- Share
-
-
arroba
I love Kantian Naturalist. Even when I disagree with him, which is frequently, he is always good for a thought-provoking statement.
Consider this exchange in the comment thread to an earlier post:
Barry:
[Why] do we always argue about which side of some arbitrary line of demarcation our theory falls on? If my beliefs about biological origins are true, what difference does it make to me whether Karl Popper would have said those beliefs are on one side or the other of the line?
The issue is the truth of the matter, not the boxes in which we choose to put that truth.
In arriving at truth we summon and employ to the best of our ability our powers of observation and thought. We consider the alternatives. We attempt to put aside our biases and prejudices. We reach a conclusion. And if we are right, if our conclusion is true, why should we care if someone says, “Your conclusion is not valid because it doesn’t fit into this arbitrary epistemic box”? For the life of me I can’t see why we should.
To which KN responds:
Perhaps the design hypothesis is true. (It certainly is logically possible, after all!) But it does not (yet) warrant the privilege we normally bestow on scientific theories. But isn’t that what the whole debate is about — whether ID is a scientific theory or not? If the design hypothesis is true as the conclusion of a philosophical argument, or as a piece of metaphysical speculation, that’s a very different kettle of fish!
Yes, KN, you have put your finger on it. Why does ID fight so hard to be considered a scientific theory? Because we live in a culture in which truth claims wrapped in the mantle of “science” are privileged. Those who have quaffed deeply the Kool-Aid of scientism would even say that if a truth claim is not scientific it cannot be considered a truth claim at all.
Doubtless scientists’ wildly successful achievements in the last 3-4 centuries in easing the material conditions of most of the world has much to do with science’s privileged epistemic status. Add to that Descartes’ influence on the Western imagination especially, and you have a pretty powerful brew.
But my question remains. Should we privilege the scientific program over all other quests for truth. It is, after all, truth that we are after, isn’t it? And manifestly there are truth claims that all reasonable people agree are valid but which are not in any sense “scientific.”
1+1=2: True but not scientific.
There are exactly 360 degrees in a circle. True but not scientific.
The universe is subject to rational inquiry. True but not scientific.
A proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. True but not scientific.
Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States in 1863. True but not scientific.
Moscow is the capital of Russia. True but not scientific.
I could go on and on.
Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am not conceding that ID is not a scientific theory*. I am saying that in the larger sense it does not matter. My point is that truth is what we are after, and classification into epistemic categories should take a back seat to the search for truth. If ID is true and not scientific, then so much the worse for science. And if ID is false and scientific, its scientific status does not make it any less false.
.
.
.
.
.
*I am tempted to say that ID is just as much a scientific theory as Neo-Darwinian Evolution, but I fear that would be damning ID with faint praise. 🙂