nations has wasted untold hundreds of billions of dollars funding.
It was certainly empirically true that we had several bad winters in the eastern US in a row. Is it, therefore, scientific to argue that global warming is a crock? If appeal to empiric evidence is all it takes, then Ellis Washington has to be thought of as a scientist when he makes that "argument."

If we don't think Ellis Washington is making a scientific argument, we can equally conclude Coyne isn't when he argues science disproves the existence of God. Whether that is trivial or not is another matter but confused arguments are confused arguments and, if there is anything that science has taught us, it is that confused arguments are suspect.

Comments:
Speaking as a "philosopher" (of sorts), I agree with you, John.

For one thing, it's not obvious that the only genuine entities are those that spatio-temporal, causally-interacting, and empirically-detectable. And though there are some good reasons for thinking so, it's nevertheless not itself an empirical claim.

Barry Stroud coined the term "placement problems" to describe the situation of contemporary metaphysical naturalism. That is: once we're committed to an ontology of 'nature' -- spatio-temporal, causally-interacting entities -- how do we "place", within that ontology, such things as numbers, possibilities, values, and consciousness?

One might decide that such things simply can't exist, given metaphysical naturalism, but seems to fly in the face of some deeply-rooted presuppositions of human existence and experience. And then one has to show that the presuppositions are themselves faulty, as Alex Rosenberg tried to do.

The alternative I favor is that, while there is a presumption in favor of science, that presumption is restricted to a specific dimension of human thought -- namely, the dimension in which we describe and explain the world. When those explanations conflict with deeply-grounded intuitions, it is not always the intuitions which have to go, because other dimensions of discourse have an authority of their own.
 
One wonders what scientific evidence there might be for the assertion that "there should be evidence for God."
For a religious theistic God making specific claims? plenty.

Unless of course you think human virgin births in 4 century B.C. or flying horses have not been empirically disproved.
 
Nick Matzke is my hero
 
Unless of course you think human virgin births in 4 century B.C. or flying horses have not been empirically disproved.

They've been empirically proven not to happen "naturally" ... but that's begging the question.
 
@John
They've been empirically proven not to happen "naturally"
Intelligent Design / Creationism has been empirically proven not to happen "naturally" ... but that's begging the question.
 
Intelligent Design / Creationism has been empirically proven not to happen "naturally" ...

OK, maybe you don;t know what "begging the question" means. Try Googleing "petitio principii." If you assume that only the "natural" is "real" and that empiricism/science is the only route to "knowing" reality, then you might be able to argue that human virgin births in 4 century B.C. or flying horses have been empirically disproved. Why not? After all, you've assumed your premise in your conclusion! What's a little thing like a logical fallacy when you believe!
 
" If you assume that only the "natural" is "real" and that empiricism/science is the only route to "knowing" reality, then you might be able to argue that human virgin births in 4 century B.C. or flying horses have been empirically disproved.
Lets try again.
Has creationism been disproved by Science/empirical method?
If you want to be technically correct(and consistent , and from your previous free will threads comment , you value consistency) - you will have to answer with exactly the same caveat that you make for virgin birth.
What's more you will have to make the exact same caveat for any other scientific proof or law.

So again what is your answer to
"Has Creationism been disproved by Science/Empirical method?"
 
If creationism were true, then unless God is a trickster, it should leave tells in the present day that we can observe. For example, a tell of young-earth creationism in particular would be that radioactive dating results should all be on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand years. Of course, this tell does not exist, but rather quite the opposite.

If the virgin birth were true, what tells might we expect to find in the present day? For example, should we expect that women naturally be capable of parthenogenesis? Of course not. The accounts of the virgin birth, such as they are, are clear that this birth is supposed to be something that couldn't happen without divine intervention. There really isn't much of any trace that an ancient virgin birth would leave in the present day, something that cannot be said for a cataclysm like Noah's flood.
 
"Has Creationism been disproved by Science/Empirical method?"

Which versions? Their name is Legion.

Biblical YEC? Disproven to the extent science deals in 'proof' (which it doesn't really, at least not in the mathematical/logical sense) because it actually makes testable claims the failure of which brings down the edifice if they fail. And they do.

IDC? Nope, has not been 'disproven' by science because as the Catshark's following post shows (thanks to Dembski), IDC has no actual content and isn't actually a testable hypothesis. Which is, for its proponents, a great strength. That it would be worthless to science even if true hardly matters since the cdesign proponentsists don't give a flying fox about science.
 
What J.J. and Mike said.
 
@Mike from ottawa, John
Which versions? Their name is Legion.
Heh so science hasn't disproved all the various versions? Fine.
Has Biblical YEC been disproved by Science - your answer is Yes - no caveat? No assumption that only "natural" is "real". No assumption that a supernatural being can do whatever the heck he/she/it wants and you may not be able to distinguish it in the natural world?

because it actually makes testable claims the failure of which brings down the edifice if they fail. And they do.
Oh but precisely. A virgin birth doesn't make a specific claim?
 
@ JJ Ramsey
If the virgin birth were true, what tells might we expect to find in the present day?
By that logic , gravity is a law that only exists after Newton discovered it , because we have no way of knowing whether two bodies really attracted each other proportional to their masses and inversely to the square of their distance in the past.
Nor have we verified every pair of bodies.
Inspite of this, Gravity is still considered scientific proof is it not?
 
Sigh! As Mike has already told you, science has not "disproven" YEC. It has overwhelming shown that YEC is contradicted by empiric evidence. YECs can, and do, still appeal to Omphalos.

A virgin birth doesn't make a specific claim?

Is Tiktaalik roseae the ancestor of all tetrapods? We claim there is a a common ancestor of all tetrapods. Will we ever know which it is?

By that logic , gravity is a law that only exists after Newton discovered it , because we have no way of knowing whether two bodies really attracted each other proportional to their masses and inversely to the square of their distance in the past.

Um ... so please explain dark energy and why the universe doesn't act like we expect it would if gravity was the sort of "scientific proof" you claim it is?
 
Deepak, you are partly right--we have to make inferences based on generalizations, or we could never increase our knowledge. It would be absurd to say that the laws of motion are not universal because we haven't verified every possible case they would bear upon. Science would grind to a halt.

But as Mike and John point out, induction is not "proof." Induction is a rational tool, allowing models to be predictive; it is a methodological, not metaphysical instrument. We are entitled to infer that nothing may be concealed from our exercises of empirical exploration, but this is not in itself a scientifically demonstrable inference. Since all science relies on the assumption that our (carefully controlled) observations are reliable and true, there is no experiment we could conduct that could falsify this premise--such a conclusion would be self-refuting, like the Cretan's statement that all Cretans lie.

Sober's point is not about specific empirical disputes, like virgin births or the age of the earth. It is about trans-empirical interpretations. (We all make them). If someone wants to assert that some indetectible supernatural entity is behind the empirical facts science reveals to us (like random genetic mutations), no scientific endeavor can falsify this assertion. There is no detectible difference between "random" events and "inscrutable" events.

Note that Sober is very adamant that we have good reason to question whether theistic evolution is a sound idea. But this is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. By definition, *science* cannot decisively comment on speculations that are immune to direct inspection. Luckily for all us naturalists, philosophy can.
 
Or, as Hawkeye and Radar would say, "Ahhhh! ... Hume!!!"
 
It has overwhelming shown that YEC is contradicted by empiric evidence.
(since you are a lawyer). "My client hasn't been proven guilty your honor. The prosecution has merely shown overwhelming evidence that he is guilty!"
YECs can, and do, still appeal to Omphalos.
Irrelevant. YOU are being asked whether you think biblical YEC has been disproved by scientific/empiric evidence.

Will we ever know which it is?
Will we ever know anything if you demand the same level of evidence for everything consistently?

so please explain dark energy and why the universe doesn't act like we expect it would if gravity was the sort of "scientific proof" you claim it is?
You seem to be confused. The fact that like magnetic poles repel each doesn't disprove gravity - or that gravity is negligible at a quantum level doesn't disprove it either. Scientific proof is always provisional.
But to paraphrase someone , you can always jump out of the window and see for yourself whether gravity is proven.
 
@Chris
But as Mike and John point out, induction is not "proof.
No , this is the normal use of the term - and I did qualify it as scientific proof or empirical proof - which means what it does.
the question was never "is YEC true/false" - it is whether you think Science disproves YEC. In much the same way we can and do say "proven in a court of law" - That too is not necessarily truth.
We use the term proof to mean - overwhelming evidence in day to day life.
There has never been any argument over whether the empirical method can prove truth - everyone knows it is provisional. There were two points made
a. That science isn't silent about specific religious claims.
b. That if you wish to make caveats for virgin birth, you must make the same caveats for any scientific theory. You must also make the same caveats for
1. Jesus cured the sick by driving out demons (who can prove that sickness was not caused by demons - whats more you still cant do it unless you assume the natural world is real and there aren't demons!)
2. He walks on water (who can prove otherwise)
3. He can make mass appear out of nowhere (multiplying bread loaves) - who can say otherwise
4. He can convert water into wine without applying energy .
Now I know you don't believe 1-4 are true, so on what grounds do you not believe this? philosophical or scientific?


no scientific endeavor can falsify this assertion.
And as Jason points out in his comments and everyone(reasonable) agrees this is trivially true , and whats more it is true of every scientific endeavor. Why single out evolution. Use this consistently for every single scientific theory/law.

But this is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one.
This is not completely true - because good philosophy must rely on the available scientific evidence. You cannot call it just philosophy. on what grounds will you evaluate whether Plantinga's philosophy is better than Sober's when it comes to Evolution?

Second science is pretty specific - whatever evolution we know of is unguided - if you want to add theistic claims to it , then the onus is on you - It would not be scientific to consider the hypotheses as true or even likely till proven.

Luckily for all us naturalists, philosophy can.
whatever floats your boat I guess. but explain how philosophy can prove "truth". explain how competing philosophies can be evaluated.
 
OK, good, so we agree. It is valid to talk about evidence in reference to science, which we distinguish from a demonstration of truth.

if you wish to make caveats for virgin birth...

I *don't* want to make caveats for the virgin birth, and neither does Sober, who does *not* argue that empirical miracles may have happened.

Why single out evolution?

Indeed, why? Sober didn't bring this issue up out of thin air; he is explicitly responding those who are uncomfortable with theistic evolution on scientific grounds. People like Coyne and Rosenhouse, who refuse to discern a difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

Good philosophy must rely on the available scientific evidence. You cannot call it just philosophy. on what grounds will you evaluate whether Plantinga's philosophy is better than Sober's when it comes to Evolution?

Plantinga and Sober do not disagree on the biological facts of evolution, so it is not clear where there has been a failure to "rely on the available scientific evidence." John's point, which I think you still overlook, is that if you don't require additional standards beyond mere reliance upon evidence, then any philosophical assertion with empirical underpinning is equally valid. The task of the philosopher is to provide rational and coherent ideas that fit the known facts. Whether or not evolution is the product of a naturalistic or theistic cosmos are two such ideas, which we can evaluate and compare on the basis of their coherence and rationality. But neither idea rejects known empirical fact. (Let's not forget that the two greatest biologists of the 20th century--Fisher and Dobzhansky, without whom there would not be a modern synthesis--were both theistic evolutionists).

Second science is pretty specific - whatever evolution we know of is unguided - if you want to add theistic claims to it , then the onus is on you - It would not be scientific to consider the hypotheses as true or even likely till proven.

Yes, the onus is on those who add theistic claims to justify them. But these are philosophical justifications (specifically, ontological ones), not scientific hypotheses. Just as naturalism is an ontological stance, not a scientific hypotheses, because--as we've both agreed, above!--there is no meaningful way to scientifically falsify ("disprove") naturalism. A scientific hypothesis that naturalism was false would be self-refuting, because it denies the very assumption it requires to be able to make determinations of fact. An observation you agree, above, is so obvious that it is "trivial."
 
@Chris
I *don't* want to make caveats for the virgin birth,
Good. But making statements of the sort that Virgin births circa 4B.C. are empirically disproved need the caveat "naturally" per john's response. do you agree or disagree?

But these are philosophical justifications (specifically, ontological ones), not scientific hypotheses.
You cannot make a factual claim (God guides evolution) and say this is philosophy/theology and add that scientists shut up now.
 
"My client hasn't been proven guilty your honor. The prosecution has merely shown overwhelming evidence that he is guilty!"

Ah, but what is "overwhelming" is also not a scientific question.

YOU are being asked whether you think biblical YEC has been disproved by scientific/empiric evidence.

My judgment is that YEC has been sufficiently contradicted by scientific/empiric evidence that it is not worth considering. But what is "worth considering" is also not a scientific question.

Will we ever know anything if you demand the same level of evidence for everything consistently?

Why, no ... we won't "know" (for various meanings of the word) anything. Why is that so frightening to theists and philosophical naturalists? It is the same complaint that theists make about "absolute morality." Why is it so hard to consider what we don't know and to be clear about it?

You seem to be confused. ... Scientific proof is always provisional.

But to paraphrase someone , you can always jump out of the window and see for yourself whether gravity is proven.


Sorry, it is you that is confused. Chris, Sober and I are the ones arguing that scientific evidence is provisional. You are claiming it is irrefutable. Yes, I have no intention of jumping out of a window but that doesn't mean we can state that it is "proved" that gravity can't be overcome.
 
But making statements of the sort that Virgin births circa 4B.C. are empirically disproved need the caveat "naturally" per john's response.

[Head scratch] Why would a philosophical naturalist be afraid of the word "naturally" ... unless you want to hide the petitio principii, of course.
 
But making statements of the sort that Virgin births circa 4B.C. are empirically disproved need the caveat "naturally" per john's response. do you agree or disagree?

The caveat is implicit. It's what we mean by "disproved." Empiricism is concerned with what is natural by definition.

But again I don't see how this bears on the issue, since neither Sober nor anyone defending him is suggesting a virgin birth ever actually happened, or that we can't have an opinion scientifically or philosophically about parthogenesis. This is totally orthogonal to Sober's argument, which about extra-empirical surmises.

You cannot make a factual claim (God guides evolution) and say this is philosophy/theology and add that scientists shut up now.

Where is anyone telling anyone else to shut up? Scientists are as welcome to practice ontology as anyone else. They just aren't doing science when they do so.

You appear to be advocating a kind of logical positivism here: "All meaningful statements are verifiable statements of scientific fact." Sorry to break it to you but this kind of reasoning was demolished over 50 years ago when it was shown that any scientific attempt to falsify the main proposition would be self-refuting. Its proponents all recanted or died. It's the phlogiston of analytic philosophy. You will have a difficult time in getting people to take you seriously if you continue to adhere to it.
 
@John
My judgment is that YEC has been sufficiently contradicted by scientific/empiric evidence
But where is the word ...naturally ?

Why is that so frightening to theists and philosophical naturalists
Who said it is frightening. Its that this is a trivial observation and holds as much for my claims and as much for your claims, so why make it?

You are claiming it is irrefutable.
On this thread itself , i have said science is always provisional proof. On the previous free will thread I have said "Science approaches truth , but can never claim to have achieved it , correct?". Somehow your brain processes these statements as I think science is irrefutable. Must be this free will thing , huh.

unless you want to hide the petitio principii, of course.
Nope. Im trying to point out to you that you do the same when it comes to other claims (notably ID). You dont add naturally so you must be trying to hide petitio principii.
 
@Chris
The caveat is implicit. It's what we mean by "disproved."
Oh I dont know. Supposedly having overwhelming evidence means something else than disproved on this blog. Again people do not answer Is creationism disproved with the caveat , so whats John's motivation for adding it to virgin birth. And that this caveat is implicit for everything - Sickness caused by germs? Only if you assume naturally and no demons setting their plans in motion to infect humans. Do you really add this caveat of ...naturally? All of these are as scientifically proven or as disproven as virgin birth. So why do people who like to accommodate religion baulk at the idea of saying something to the effect that virgin birth is unscientific? Why do all the objections that apply to any scientific theory come out only now?

But again I don't see how this bears on the issue,
It starts of with John pompously pondering "One wonders what scientific evidence there might be for the assertion that "there should be evidence for God."

Where is anyone telling anyone else to shut up?
When you say a factual claim is philosophy - you are essentially making the claim that scientists are not qualified to comment , using science on that matter, aren't you.

All meaningful statements are verifiable statements of scientific fact."
Nope. Never said that nor implied it as far as I can tell.
 
But where is the word ...naturally ?

As Chris already pointed out, that was already there when you asked me if YEC has been "disproved" by scientific/empiric evidence.

It starts of with John pompously pondering "One wonders what scientific evidence there might be for the assertion that "there should be evidence for God."

Really? You can't see any difference between the statement "there is no scientific/empiric evidence for god(s)" and the statement "if there are god(s), there should be scientific/empiric evidence for them"? I thought better of you.

Who said it is frightening. Its that this is a trivial observation and holds as much for my claims and as much for your claims, so why make it?

It is only trivial to philosophical naturalists.

Somehow your brain processes these statements as I think science is irrefutable.

No, it comes from your frequently using the term "disproven" when, in fact, you supposedly mean something like "everything that we "know" from science is inconsistent with YEC." If you don't think it is important to be clear about what you are saying, I suppose we can just put you in the same category box as the rest of the ideologues who are more interested in advancing a "cause" than the intellectual contents of it.

Nope. Im trying to point out to you that you do the same when it comes to other claims (notably ID). You dont add naturally so you must be trying to hide petitio principii.

I'm not used to you making moronic statements. My arguments against ID are always focused on the fact that it is not scientific. The entire focus of my criticism of ID is that it rejects the notion that empiric/scientific evidence can inform us of the natural world. I've often said that ID could be true but that it can't be science. In other words, I am always adding "naturally" to my arguments against ID. Simply copying my statement ... without any attempt to show I'm actually committing a petitio principii is in the worst tradition of creationist projection.

When you say a factual claim is philosophy - you are essentially making the claim that scientists are not qualified to comment , using science on that matter, aren't you.

You are really not on a roll. Chris and I are discussing what counts as a "factual claim" under "science" (such as "if there are god(s), there should be scientific/empiric evidence for them"). It is you that want people like us to "shut up" about the weaknesses of your arguments. In other words, projection.
 
"Where is anyone telling anyone else to shut up?"
"When you say a factual claim is philosophy - you are essentially making the claim that scientists are not qualified to comment , using science on that matter, aren't you."

No, you're trying to get your critics to shut up with an implied ad hominem attack. It's a stupid, revealing tactic that suggests that, since you have no answer to the criticism, then the other person must be trying to censor you - thus implying the other person is someone who would endorse muting free speech. An ad hominem attack on the other person.

The reply to that, of course, is that it's not the other person's fault if you can't come up with an effective reply to their criticism. If you stand mute it's your own fault for not thinking through your position.
 
Note that John did not say in the OP we had no reason ask for evidence for God. He said there could be no evidence for the assertion "there should be evidence for God." The reason for this is that the assertion that there "should" be evidence for *anything* is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It is simply the presumption one must make when doing science. If we say "there should be evidence for the assertion that there is dark matter," this is a true statement if you believe in the basic tenets of science, under which it is a truism that hypotheses must be supported by empirical observations. But we do not go one step further and ask for evidence that there should be evidence for dark matter.

If you want to take a stab at showing that science can verify itself scientifically (which includes showing how it might be falsified), be my guest. Keep in mind that you cannot answer that the verification is "it works," because the only way we could falsify this scientifically would be to show that it "doesn't work," using the core methodological assumption in doing so that "it works." A function cannot be its own argument.

And that this caveat is implicit for everything - Sickness caused by germs? Only if you assume naturally and no demons setting their plans in motion to infect humans. Do you really add this caveat of ...naturally? All of these are as scientifically proven or as disproven as virgin birth.

I don't think you have followed the lineage of this argument very closely. If there were people out there arguing that gods or demons brought about sickness through the mechanism of infectious disease, then the same predicament would apply. As long as these people did not deny any of the known facts of medicine, science would remain silent on the matter. (This does not imply, BTW, that scientists need remain silent on the matter--see below). Science can only pronounce on what is subject to verification. This doesn't mean we couldn't argue that such people are crackpots. It just means we can't use science to do so, since they would be in agreement with us on every single assertion that science could pronounce upon.

So why do people who like to accommodate religion baulk at the idea of saying something to the effect that virgin birth is unscientific? Why do all the objections that apply to any scientific theory come out only now?

Nobody here is balking at the idea that virgin birth is unscientific. Nobody. If you think this is what is at issue you have completely missed the thrust of the argument. I think John, Mike, TB, and myself, not to mention Sober, would all rush to observe that any hypothesis of any case of virgin birth would need to be accompanied by some model permitting its integration with the rest of biology, and some compelling evidence for its existence to be considered scientifically. But we are not adjudicating the facts of Christian theology here! We are concerned with the specific question of whether it is scientifically warranted (or indeed, even logically possible) to ask for evidence of evidence (John's point), and whether there can be any scientific opposition to claims which scientifically conflict with no known science (Sober's point).
 
When you say a factual claim is philosophy - you are essentially making the claim that scientists are not qualified to comment

Not in the slightest. First of all, any scientist that wants to frame the question in scientific terms, with a hypothesis and research program that articulates the terms under which the hypothesis would be falsified is of course always welcome to have at it! Secondly, any scientist is always welcome to engage in the matter philosophically, something many scientists have been very good at, making important contributions: Hertz, Bohm, Waddington, and numerous others. The only caveat is that you have to take the literature seriously.

Naturalists say there are no gods or demons because it is inherent in naturalist metphysics that only that which is evident is existent. This is reasonable! It needs a lot more unpacking before we can consider it fully persuasive, but as far as it goes, it is reasonable, and one can live a full and happy life in the sunshine of this metaphysical view.

To the person who says, in response, more is existent than will ever be evident, we will rightly want to interrogate them on how they know this (but without hubris, please--rationalist, skepticist and idealist arguments have given fits to some of the best minds our species has been able to throw at these problems). But if we are going to persuade them otherwise, it will be through reason, not evidence, since by definition, no evidence can be brought to bear on non-evidentiary things (if such exist).

This is all Sober is saying in the linked video and paper. It applies not only to theism, but also to the proposition that numbers have a "real," i.e. Platonic existence. Science works the same whether or not numbers are "real." Biology works the same whether or not we posit additional unseen causes behind the proximate ones. We can and should keep having the conversation about what to properly believe, but science itself cannot settle the matter without additional metaphysical support.
 
...but science itself cannot settle the matter without additional metaphysical support.

Nicely said.
 
Rereading that, after waking up, Chris, I'm damn glad you post here. That is a fine expanation of how I see the issues but probably couldn't put it nearly as well.

Thanks.
 
@John
that was already there when you asked me if YEC has been "disproved" by scientific/empiric evidence.
And it wasn't when I asked about virgin birth(or any other theory)?

I thought better of you.
I'm flattered. But my claim was that religion which makes specific claims about the natural *should* have evidence and can be "disproved" using empirical evidence. The sense or implication of your statement (and even Sober's talk) is that it can't.

No, it comes from your frequently using the term "disproven" when, in fact, you supposedly mean something like "everything that we "know" from science is inconsistent with YEC."
Perhaps the word disproven means something else on the east coast(im assuming this and may be wrong) than it does on the west coast and I dont know , on the rest of planet earth.
So do you have the same objection to people using X has been legally proved? Do you object to the statement that Barack Obama has proved that he is a citizen of the USA?
Do you respond to these statements with "everything we know is consistent/inconsistent" with the statements ?
My use of the word proof is consistent with how it used by everyone else - if I want to use the term mathematical proof (which seems to be the only acceptable use of the term here - poor three dimensional beings with their limited views!) Ill use that.

I'm not used to you making moronic statements
Now thats genuinely surprising. Thanks for the sentiment.

Simply copying my statement ... without any attempt to show I'm actually committing a petitio principii is in the worst tradition of creationist projection.
Again , the point is that every scientific theory must assume the naturally, correct? So when the question was phrased as is the virgin birth dirproven by science or is a belief in virgin birth unscientific , why did you feel the need to point out the naturally?
Both you and Chris say that the caveat is implicit , and I know that , and we dont use it at all for other matters like Is the demon theory of disease disproven scientifically?
Take an analogue
Barack Obama has proved he is a citizen of the USA - its implicit that the proof is conditional - Tomorrow you may discover the certificate is a forgery or you may find out that he is the anti-christ and has supernaturally created this certificate.
So what do you tell someone who states "Mitt Romney is a citizen of the USA" , "Barack Obama is a citizen of the USA till his birth certificate is proven to be a forgery".
Both the statements are technically true(provisionally) and technically correct - but do they convey the same information or the same impression? In much the same way you convey a different impression when you answer virgin birth v/s ID even I can cheerfully admin that you are technically correct.
But if as you say you want to "be clear about what you are saying," - then being technically correct isn't sufficient.
So if as you say ID is not science - does that mean that Science has nothing to say about ID - that it doesnt disprove it(or overwhelming evidence against it if you prefer that)?
that it should be left to the philosophers? That the next time there is a dover trial , instead of inviting Ken Miller to take the stand you should invite Plantinga ?

I've often said that ID could be true but that it can't be science.
So? the virgin birth may be true , but it is not a scientific view. And besides say Xenu lands on planet earth and demonstrates conclusively and repeatedly how he tweaks life on earth. ID is still not science?

You are really not on a roll.
Perhaps its because Im not a sausage

Chris and I are discussing what counts as a "factual claim" under "science"
Sigh. Is a human born of a virgin a factual claim or not? Is God making specific tweaks in the evolution of life a factual claim or not?
 
@Chris
He said there could be no evidence for the assertion "there should be evidence for God."
Empirically? Everything that interacts with the natural world has left behind evidence. So while you might be justified in saying that science cannot find evidence of the supernatural - you cannot be justified , empirically , to say that when the supernatural interacts with the natural world - we have to prove there will be evidence. Empirically that has been the case (which doesn't mean the statement is true)

If there were people out there arguing that gods or demons brought about sickness through the mechanism of infectious disease, then the same predicament would apply.
Huh. So you haven't heard of the official branches of exorcism in the RCC? And if you go to a place like India, you can find as many examples as you wish of witch doctors claiming sickness is caused by demons/ghosts what have you not. And since we agree that the same predicament applies - what exactly are you going to argue? On what grounds are you say this is incorrect? Note if you say philosophical you must provide how to evaluate competing philosophies.
And if you have to say that philosophy that most agree with the evidence (i.e. scientific) is the correct one, well then you are back to where you started.

It just means we can't use science to do so,
Again what do you use then. You cant use reason - because what is that reason based on? You cant use philosophy because you have to evaluate the correctness of competing philosophies.


All Im demanding is consistency - I have already agreed that we may not be able to detect the supernatural - but then that applies for every single thing we know about this universe. I take that to mean this is a trivial objection that I will ignore. You/John answer that you'll don't ignore it(especially when it comes to science v/s religion) - then fine , dont ignore it for anything - be consistent.

And you can't glibly work around "it works". The fact is that Hume's objection to science is valid - but you bet your life on Science when you fly a plane. So while Hume may be technically correct, practically and pragmatically both you and I ignore him. The problem is only a philosophical problem - it's not a problem in the real world

It's the same for mathematics. Mathematical proof is treated as a higher truth than scientific proof. But where is the proof for mathematics? Where is the proof for its axioms? The fact is you don't go about making caveats for mathematics(again except for philosophers). But tomorrow if there is a new religion that is anti-mathematics - who knows you might.


Nobody here is balking at the idea that virgin birth is unscientific.

Really? I would phrase it as virgin birth is as unscientific as theistic evolution. This is what Coyne says as well (that theistic evolution is not science and evolution is not the same as theistic evolution - so someone who claims to support evolution but is actually a theistic evolutionist isn't really supporting evolution) - for which he gets a lot of grief for.
Thats the whole disagreement isn't it. Sober (and probably john and you et al) believe that science is silent on theistic evolution - whereas the other side believes theistic evolution is unscientific.

First of all, any scientist that wants to frame the question in scientific terms, with a hypothesis and research program that articulates the terms under which the hypothesis would be falsified
And that is precisely where you misunderstand the empirical method.
If a religious book states that sometime in the past the sun and the planets came to a rest, can you articulate the terms under which this can be falsified? Do you treat the religious claim as false or as unverifiable?
 
Everything that interacts with the natural world has left behind evidence.

And your evidence for this statement is...?

How would we know if something interacted with the universe and left no traces? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And since we agree that the same predicament applies [regarding the demon theory of disease.] - what exactly are you going to argue? On what grounds are you say this is incorrect? Note if you say philosophical you must provide how to evaluate competing philosophies.

I would approach this exactly the same way as I would with the mutations issue: I don't believe in these demons, and medical science works just as well without them. Beyond that, it depends on the context. All things being equal, if you believe in demons, knock yourself out. If you want to teach demon-based medicine in school, you have a First Amendment problem. If you want to do an exorcism instead of effective medical intervention, you are acting inethically. If you want to do an exorcism in addition to medical intervention, and the ill person is game, I really can't be bothered to care.

If I *do* need to argue with someone about a metaphysical (non-empirical) dispute, however, I don't need to provide any criteria in advance. The dialogue proceeds on its own terms, and is persuasive or it isn't. I believe in the power of logic and coherence, and also of good story-telling. I can't make people agree with me, I can only engage them in conversation, look at their views from different angles, and see what's left standing.

And you can't glibly work around "it works". The fact is that Hume's objection to science is valid - but you bet your life on Science when you fly a plane. So while Hume may be technically correct, practically and pragmatically both you and I ignore him. The problem is only a philosophical problem - it's not a problem in the real world

You're confusing a couple of disparate points here. "It works" is a fine stance, and I do bet my life on naturalist assumptions, daily. What I had asked, however, was whether science could be verified by its own standards and methods. That's something different than making a bet.

You appear to be fairly well educated, and I'm kind of shocked you haven't yet made the acquaintance of this very elementary point of logic. Science relies on assumptions of rationality and intelligibility that cannot be independently demonstrated or refuted. A function cannot be its own argument. We must be content to take naturalism as a given for whatever phenomena we direct our attention to scientifically--which is not logically the same as asserting that all phenomena must adhere to naturalistic presumptions.
 
This is what Coyne says as well (that theistic evolution is not science and evolution is not the same as theistic evolution - so someone who claims to support evolution but is actually a theistic evolutionist isn't really supporting evolution) - for which he gets a lot of grief for.

If you really want to commit to this, you'll have to say that Fisher and Dobzhansky did not "support" evolution, which would be a weird thing to say.

As for virgin birth, I think you are misapprehending the nature of the kind of theistic evolution Sober is describing: specifically, one that violates no known laws. Virgin births cannot be proximately explained. Mutations can.

Thats the whole disagreement isn't it. Sober (and probably john and you et al) believe that science is silent on theistic evolution - whereas the other side believes theistic evolution is unscientific.

Even Jason and Coyne have admitted that evolution is "silent" (in the sense of neutral, inconclusive) on the matter of whether mutations are theistically directed--making you, perhaps, the lone holdout?

f a religious book states that sometime in the past the sun and the planets came to a rest, can you articulate the terms under which this can be falsified? Do you treat the religious claim as false or as unverifiable?

Who knows what the hell Joshua 10:13 is talking about? I'm inclined to disbelieve as a historical fact that the sun refrained from setting for a whole day. It could be something that was just made up. It could be intended metaphorically. It could be some astronomical event we can't account for offhand but that is explicable naturalistically. As far as I'm concerned it's just some lines in a book I'm really not that interested in.

Science doesn't deal with one-offs. If something is not modelable and doesn't entail predictable results, it's not something science can speak to. Because of this we infer that the things we *can* model and predict take precedence over those we can't--but one-offs are invisible to theoretical knowledge, as they should be.

My answer is that the sun standing still in Joshua isn't even false, because it hasn't been articulated in a verifiable or falsifiable way. It's three lines in a very old book. I guess that's close to saying I believe it's false, but it's closer to saying I have no reason to even have an opinion about it.

I do wish fewer people believed in stuff just because it's in the bible. We agree on this 100 percent. Magical thinking that attributes natural causes to "God" without any modeling of what that might mean, or how it would work, has no place in our culture, and that creates conflict not just between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists but also within fundamentalists themselves, since so much of thier lives are conducted on scientific and technological principles.

But fundamentalism is not coextensive with theism, generally. It is important, for a host of reasons, that we don't set so high a standard for science that even the people who developed the theories in question cannot meet it. Having to disprove every single non-deist variant of theism is going to be exhausting, if not futile, and for what? What is gained by saying that Miller, Collins, Morris, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Haldane, Price, Dyson, and so many others, are not "supporting" science?
 
@Chris
And your evidence for this statement is...?
empirical obviously. Again do I need to prove that every two objects attract each other ? Do you know for sure that in the past they did? Or that two rocks in a distant planet do so? Do you plot courses for satellites assuming this or not?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Only philosophically. When you look in your garage is there a dragon or not? Is absence of evidence sufficient in a court of law? "The client is guilty your honor - even though the evidence is absent - you see absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

If you want to do an exorcism in addition to medical intervention, and the ill person is game, I really can't be bothered to care.

Even if the exorcism is done first? Possibly a difference in culture , but people are sometimes believed to be possessed by evil spirits when
a. They want to marry outside their religion
b. When they want to give up their religion (or go against tradition in some way)
What is your proof against this? By all means these are logical possibilities.

What I had asked, however, was whether science could be verified by its own standards and methods.
It can't. Nor can math. Or Logic. Does it matter? The proof of the pudding is in the eating after all.

If you really want to commit to this, you'll have to say that Fisher and Dobzhansky did not "support" evolution, which would be a weird thing to say.
Ill retract and rephrase as don't really believe in evolution. The reasoning is , if X(evolution) is true and Dobzhansky believes (X + Y(some theistic interference or grand plan)) is true. Then unless he makes a clear and unambiguous statement , that irrespective of Y , he believes X is true, then I cannot really say he believes X. X + Y != X.

I think you are misapprehending the nature of the kind of theistic evolution Sober is describing: specifically, one that violates no known laws
That's because neither you or Sober are following through with the implications. Undetectable beings who act in undetectable ways with undetectable but unlimited power can do whatever the heck they want.
 
@Chris - part II
Even Jason and Coyne have admitted that evolution is "silent" (in the sense of neutral, inconclusive)
I think Jason already answered you and since he is far more eloquent than I , Ill reproduce his response
"It is certainly true that you must add certain assumptions to go from the evidence itself to the conclusion that the suspect is guilty. But it is equally true that in everyday usage absolutely no one would think it's correct to say that the evidence is silent on the question of the suspect's guilt. ". I'm not using silent in the technical sense.

My answer is that the sun standing still in Joshua isn't even false, because it hasn't been articulated in a verifiable or falsifiable way
Huh. A description of some event in the past must be falsifiable ?
Out of curiosity I wonder where you stand on the Ehrman - Jesus is historical bit. Because as far as I can tell , by your standards the statement is neither verifiable or falsifiable now because we simply don't have enough data. So it must be neither true nor false.

What is gained by saying that Miller, Collins, Morris, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Haldane, Price, Dyson, and so many others, are not "supporting" science?
The same thing you gain by criticizing Coyne or Rosenhouse.
In any case , for me personally, it is superstition that Im against - and I see no reason to differentiate between more harmless forms of superstition (like astrology or theistic evolutionists) and more harmful forms. The other problem I have is with the logical consistency that these folks espouse. They have this ultra powerful , ultra good being - who impregnates virgins and resurrects himself from the dead , performs all sorts of miracles , interferes in all sorts of day to day events - except Evolution!. When it comes to evolution this ultra powerful being is a hands off character - he only sets of grand plans in motion and then watches by idly - perhaps he has more pressing matters on his hands like finding new virgins.
And ofcourse the fact that a lot of religions speak with forked tongue. The official position of the RCC is that evolution is true (with some exceptions like the soul) - but have you actually seen the official doctrine for lets say baptism (hint adam and eve play a big literal role here)?
In any case the work week has begun so you can have the last word :)
 
Again do I need to prove that every two objects attract each other ? Do you know for sure that in the past they did? Or that two rocks in a distant planet do so? Do you plot courses for satellites assuming this or not?

But that's not the question. The question is how do you know that everything that interacts with the world leaves a trace?

I don't disagree, by the way, that this how things are. But it's not an empirical question. Experience is no help when adjudicating between two sets of explanations for the same phenomena. Whether or not everything that interacts leaves evidence, all we have empirically is the evidence. Please stop and consider this for a moment, pretend I'm serious and that this is a well established philosophical condundrum (indeed, if you had a way out of it, it would probably earn you an honorary PhD from Columbia or MIT.)

Only philosophically. When you look in your garage is there a dragon or not?

OK, I take that back about the honorary PhD.

What is your proof against this? By all means these are logical possibilities.

In our culture you can believe whatever you want, but you cannot act however you want. The law protects our right to marry freely (though obviously we are still working on full marriage equality.) Proof has nothing to do with it. I have no need to entertain other people's crazy ideas; I have rule of law.

I'll retract and rephrase [etc.]

Do you not find it a little bit strange to say that you believe in evolution but Fisher and Dobzhansky--the inventors of the theory--did not? In essence, that you are a better evolutionist than Dobzhansky or Fisher because you don't invoke the extra metaphysical apparatus?

It's only fair to remark here that there's no evidence that either man believed in "directed" mutation, even though they believed in God. I'm inclined to agree that Sober is trying to make room here for something that needs little room. Most religious evolutionists are going to be on either the mystical or deistic side of the spectrum.

So why all the fuss? Because it leads us to these crappy litmus tests where we need to determine if someone is the right kind of religious person before we decree that they "properly" understand evolution.

Let's flip it around: you suggest that the only way to prove fealty to the theory of evolution is to say that irrespective of some metaphysical Y, one believes empirical theory X is true. OK, so what is X? You and Stuart Kauffman are both atheists, but he believes in a "complexity theory" version of evolution, where emergent physical properties play a more important role than the genotype-phenotype relationship. Kaufmann could convert to Judaism, Methodism, Hinduism, and back again to atheism in a week's time, but it wouldn't have any bearing on how much you agreed about evolution. And here he is a professional biologist working on regulatory gene expression.

Unless you tell me that someone is formally theorizing something that makes non-naturalist assumptions, I cannot question their ability to conduct or understand science. That's the bottom line. Science is method. If a person also believe in some "Y," as long as it doesn't directly bear upon the theory, it's just not relevant.

Undetectable beings who act in undetectable ways with undetectable but unlimited power can do whatever the heck they want.

Exactly!

Basically this is a reverse God-of-the-gaps deal. Sober is saying (in my reading) that your God can do anything he likes, as long as it doesn't conflict with anything empirical.
 
Out of curiosity I wonder where you stand on the Ehrman - Jesus is historical bit. Because as far as I can tell , by your standards the statement is neither verifiable or falsifiable now because we simply don't have enough data. So it must be neither true nor false.

There are degrees of plausibility. I think the historical Jesus thing could go either way. Both hypotheses make sense, and I haven't dug in very deep to see which one is better supported. But we have to concede that people just didn't do history 2 millenia ago the way we do now. The case is probably never going to be conclusive either way. In the end I don't care much about historicity--the gospels are clearly myths, even if they have historical components. I also don't really care "who" wrote Shakespeare's plays and sonnets.

As for superstition, I don't care for it any more than you do. I just don't believe everything religious is superstitious. I know a lot of religious people. For most of them it's a question of relations and myths, not facts about the causal world. I consider this something better than harmless, I consider it actually healthy. Either way it's completely in the bounds of NOMA.

In America most religious people are more literalist than that. I know this. As long as they are capable of rational thought and give a modicum of respect for democratic pluralism, I could really care less. I don't need people to give up their goddiness to see that bigotry and misogyny and xenophobia are wrong. There are all kinds of atheist creeps out there too. The Ayn Randians are probably worse than any Opus Dei types, in my book. At least Christians have a tradition of caritas on paper, if not in their hearts.

I like logical consistency too. A lot. It's hard to pull off. Most atheists suck at it too. Daniel Dennett believes some of the craziest things I ever heard. And he's a smart guy!

So, I see a reason to differentiate between a lot of things. Not just religiosity but the whole enchilada. Metaphysics, politics, psychology--even aesthetics. Give me thoughtful, caring people who know how to have a conversation, and I'm pretty happy.

That's my last word.
 
And it wasn't when I asked about virgin birth(or any other theory)?

Again ... and again ... and again ... the virgin birth is not and cannot be a scientific theory. So?

my claim was that religion which makes specific claims about the natural *should* have evidence and can be "disproved" using empirical evidence.

So, prove with empiric evidence that specific claims about the natural *should* have evidence and can be "disproved" using empirical evidence. Or are you not making claims about the natural world?

So do you have the same objection to people using X has been legally proved?

No, because "legally proved" has a specific meaning (actually, at least three specific meanings, but never mind). When you just throw it out, particularly in a discussion of the limits of science you are, at best, speaking in a confused manner, unless you specifically deny that science has limits, i.e. scientism. I have said many times I have no particular problem with scientism (though I do think it is philosophically wrong) if you'll be clear about what you are saying.

the point is that every scientific theory must assume the naturally, correct? So when the question was phrased as is the virgin birth dirproven by science or is a belief in virgin birth unscientific , why did you feel the need to point out the naturally?

C'mon! You've answered your own question! It is an assumption of science not a matter of proof by science. No one on this side of sanity, including Sober, is arguing that a belief in virgin birth is "scientific".

Chris and I are discussing what counts as a "factual claim" under "science"

Sigh. Is a human born of a virgin a factual claim or not? Is God making specific tweaks in the evolution of life a factual claim or not?


Coyne has recently said:

... if you show that the more frequent interventions of God are bogus, one naturally begins to suspect the one-off miracles as well.

Do "suspicions" count as "factual claims" under the rubric of "science"?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives