Scientist, philosopher, atheist and skeptic Dr. Massimo Pigliucci has penned an interesting paper over on his blog and podcast site Rationally Speaking. Here:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/on-coyne-harris-and-pz-with-thanks-to.html
One of his main points is that the hypothesis that there is a God is not scientific, cannot be scientifically proven, and claiming that science can disprove it is unreasonable. He says that it's actually disrespectful to science to call the God hypothesis a "hypothesis" and that it is not scientific at all. The supernatural, or metaphysical realm is too vague, and can never be well enough defined. This is a valid point. The basic problem we are wrestling with here is whether morals should be philosophically determined (A), scientifically determined (B) or a mixture of both (C)- mainly philosophy, informed where relevant by the latest scientific understanding.
A) Traditional method. Limited by lack of objective information and unwanted influence by religious dogma.
B) The problem is it will never be only science which determines morality, as not everyone involved in the responsible fields of academia, legislature, judiciary or law enforcement have enough scientific appreciation. And we would always be applying our own philosophical angles on what science suggests. There really is no way to escape philosophy in this regard.
C) The most nuanced, realistic and best overall approach. Note that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are a bit too dismissive of philosophical considerations, something which I myself had already noted, which partly explains Massimo Pigliucci's comments as a philosopher (although I'm not suggesting he is merely hitting back at them for insulting his field).
Dr. Pigliucci makes the good point that the problem areas, namely, the dangers of postmodernistic relativism, and also the philosophical "justifications" for religious belief touted by apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig, can be well refuted by philosophy itself. The only point I would make is there always seems to be a ready torrent of (would-be) philosophers blowing religion's trumpet, but then, I guess, you get that just about everywhere and atheists come across it more than most.
The definition of "science" by some people is problematic. This is where we have a disconnect due to a lack of communication, in my view. Too many atheists are defining it generally too broadly. Philosophers and mathematicians are not really scientists - at least, the daily activities of their work do not correspond with those of empirical science. If you want to call science "how we know about anything" then sure, many fields would be included, but frankly, that's a problematic definition. As it's pointed out, if philosophy was "thinking about anything" then all activities would involve it. The main problem of this approach apart from its inaccuracy of course, is that the lack of focus devalues the genuine progress which is being made.
Elsewhere, another notable critic has been commenting on Scientism.
See Here
http://www.strangenotions.com/the-science-delusion/
Although scientism is undoubtedly problematic, Curtis White goes too far for me in laying the blame with science itself. It does seem strange, an atheist penning a book called "the science delusion".
Knowing what we think we know now, are questions such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "What is our purpose on Earth" really such great questions to ask in the first place? White seems to be conflating the refusal of refuted religious arguments to lie down, and the fatigue some atheists feel at having to rehash it all over again for the believer's benefit, with a refusal to even consider these questions at all.
White makes the strange assertion that the whole world is science obsessed and slavishly bonded to its "ideology". Go out on the street and see if people agree! Oh yes they're all fixated on science!
If only more people did take an interest in understanding real science, and a skeptical approach to outlandish claims, then the world would be a much better place. White bemoans how great intellectuals of the past like Voltaire and Thomas Paine and have been largely forgotten; but firstly, this is not the case amongst most atheists, and secondly as a symptom in the general population, this is a cultural artifact too complex to simply be laid at science's door. It can be partly explained by the modern "dumbing down" effect, and also simply by science becoming much more complicated than it was in centuries past. Finally, White doesn't seem to realise that many atheists are as troubled by the media's neuroscience claims as he is. Neuroscience is a field which even in my very limited forays I have witnessed much disagreement between those who study it.
It seems to me that laying the blame for all this at science's door is pure scapegoating. Again, I ask, is this really all down to science itself or rather the way that it is communicated and interpreted, then acted on through a specific cultural lens? It seems to me that it it is not science which poses the potential risk for people's wellbeing, rather unbridled capitalism. This critique should be directed at the way the media present information (in an unskeptical way, and insistent on "balance" between two claims when there is really only one logical position) and also the way that the corporate world does business.
Rational decision making is claimed to lead to the outcome of attempting to maximise profit at all costs. However, this is a perversion of the fact-value determination and falling into a trap of blinkers. It is entirely IRRATIONAL to NOT use an "all things considered" approach to determine the best course of action in any field, especially in business.
I have yet to see the studies carried out on the reputation damage done to big business by their exploitative tactics, using sweat shops, not paying a living wage etc. Even if that does not conclude that profit-maximising at any cost is not damaging, and I do not concede that it would at this stage, then we STILL have to consider whether the whole approach passes muster on moral grounds.
It is only the B-Movie bad guy who seriously feels the kind of inexorable, magnetic pull of business towards the letter of his or her Shareholders' whims . If business is telling its leaders that this is really the way to operate, then there's your problem, right there. Again, this is an interpretation by business to answers it asked science for, and was given. It is anti-intellectual, and not scientific.
__
"Science" of Economics: "Studies of profitability show that companies earn most profit by maximising use of your worker's time and downwardly pressuring wages"
Corporate Business Interest: "Let's get our employees meditating on their own dime, 'cos we know, trickle down economics really works. Shucks!"
__
Evolutionary Psychology: "We got here by rape!"
Media: "Wow! Does that mean rape's not so bad?! Go misogynists, you were right all along!"
__
That was obviously just a caricature.
In conclusion, given that it is almost a truism to say that empirical science is NOT the only way in which humanity can be reliably informed about the world, or how we should act in it, anyone wholly subscribing to Scientism is not really thinking critically. Scientism is a real issue, being anti-intellectual and ridiculous by definition, has more adherents, or at least non-opponents, than you might think. And just because we may have found out the mechanism by which some aspect of physical reality operates, or understood why some facet of humanity is the way it is, that does not mean we need to necessarily act in accordance with that finding.
To do so would be to fall into the Naturalistic Fallacy. Nature sometimes acts in undesirable ways. Go figure. But with adequate philosophical considerations, we can effectively counteract this to behave in a more ethically robust way.
No comments:
Post a Comment