To reiterate again (and again and again): empirical science does not produce anything but contingent factoids, refutable and contingent upon subsequent testing. It functions in the past, requiring an hypothesis, severe and rigorous testing, replication and peer review before the (still contingent) factoids are considered possible candidates for an explanation of some sort.
So depending upon empirical science to produce wise decisions for future programs and actions in government is an expectation bound not just for failure, but for disaster. Here's why.
Science is a subset of rationality.Read that again. Because that is not what science fetishists would have you believe. Rationality did not occur as a result of someones hypothesis-cum-experiment. Rationality is a superset of science. And science is just one of the subsets of rationality. And that's the crux of the fallacy of scientism as the guiding star for anyone, especially government.
Rationality is a superset for other human capacities and endeavors such as behavior and language. Behavior is not determined by empiricism, at least not solely. Perhaps some behavior is determined by personal emotions such as fear and greed. But any rational behavior is necessarily preceded by rationality itself.
And language absolutely fails to work without a prior rationality. Without it we could only babble gibberish, unintelligibly and without consequent comprehension.
Rationality is the superset, there is no (rational) doubt. But beyond rationality is wisdom, which is the accumulation of rational habits and the strength of both discernment and the will to use it. Science feeds rationality; rationality feeds wisdom. Wisdom is the superset that includes rationality. Scientism does not recognize that and in fact will reject the notion when confronted with it.
In discussing wisdom with materialists, I have found it common practice to reject the entire notion of wisdom, because it is uncomfortably close, indiscernably close, to the metaphysical. It exists only in subjective reality, not in objective reality. This, at a minimum, places it outside and beyond material existence. Therefore it must be rejected, if Philosophical Materialism is to be saved. To science fetishists, science IS wisdom, there is no difference. This is logically absurd.
The effects of scientism are easily seen in both the Scientific Socialism of Lenin and in the National Socialism of the Third Reich. So it is important that science fetishists deny this connection as well: it was hugely, genocidally, tortuously disastrous for the entire globe.
Yet the inclination to science fetishism persists. The cry for more money, more money is heard throughout the land, along with a seething resentment of perceived abuse by fiscal strangulation by President Bush. In fact science is one of the few endeavors that promises nothing in return for taxpayer wallet-diving. Science will do what it will do, if it can suck up the bucks to do it. Applied science is not what we are discussing here; we are discussing raw, unfettered science without a purpose. And the apologists who deify it.
Scientism is false for the reasons shown above. Wisdom does exist; it is informed by science, but also by history, as well as the knowledge that there are undeniable truths, that those truths exist outside the material realm yet inform the material realm, and the realization that denial of such truths leads to relativist, will-driven explorations into power and the horrors that such excursions bring.
Such excursions are often driven by "messiahs", drenched in "science". So, beware messiahs bearing scientism.
5 comments:
In fact science is one of the few endeavors that promises nothing in return for taxpayer wallet-diving. Science will do what it will do, if it can suck up the bucks to do it. Applied science is not what we are discussing here; we are discussing raw, unfettered science without a purpose.
Stan, Stan, Stan. The only reason you can do applied science is because there is science to apply in the first place, and this was knowledge largely attained through basic, fundamental research. Things like the LHC or the Human Genome Project are often expensive and unlikely to be achievable on a private sector model.
It's not 'scientism' to look for funding where you can find it. The fact that we scientists have a certain amount of confidence in our enterprise doesn't make it a belief system, or us 'fetishists.' It makes us scientists, no more or less. Sure, some scientists are philosophical materialists as a personal matter but the truth is most of us are not that interested in any particular metaphysical scheme; we tend to be focused rather narrowly on our own research programs....and how to fund them. Whereas you, my friend, are focused rather narrowly on your own metaphysical 'take' where science is concerned.
As for 'wisdom' being the superset that includes rationality and science etc., please. You're just redefining terms to suit yourself because there are some activities done by scientists that you have a hard time wrapping your head around. You got an ironclad definition for 'wisdom' that everyone will agree with? Because, if not, I doubt that you can show that 'science' as you define it is a subset of this or that. One might as well say 'science' is a subset of human activity, which of course includes making up labels to discriminate between the things you like and the things you don't.
Look, most scientists define science operationally as a game played by certain rules, not as a metaphysical scheme, nor as a procedure guaranteed to produce certainty, etc. You know this. Why go on and on about something that the scientists themselves care very little about, and which plays virtually no role in the daily business of science? I mean, I enjoy your blog, but let's get real: one of the reason I spar with you is that I share a somewhat-esoteric interest in the philosophy of science. I can tell you that most of my colleagues in science could care less, and I would be willing to bet most of the politicians could care less. Pols fund science that they think will make them look good and help advance their policy goals...right?
Hello there Scott, Scott, Scott!
Point 1, a minor one: I am all for applied research, funded by the ultimate consumer for its output. Example, pharmceutic research, funded by insurance companies, out of the wallets of the insured. I am not for forced government funding of research, or art, or symphonies, or rock bands, or skeptic societies, or churches, or filling stations, or auto manufacturers, or banks, or Wall Street.
Each of the above can and does make the case that it is urgent and essential that they get their hands on my money, pronto. The quality of the case they make in support of that is of no match for the following fact: it's my money.
Now, Biden disagrees that it is my money, but not as much as Obama disagrees. The O/B team is very much oriented to redistribution; you can bet that the O/B "stimulus" package will look very much like that.
Redistribution is theft, even in the relativist world. If I take your car, TV it is theft. If the O/B team takes my bank account and my retirement, it is THEFT, it is not relative. If you lobby for my money, well....
Point 2. Well, what can I say? You seem to agree totally that both wisdom and science are relativistic. My point exactly.
As for this statement,
"As for 'wisdom' being the superset that includes rationality and science etc., please. You're just redefining terms to suit yourself because there are some activities done by scientists that you have a hard time wrapping your head around."
That's a good'n Scott, Scott, Scott. There are logical processes and there are the others. It's not a case of wrapping one's head to the left or the right, it's a case of getting past relativistic, soupy thought processes, and once one does that it becomes a lot more clear.
Apparently you think that science is wisdom, or presages wisdom, or there is no wisdom. Actually there are many who think that literature is a higher endeavor than science, because it conveys and communicates wisdom where science just accumulates facts, from which it derives more hypotheses. Same for music, art, history, on and on. So it seems to me that your objection is somewhat parochial and isolated to the brotherhood; it is not a mainline concept. Perhaps that is what sticks in the craw of the angry scientist crowd: the unwashed just don't understand, can't wrap their heads around the incredible complexity of themselves. So the unwashed make up stuff like "wisdom" which can't exist because it is not a material entity.
"Why go on and on about something that the scientists themselves care very little about, and which plays virtually no role in the daily business of science? "
I seriously doubt that you mean what this seems to say. There is nothing more important to science than the rigor and intellectual honesty of its pursuit. Surely you don't mean that is not the case.
And wisdom would be the decision to be rigorous and intellectually honest while pursuing, and to maintain constant vigilance in order to ensure that. It is an overarching requirement, this wisdom, without which science is bankrupt. I'm not sure why you attempt to make this into a relativist concept when it so clearly is not.
Anyway, good to chat with you, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Oh yes, I go on and on and on about it because relativism is not valid either as a philosophy, or as an cultural ethic or as a political structure. I think it is the most dangerous problem we face, including economic gerrymandering of wealth and global terrorism. When a culture starts saying, "it is absolutely true that there is no truth (or wisdom)" then there are problems of reality in that culture, and it can't help become shaky, because it is based on fallacy: even the need to preserve the culture becomes relativistic and not an absolute essential. We're nearly there.
I apologize in advance for using a patronizing tone in my previous comment. Sorry!
Anyway, I am aware of no scientist who claims that 'wisdom' in principle could not exist or that everything is 'relative'. That's the sort of squishy post-modern thinking that the scientific community has made it's business to tweak for some time now (think Sokal). So, if that's how you're taking my response, you're preaching to the choir.
My objection to your line of 'reasoning' is that it simply isn't how the game of science is played. You can't put 'wisdom' under a microscope, but, like God, that doesn't mean that 'wisdom' doesn't exist. It just hasn't been defined operationally in a manner that is meaningful for science, i.e. in a falsifiable manner. My invitation to provide such a definition remains open!
Nor can you simply equate 'wisdom' with rationality, because (as you well know) many folk hold propositions not on the basis of reason, but on the basis of faith, and this is considered wise. You may recall that Pascal (no intellectual slouch) once remarked that "the heart has its reasons which reason does not know." By this Pascal did not mean that he did not value reason, but that he considered it inadequate to certain tasks.
As do I! To the extent that science can be said to work, Stan, it does so not because it is relativist, Stan, but because it deliberately excludes certain kinds of arguments as impossible to decide. Your philosophical appeal to 'wisdom' amounts to such an argument if 'wisdom' can't be operationally defined.
But let's say, for the sake of argument that you have defined 'wisdom' operationally and that it truly is the superset in which 'true science' should reside. How is that an argument against doing basic science that holds no immediate prospect of success? It seems to me that we are both at the moment using a technology (the Internet) that was a product of basic science, much of it funded by the US government with no guarantees. Obviously, there has been a return on that investment, a return reaped not just by the US taxpayer, but by the whole world. The scientific community is far from infallible or disinterested where the question of funding is concerned, but we do have a tendency to produce things that are useful, given a chance. Forgive us for thinking that, if given a bit more money now and then, we could make discoveries in the future that could lead to even more useful things!
Anyway, the chief usefulness of philosophy to a scientist is not to pass judgement on whether our findings are likely to be useful (science does that), but to clarify propositions. You seem to be using philosophy to do exactly the opposite, and my point about many scientists having no use for this exchange reflects that. You seem to be throwing out words like 'rationality' and 'wisdom' under the premise that, if you could just get people to accept your understanding of same, then you purge the scientific establishment of what ails it. Am I reading you correctly? If so, why not just argue directly against what ails science on the basis of facts, rather than philosophical constructs?
Scott, I always enjoy your comments and I couldn't resist a little reverse tweak... I hope we're good in that regard.
I did interpret your initial response as a scientistic response, and now I see that that is not the position you take. It did seem odd that you profess a Christianity belief, yet seemed to hold science in such vaunted, seemingly ultimate epistemic status.
Science really is valuable, I agree to that. Many other things are valuable also, and it is the weighting of these myriad chirping birdlets demanding to be fed that concerns me: do we semi-starve them all, or do we choose some to survive on their own without us? If so, which are chosen to be fattened? And since I am providing the food, why don't I get a choice in the matter? (I do get to complain, that's the nature of free speech.)
At any rate I did some thinking about the relationship of wisdom to rationality to empiricism, and posted another take on it today.
It is not materialist and it is not anti materialist; it is within the subjective reality space I've been posting about under the heading "Basics". There's a danger of relativism there, unless a dedication to the pursuit of rationality is present. And scientists as well as many non-scientists can and do have this in common: pursuit of rationality.
So my intent is to solidify the rational basis for thought as a basis for analysis of both objective reality (empiricism, doesn't really need my help except when, as Sokal points out, certain empiricists get overly enthusiastic about the truth statements they see embedded in their data)... and subjective reality, which is a point of contention for both empiricists and relativist antirationalists.
(Whoa, that was too long and confusing but I'm not going to redo it).
I think I can show that both subjective and objective realities can be thought of in terms that are able to be scrutinized rationally.
You can inform me of how well I'm doing.
Thanks again for your comments, I value them.
Stan
Oh. One thing more. I do in fact discuss the impropriety of inferential conclusions being touted as "fact", a frequent infraction of the forensic sciences. (Not so much from empirical sciences).
But you knew that.
Stan
Post a Comment