Can we regard scientific theories as factual knowledge?

_{kairosfocus

December 2, 2017

Logic and Reason, Science, science education, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the What is knowledge thread, this has come up now, and I think it should be headlined:

____________________

KF, 201: >> Can we regard scientific theories as factual knowledge?

This is a deep challenge, especially on the so-called pessimistic induction that historically theories in effect have hidden sell-by dates. That is, theories show more of a track record of replacement (sometimes presented as refinement) than we are comfortable with.

A first answer is that a theory, from the abductive angle, is a “best current explanatory framework,” often involving dynamics which may be deterministic or stochastic (or tempered by stochastic factors), and may be empirically reliable in a known or unknown range of circumstances. The turn of C20 surprises faced by Newtonian dynamics have been a major lesson.

The import is, that often theories are more like models that are “useful fictions”(with perhaps a few grains of deep truth in them) than descriptions of factors at work in reality that are all credibly true. This becomes especially so where theories address remote reaches of space or time where we cannot directly observe the actual circumstances. In these cases, we are limited to observations of traces of the circumstances, and we make models of the place and time, we have not got direct checks.

Scientific simulations or scenarios and visualisations tied to such, then become even more remote from the right to claim credible truth.

Of course, actual credible observations are much better as candidates for credible and reliable truth claims.

Such suggests that we need to be far more circumspect in our evaluation of scientific theories than we are sometimes wont to be, e.g. the tendency to say of climate dynamics models and projected developments of climate under human impact, that the science is “settled,” or that those who hold appropriate background — or even laymen expressing concerns — and raise questions on key issues are “deniers.”

The future is beyond current observations, so while we may be well advised to act with prudence, we should not exaggerate our knowledge claims on the future.

Similarly, we should be cautious about exoplanet studies and especially artistic renderings of suggested planets. These are — with a few exceptions — not direct observations, they are inferred from gravitational effects. We may be confident that planetary objects are there and may infer they are terrestrial or gas giant etc, but we should be cautious.

Reconstructions of the past of the cosmos, our solar system and planet, as well as the history of life are also beyond direct observation and should be presented with due cautions. Evidence such as the detection of clear cases of dinosaur soft tissues from a claimed 65+ MYA, should give us pause. And if there are cases where the smell of death/decay is still there, that should give us pause. I know there is a recent headline on a Triceratops horn being dated to 30+ kYA, but that should be taken with a grain of salt for the moment too.

When it comes to wider senses of science such as Economics, we should be even more cautious. Even something like GDP or an unemployment rate is a calculation not an observation. Often useful, but use with due caution.

I begin to suggest that we view theories more like models of high reliability that we hope capture something significant regarding the true dynamics of our world, but we are less than certain of that. The theories may be part of the body of knowledge of a field of study, but that is a matter of observing the field of study as itself a phenomenon subject to observation and evaluation. The credible truthfulness of the contents of a given theory and its key objects or processes and laws etc are something that we should likely take a very eclectic case by case view on. No-one has actually directly observed an electron, but we are highly confident that these entities exist, never mind weird quantum properties of such a “wavicle.” We can make a much better case for more or less observing an atom, given scanning techniques.

The remote future, or remote reaches of space or the remote past of origins, we do not directly observe. We would be well advised to be cautious, and to bear in mind the limitations of inductive methods of investigation.

Ironically, on the design inference debates, the reality of something like FSCO/I [= Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or associated Information] and its empirically observed origin are far better observed than the suggested deep-time powers of chance variation and differential reproductive success. But institutional power makes a big difference on how things are perceived. Which, is yet another caution: scientific “consensus” or the ex cathedra statements of august panels and their publicists should be taken with a grain of salt.

Science at its best is openly provisional and open-ended.>>

____________________

Again, food for thought. END

Comments

critical rationalist:
The current crop of ID is not a rival to Neo-Darwnism.
True because Neo-Darwinism doesn't make testable claims whereas ID does.
This is because ID does not explain the same phenomena equally as as well as Neo-Darwnism
What? NDE doesn't explain anything - not scientifically anyway.
ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations.
ID is not about the designer. Clearly you are just a confused troll.
On the other hand, Neo-Darwnism is the theory that the growth of knowledge in organisms grows via variation and selection.
That is incorrect. NDE says that organisms are tied to blind, mindless and purposeless processes. That is a metaphysical and untestable claim. ID is OK with variation and selection. Again, clearly you are just a confused troll.ET_{December 4, 2017
December
12
Dec
4
04
2017
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PST}

CR, with all due respect, you obviously have neither seriously read nor digested the OP; never a good thing to do before making adverse comments. When you do so, you will see that the point is that scientific theories on the whole have rather weak warrant towards being credibly true and as provisional explanatory frameworks seek to be empirically reliable, which is not at all the same as strongly warranted as truth to even moral certainty, much less the sort of claim advanced in certain culturally critical and controversial cases that such theories are an overwhelming consensus, are not open to serious challenge, or are as certain as the roundness of our planet or the orbiting of planets or the law of falling objects near earth -- that is, have attained warrant as "fact." Yes, direct observational facts have a much better claim as truthful to moral certainty, accurately describing facets of reality. That is one reason why scientific theories are subject to empirical, observational testing. Also, the pessimistic induction applies to scientific theorising. It is in that context that we can see that self evident truths (such as first principles of right reason, consciousness or that error exists) and many logical demonstrations have far superior warrant to scientific theories and even to empirical facts of observation. In that light, the obvious radical secularist, evolutionary materialist scientism cultural agenda that seeks to enthrone big-S Science as "the only begetter of truth," is ill advised and potentially ruinously destructive to freedom of thought and to the soundness of our civilisation's intellectual heritage. In that further context, it should be obvious that empirical support for scientific theories is a matter of inference to the best current explanation, subject to further observation. In that context, it is quite reasonable to compare on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power, and to hold that theory Y is better supported than theory X without thereby implying that Y holds any ultimate warrant as utterly true. Empirical reliability holds towards things like engineering and medicine or managerial decision-making, not enthroning current theories in general as practically certain. Thus my remarks on using a case by case basis, where indeed some theories and theoretical entities may hold sufficiently high warrant to be regarded as morally certain truth but that requires multiple, clearly independent converging directly observational evidence and will not be available to theories where we must deal with observations of remote traces in space and/or time, etc. It is in this context that likelihood analysis across live option alternatives is a valid approach, for one instance. You will also, kindly, note that at no point have I committed myself to any claims of probability of truth of scientific theories in general, but I have instead implied a nominal, or perhaps ordinal scale of relative plausibility between (or among) alternative theories relative to demonstrated empirical reliability. (Quantitative probabilities imply a ratio scale, typically ranging 0 to 1.) As fair comment, in closing these remarks I trust that in future you will show a better responsiveness to the actual people you deal with, rather than setting up and knocking over straw entities. KF PS: While I have RW constraints that imply that I cannot take up a point by point response to every claim adduced, I will note briefly on the strawman claims on inductive inferences regarding designers just above. We have no reasonable basis to hold that processing on a computational substrate is a relevant necessary or inductively warranted condition for a designer to operate. Indeed, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you including in recent weeks (but was studiously ignored) such substrates are confined to the GIGO principle, that is they are no better than quality of inputs, signal processing, functional organisation, algorithms implied or expressed or the like. They process on blindly mechanical and/or stochastic cause-effect chains and are not the empirically or analytically warranted seat of rational inference or unified distinctly identifiable consciousness, much less conscience under moral government. This last is highly relevant as it is duty to truthfulness, responsible reasoning and to fairness that regulates our life of the mind and plausibly applies to other possible responsible, rationally significantly free entities. All of this gives little or no foot-hold for the poof-magic of emergence. By contrast, we have direct access by our conscious mindedness and conscience, to sense rational, responsible freedom in action, which is a far more certain warrant on the reality of mindedness than studies of computational substrates have provided. Where, the contrast between mechanical causal chains bound under GIGO and responsible ground-consequent inference could hardly be more stark. On one of your favourite dismissive retorts, such is of course a summary of much wider evidence and argument rather than mere assertion or assumption; some of which can be seen here on which you have been directed to again in recent days but still show no signs of responsiveness towards. To ponder the computational substrate point i/l/o empirical data and experience, consider how digital processors work, or analogue electromechanical computers or neural networks -- the blindly mechanical cause-effect chains at work dependent on organisation and fine tuning (thus much FSCO/I) for effectiveness will be readily apparent.kairosfocus_{December 4, 2017
December
12
Dec
4
04
2017
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PST}

This BTW is routinely used in statistical analysis, e.g. likelihood studies.
Statical analysis is only valid when you know what choices there are to choose from to constrain the outcomes. And that requires a theory So, it's only valid in intra-theory context. Some theory you haven't conceived of yet could have a different set of choices. So, it's unclear how you can use statistics to choose between theories.
Next, the design inference is on excellent evidence of trillions of case studies, a well-established pattern of the world, backed up by observation of search challenge in large config spaces.
Could one just as well argue that a "all designers have a complex material nervous system" inference is on evidence of trillions of case studies, a well-established pattern of the world, backed up by observation of search challenge in large config spaces. After all, every intelligent designer we've obsessed designing things has had a complex material nervous system. Yet, I'm guessing you don't accept that conclusion. So, what gives? Don't all those trillions of observations "support" the "all designers have a complex material nervous system" theory? Is it not “empirically reliable”?critical rationalist_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PST}

Cr, you are quick with dismissive rhetoric such as you simply assume or you say again, claiming refutation etc. First news, a definition or description of a fact is not an assumption. Nor is an analysis on inference to best explanation, which you do not seem to understand. I spoke in the context already, that while there is room to progress in general, when competing hypotheses, models or theories are on the table (and actual ones are the only ones that we can compare) then there is indeed a question of relative support for the one over the other. This BTW is routinely used in statistical analysis, e.g. likelihood studies. Next, the design inference is on excellent evidence of trillions of case studies, a well-established pattern of the world, backed up by observation of search challenge in large config spaces. Where, we have already seen that we have a good reason to expect Manchineel trees to produce death apples, and a certain fruit tree to produce Golden Delicious apples, i.e. there are things connected to the distinct identity of entities in the world. Not that that will make a dent in your set ideas, but it will tell the interested onlooker that there is something wrong here. So, we know on trillions of cases with nil counter examples, that intelligently directed configuration is responsible for FSCO/I, indeed that is strong enough to establish that it is a sign. There are no credible counter-instances, indeed your own objections show further cases in point. Not that this will move you, but we take due note. And, the challenge of searching blindly in a config space for 500 - 1,000+ its, with sol system or observed cosmos resources shows why to the satisfaction of any reasonable onlooker. Further to this, you have used idiosyncratic and highly question-begging arbitrary redefinitions of terms such as knowledge and criticism, which were corrected in an earlier thread. FYI, without a knower, who is capable of responsible, rational warrant and belief, there is no relevant knowledge. Where, we already took time to show that understanding knowledge as well-warranted, credibly true (and reliable) belief, is accurate to what we observe from actual cases of knowledge: to know one must first believe, then also one needs good warrant [directly or in a chain of responsibility to a source] that a claim is credibly true and reliable. And critics are even more significantly cases of conscious rationality. By contrast info or data stored digitally or in analogue form is passive, it needs to be framed and read then processed and used to drive effectors for it to have effect, where such need to be adapted to the codes or modulation schemes at work and where also garbage in, garbage out applies such that systems will typically process nonsense until they crash. All of this requires functional coherence across a wide variety of entities, leading to yet another example of FSCO/I. Complex, coherent, functionally effective and specific information needs to be explained, and the search challenge issue alone shows why it is not reasonable to assign such to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Your response, unfortunately, has been to just keep typing as though there is nothing wrong. Which, is sadly revealing. We could go on and on, further distracting this thread through tangents, but it makes but little sense to do so. And no, there is no good reason to take time to do yet another point by point response when what has already been done has been simply brushed aside. Enough has been shown here and elsewhere, by the undersigned and by others across many months to establish the real problem. I suggest you would be well advised to take time out and reconsider what you have championed. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PST}

The current crop of ID is not a rival to Neo-Darwnism. This is because ID does not explain the same phenomena equally as as well as Neo-Darwnism - let alone explain any observations that might indicate there are problems with it. Nor has anyone proposed a critical test that only ID could explain. As such, it's simply not a rival theory. While finding a problem with a theory does cry out for a new explanation, it does not necessarily result in actually creating a new explanation. Unless it does, we keep using that theory. This is why we keep using Neo-Darwinism. And example I've given before is the order of complexity we observe in organisms. ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, there are no limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc. So it could have created organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. ID has no explanation for this order other than "that's just what the designer must have wanted" On the other hand, Neo-Darwnism is the theory that the growth of knowledge in organisms grows via variation and selection. This falls under the umbrella of the universal theory that knowledge grows via variation controlled by criticism of some form. As such, nature could not have built more complex organisms until the knowledge needed to construct them had been created. Even if we happened to find exceptions to that order, ID does not explain why those specific exceptions occurred in those cases, but not others. At best it could say expectations occurred in those cases, but not others, because "that's just what the designer must have wanted"critical rationalist_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

As for your attempt to say oh evidence never supports, it simply rejects what fails, that falls apart on closer examination. For, theories in that situation are in competition. The inferred best current explanation on evidence is better supported by the body of empirical, observational evidence and associated reasoning than alternatives that are factually inadequate [including having intractable failures of key prediction], or incoherent, or are more or less ad hoc or simplistic.
Again, it's not clear that you actually read the excerpt, as what you echoed back to me left key aspects of the table. That evidence supports theories is exactly what is in question. You've just rephrased the claim as if that somehow resolves the issue. It doesn't. The role of evidence isn't to support theories. Its role is signal when a new theory is needed. Before GR was proposed, there was no rival theory that could explain what N's Laws explained equally well and also explained any problems indicated by observations. When there was a rival theory, I would again point out that new ideas do not come from sense input. So, they are not founded on anything and start out as an educated guess. As such, the only thing evidence can do is find problems that exist in one theory but not another. How does that support the other theory? Even then that doesn't refute a theory. Again, what another theory needs to do is equally explain the very same phenomena just as well, in addition to explaining the problematic observations. So, what we have is a theory that is less wrong, not better supported. How does being the only theory to survive criticism reflect support?
A first answer is that a theory, from the abductive angle, is a “best current explanatory framework,” often involving dynamics which may be deterministic or stochastic (or tempered by stochastic factors), and may be empirically reliable [–> implies empirical observations to be explained and/or predicted] in a known or unknown range of circumstances. The turn of C20 surprises faced by Newtonian dynamics have been a major lesson.
The excerpt addresses being "empirically reliable". If Newton's laws being "empirically reliable", hundreds of years prior, represents support, then did all that "empirically reliability" count for nothing? And when it stopped being "empirically reliable", we had a problem. But that didn't stop us from using the theory, in practice.
If the “support” idea was true – then what happened to all that support that Newton’s theory of gravity gained over the hundreds of years prior? How can we make sense of that? If it was being “supported” each and every day by observations of the planets in the sky, the tides going in and out, apples falling to the ground – then did all that support count for nothing? That all makes no sense because the entire philosophy of “evidence as support for a theory” is false. Newton’s theory explained all of that stuff about planets, tides and apples in a particular way. And one way of checking how good the explanation was, was to check the predictions. And for a long while they checked out. Until they didn’t. And once they didn’t we had a problem. And once we had another theory, we were able to decide which theory was better and show, definitively, which theory was false – and how.
critical rationalist_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PST}

CR, you have already been given a response, one that outlines the relevant history actually. The electron was accepted because of the cumulative evidence in support of such an entity, similar to the atom BTW, which was a controversial idea up to late C19, witness the death of Boltzmann as a part of the story. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PST}

CR: If no one has actually observed an electron, then in what sense did the new idea of an electron come from sense input?

KF: CR, did you do physics or electronics? You will learn that no-one has in fact directly imaged or observed an electron.
I'm quite aware of that, KF. Nor has anyone directly observed or imaged the curvature of space time. That's why I mentioned it. Specifically, I'm attempting to take your own claim seriously, as if it were true in reality and all observations should conform to it. So, now that we have that cleared up, I'll ask again. How Ould anyone possibly use sense information to come up with an electron, the curvature of space time, or any other new idea as an explanation for phenomena?critical rationalist_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

CR, did you really read the OP? Let me clip and highlight:
Can we regard scientific theories as factual knowledge? This is a deep challenge, especially on the so-called pessimistic induction that historically theories in effect have hidden sell-by dates. That is, theories show more of a track record of replacement (sometimes presented as refinement) than we are comfortable with. A first answer is that a theory, from the abductive angle, is a “best current explanatory framework,” often involving dynamics which may be deterministic or stochastic (or tempered by stochastic factors), and may be empirically reliable [--> implies empirical observations to be explained and/or predicted] in a known or unknown range of circumstances. The turn of C20 surprises faced by Newtonian dynamics have been a major lesson. The import is, that often theories are more like models that are “useful fictions”(with perhaps a few grains of deep truth in them) than descriptions of factors at work in reality that are all credibly true. This becomes especially so where theories address remote reaches of space or time where we cannot directly observe the actual circumstances [--> note again]. In these cases, we are limited to observations of traces of the circumstances, and we make models of the place and time, we have not got direct checks. Scientific simulations or scenarios and visualisations tied to such, then become even more remote from the right to claim credible truth. Of course, actual credible observations are much better as candidates for credible and reliable truth claims. Such suggests that we need to be far more circumspect in our evaluation of scientific theories than we are sometimes wont to be . . . . I begin to suggest that we view theories more like models of high reliability that we hope capture something significant regarding the true dynamics of our world, but we are less than certain of that. The theories may be part of the body of knowledge of a field of study, but that is a matter of observing the field of study as itself a phenomenon subject to observation and evaluation. The credible truthfulness of the contents of a given theory and its key objects or processes and laws etc are something that we should likely take a very eclectic case by case view on. No-one has actually directly observed an electron, but we are highly confident that these entities exist, never mind weird quantum properties of such a “wavicle.” We can make a much better case for more or less observing an atom, given scanning techniques.
See the framework that theories in part serve as abductive, explanatory models that make sense of observations in patterns, and which then may be at least in part true? Which last, is the difference from an engineering type model which is frankly fictional but useful. As for your attempt to say oh evidence never supports, it simply rejects what fails, that falls apart on closer examination. For, theories in that situation are in competition. The inferred best current explanation on evidence is better supported by the body of empirical, observational evidence and associated reasoning than alternatives that are factually inadequate [including having intractable failures of key prediction], or incoherent, or are more or less ad hoc or simplistic. I insist on the "current," in order to highlight that there may be a future theory that goes beyond, or the theory may need improvement. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

DS, there we go again. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST}

CR, did you do physics or electronics? You will learn that no-one has in fact directly imaged or observed an electron. The electron is inferred from its effects, whether as a beta particle triggering a cloud chamber, or as a beam in a tube, and as bent with a B-field or E-field. Or, as triggering dots detected in some sort of scattering exercise or the like. The charge:mass ratio was fixed, and Millikan's oil drop experiment was used to identify the increment of charge on the tiny droplets falling or rising in a field of view. With q in hand and q/m known for instance through radius of curvature in a known B-field, m followed, though the values have been refined since. This is actually in itself a tale of an authority pulling the accepted values, which apparently followed a bit of migration to the now generally accepted values. I recall, the notes in Millikan's lab books on which values were "beaut, publish," etc. Real world science, even in famous cases, is messy. And I recall from my own trials with an oil drop lab exercise, the experiment is a bit of a feat of virtuosity. Later, electron beams were observed as triggering wave interference effects also. Field ion microscopes and scanning-tunnelling microscopes have imaged atoms (there is a famous image of atoms of Xe spelling IBM, for one classic example) so we can say that we have observations through of course not simple direct inspection using light or the like. Electrons are far more elusive in that sense. Indeed as classic leptons and long post the uncertainty principle they don't really have a readily definable size, unlike atomic nuclei or many particles. Electrons are an inferred best explanation and have been accepted on their effects through in effect abductive reasoning. Of course, we treat this case as sufficient to establish a fact, and sometimes speak of electrons as wavicles, reflecting the oddities of the Quantum world. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PST}

KF,
So, let me again ask as I just appended: do the physical facts “fix” all the facts? How do you know so? And, if you hold this, how do you avoid the conclusions I have highlighted as the obvious underlying logic? And, as Johnson did 20 years ago too?
If you had answered my direct yes/no question, I would probably address these. But you didn't, so what's in it for me?daveS_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PST}

@KF You've glossed over the problem in the original thread. What is teh role of evidence in science. No where did I suggest that scientific knowledge did not grow. Again, from this article...
...if you look at the actual history of [Newton's Laws and Einstein's GR] - there were no rivals. The evidence gathered about Mercury and the bending of starlight by the Sun constituted a problem. A mystery. So what was the role of the evidence? Well the role of evidence there is to cry out for an explanation. A creative explanation. In other words a new scientific theory.
Eventually one did come. It was Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The General Theory of Relativity explained that Newton’s Law of Gravity was an approximation to something else far more - well “General”. The General Theory united ideas about light, and magnetism and electricity (from the special theory) with ideas about space and time (and so gravity). And, here’s the key: it fully accounted for the motion of Mercury and it predicted exactly where light should be when it passed by the Moon during a solar eclipse. It got all those things right. And what became the role of the evidence from Mercury and starlight then? The evidence that Mercury was here in position A (as predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) and not there in position B (as predicted by Newton’s Theory of Gravity) - well the role of evidence there is simple. It’s to decide between those two theories. So at the moment of time in the past - in 1915 when Einstein first published his theory we had, briefly, two theories that purported to explain the nature of gravity. How to decide? Let the evidence decide. Now it’s not that the evidence “supported” Einstein. No. It simply rejected Newton. If the “support” idea was true - then what happened to all that support that Newton’s theory of gravity gained over the hundreds of years prior? How can we make sense of that? If it was being “supported” each and every day by observations of the planets in the sky, the tides going in and out, apples falling to the ground - then did all that support count for nothing? That all makes no sense because the entire philosophy of “evidence as support for a theory” is false. Newton’s theory explained all of that stuff about planets, tides and apples in a particular way. And one way of checking how good the explanation was, was to check the predictions. And for a long while they checked out. Until they didn’t. And once they didn’t we had a problem. And once we had another theory, we were able to decide which theory was better and show, definitively, which theory was false - and how. It is possible (indeed it is required) that General Relativity is not the final word on gravity. Indeed we know it cannot be the final word because General Relativity makes some predictions about the nature of reality that conflict with what quantum physics says. In other words, these two great theories disagree. So we know neither are the final word. So no evidence “supports” them. It is just that those two theories are the very best scientific theories we have. There is none better, and so no others we can rely on. If you want to build a GPS system, or explain what’s going on in a galaxy far far away - General Relativity is absolutely indispensable. Whatever the “ultimate truth” happens to be - General Relativity is closer to it than anything else we currently know about. The problem is, ID isn't a rival theory.
There are no alternative theories to Neo-darwinism, including ID, because there has yet to be proposed a critical test for which ID can explain the same phenomena at least as well, let alone any critical difference indicated in any yet to be proposed critical test. Nor does merely pointing out a problem in Neo-darwinism result in creating a new theory. [see #175] See my above comment.
critical rationalist_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PST}

DS, I have been far more than merely responsive. The decisive issue is that Lewontin clearly speaks for a class, using "us" and "we" and in so doing he sets up what I just described as the engine pulling the whole train. So, let me again ask as I just appended: do the physical facts "fix" all the facts? How do you know so? And, if you hold this, how do you avoid the conclusions I have highlighted as the obvious underlying logic? And, as Johnson did 20 years ago too? KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST}

@KF
The credible truthfulness of the contents of a given theory and its key objects or processes and laws etc are something that we should likely take a very eclectic case by case view on. No-one has actually directly observed an electron, but we are highly confident that these entities exist, never mind weird quantum properties of such a “wavicle.” We can make a much better case for more or less observing an atom, given scanning techniques.
If no one has actually observed an electron, then in what sense did the new idea of an electron come from sense input?critical rationalist_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

KF, This is nonresponsive. In #18, you explicitly claim that Lewontin espouses the view that "science is the only begetter of truth". Do you stand behind this particular claim, in view of the following?
[These examples] are meant to acquaint the reader with the truth about science as a social activity and to promote a reasonable skepticism about the sweeping claims that modern science makes to an understanding of human existence.
daveS_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

Origenes, Kindly see the just above. They have redefined science as applied materialism and so they are effectively synonyms the one for the other. The alternative is to let the dreaded Divine Foot in the door of the temple of science. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST}

DS, with all due respects, you miss the force of "we" and "us," as well as the clear common a priori commitment to materialism, which energises scientism. For, if the physical -- material -- facts are . . . or, "fix" . . . all the facts, then that which studies those facts and does not waste effort on silly demonic superstitions will be the only hope to say what is an accurate description of the facts. Thus, science is applied materialism and is the only begetter of truth. No wonder they miss the self-referential incoherence and self-falsification involved, this is making a crooked yardstick into the only permissible standard of straightness and accuracy. And at no point can I find it that Lewontin rejects that commitment. As Johnson highlighted, this is what pulls the whole train: materialists doing science in a worldview where materialism is thought to be tantamount to rationality. Just, Lewontin thinks that his late friend Sagan was a bit naive about social power games in science and in society. Do I need to explicitly say dialectic materialism and historical materialism -- maybe coloured by cultural marxism's long march through the institutions? KF PS: No, neither I nor many others have wrenched the NYRB review out of context; though doubtless some will have. Instead, this is the cat out of the bag moment of key admission of truth in a leading organ of our culture, which materialists by and large refuse to acknowledge and over the years have taken every species of dodge to evade or to twist the matter into a turnabout accusation . . . and the wider article is actually loaded with all sorts of innuendoes and invidious associations thus revealing a telling sub-text of contempt-laced hostility verging on hate. Some of that in direct sustained reaction to the extension of courtesy and hospitality. (And BTW a similar pattern obtained in Dayton Tennessee in the 1920's, including Darrow's contemptuous dismissal of Secretary Bryan's* death. In that case no question of anti-Semitism lurks, so no it is not merely understandable fear.) Let me ask you directly: do the physical facts "fix" all the facts? If so, then where does that lead but to what I just described? *Yes, a former pacifist Secretary of State whose concerns over Darwinism directly traced to his evaluation of Prussianism and the influence of philosophers such as Neitzsche.kairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PST}

DaveS, KF According to Lewontin, there is one truth which informs all of science: Materialism is true. Science itself is not the begetter of this alleged truth, so, it follows that, according to Lewontin, science is not “the only begetter of truth.” It would be most helpful if Lewontin would explain where "materialism is true" comes from.Origenes_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

KF, I'll respond in kind: What part of "Carl Sagan's program is more elementary" is unclear? Under Sagan's program "we" must do this and that. In Sagan's view, science is the only begetter of truth. Apparently this issue is not off-topic in #50 where you use it to imply that Lewontin is ignorant of the direct consequences of his own beliefs (and hence not very bright), so I assume it's still fair game in #52. Do you think this:
[These examples] are meant to acquaint the reader with the truth about science as a social activity and to promote a reasonable skepticism about the sweeping claims that modern science makes to an understanding of human existence.
is consistent with "science is the only begetter of truth"? *** Edit: I wouldn't press this so hard, except for the fact that this Lewontin article has been famously abused.daveS_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST}

DS, what part of what you just clipped is contrary to the substantial excerpt already seen, in which Lewontin is speaking for "we" the evolutionary materialistic scientism driven elites? yes, we all know that scientific theories are subject to radical shift, post the Quantum and relativity revolution that created modern physics, and yes social influences are at work within science and from science on society as science is one of the key dominant institutions. Yes, that means that there will be changes, but at the same time there is a controlling ideology that locks in what Johnson highlighted: a priori materialism, exactly what Lewonin pointed to. And the failure from 1964 to 1997 to see that there was something very wrong in imagining that only fundy closed mindedness caused an audience in little Rock Arkansas to reject the notion that the evolutionary materialistic world picture was as certain as the law of gravity, speaks also. The key cite speaks for itself, yes in cat-out-of-the-bag tones, but it speaks. Let's put it this way, do you have further reading from Lewontin where he clearly repudiates the a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism imposition and sets out to correct the new magisterium and its policies? That would be relevant. Otherwise we are just looking at yet another tangent, one which BTW underscores the force of my point in the OP. KF PS: I find nothing in the statement just above that acknowledges that the scientism thesis is self referentially incoherent thus self falsifying. I do find that he is admitting social influences and fallibility on the part of science. I cannot find that science is the only begetter of truth (a term pregnant with scientific progressivism) is contrary to the premise that science is subject to social influences within its ranks and in the wider society, and that it is fallible but hopefully progressive. Science is the only begetter of truth is not the same as the deliverances of science are infallibly true at any given time, instead it is a message that things that are deemed "antiscience" are to be dismissed. Science -- on a priori materialism -- rules the epistemological roost. For relevant cases see how those who question the claimed climate change consensus are routinely treated by the power elites and their media publicists. The case of the design inference should be almost as notorious.kairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PST}

KF, Have you read more of Lewontin's work? Here's a passage from Biology and Ideology, with some added bolding, which suggests quite strongly that he does not believe "science is the only begetter of truth":
In the ensuing chapters, we will look in some detail at particular manifestations of the modern scientific ideology and the false paths down which it has led us. We will consider how biological determinism has been used to explain and justify inequalities within and between societies and to claim that those inequalities can never be changed. We will see how a theory of human nature has been developed using Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection to claim that social organization is also unchangeable because it is natural. We will see how problems of health and disease have been located within the individual so that the individual becomes a problem for society to cope with rather than society becoming a problem for the individual. And we will see how simple economic relationships masquerading as facts of nature can drive the entire direction of biological research and technology. While these examples are meant to disillusion the reader about the objectivity and vision of transcendent truth claimed by scientists, they are not intended to be antiscientific or to suggest that we should give up science in favor of, say, astrology or thinking beautiful thoughts. Rather, they are meant to acquaint the reader with the truth about science as a social activity and to promote a reasonable skepticism about the sweeping claims that modern science makes to an understanding of human existence. There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism, for the former can lead to action and the latter only to passivity. So these pages have a political end, too, which is to encourage the readers not to leave science to the experts, not to be mystified by it, but to demand a sophisticated scientific understanding in which everyone can share.
daveS_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PST}

KF @50 Point taken. No one can deny the following:
Johnson: ... if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
Now, if we return to your question:
KF: Can we regard scientific theories as factual knowledge?
If “materialists employing science” is presented as "science" then the answer to your question should be a resounding NO. Thankfully there is a lot of scientific research that is not tainted by atheism, but, I would suggest, general acceptance of "scientific" theories is unwise. We have to individually weigh and consider each case, not only because scientific theories are subject to paradigm shifts, but because some of them solely exist to serve the materialistic narrative.Origenes_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST}

Origenes, he is blissfully unaware of the real absurdity at work, self-referential incoherence of the concept that science is the ONLY begetter of truth. Science, that has been redefined as necessarily materialistic. Which then locks out correction. KFkairosfocus_{December 3, 2017
December
12
Dec
3
03
2017
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PST}

I fully agree with Johnson and your helpful comments, but I am not sure which "implication" you mean. Lewontin's debating style does annoy me a lot, I must say. For instance this:
Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face.
When I read that line I was thinking: Absurd indeed! 'Matter that spontaneously self-organizes into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts, and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs, and keyboards', 'A universe from nothing', 'The multiverse' to name but a few. Which examples will Lewontin come up with? Let's see:
Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice.
Can you believe this guy? Those are the "absurdities" of science according to Lewontin ... What a joker!Origenes_{December 2, 2017
December
12
Dec
2
02
2017
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

Origines, Here is Philip Johnson's response to Lewontin, in key part:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
BTW, observe some of Johnson's opening remarks i/l/o the point in the OP:
In a retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books , Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin tells how he first met Sagan at a public debate in Arkansas in 1964. The two young scientists had been coaxed by senior colleagues to go to Little Rock to debate the affirmative side of the question: “RESOLVED, that the theory of evolution is as proved as is the fact that the earth goes around the sun.” Their main opponent was a biology professor from a fundamentalist college, with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in Zoology. Lewontin reports no details from the debate, except to say that “despite our absolutely compelling arguments, the audience unaccountably voted for the opposition.” Of course, Lewontin and Sagan attributed the vote to the audience’s prejudice in favor of creationism. The resolution was framed in such a way, however, that the affirmative side should have lost even if the jury had been composed of Ivy League philosophy professors. How could the theory of evolution even conceivably be “proved” to the same degree as “the fact that the earth goes around the sun”? The latter is an observable feature of present-day reality, whereas the former deals primarily with non-repeatable events of the very distant past. The appropriate comparison would be between the theory of evolution and the accepted theory of the origin of the solar system. If “evolution” referred only to currently observable phenomena like domestic animal breeding or finch-beak variation, then winning the debate should have been no problem for Lewontin and Sagan even with a fundamentalist jury. The statement “We breed a great variety of dogs,” which rests on direct observation, is much easier to prove than the statement that the earth goes around the sun, which requires sophisticated reasoning. Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny the bred varieties of dogs, the variation of finch beaks, and similar instances within types. The more controversial claims of large-scale evolution are what arouse skepticism. Scientists may think they have good reasons for believing that living organisms evolved naturally from nonliving chemicals, or that complex organs evolved by the accumulation of micromutations through natural selection, but having reasons is not the same as having proof. I have seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever “science says,” become skeptical when they realize that the scientists actually do seem to think that variations in finch beaks or peppered moths, or the mere existence of fossils, proves all the vast claims of “evolution.” It is as though the scientists, so confident in their answers, simply do not understand the question . . .
See the implication in what Lewontin missed and Johnson caught? KFkairosfocus_{December 2, 2017
December
12
Dec
2
02
2017
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PST}

KF @46 I just read the damned article (see #36)! I must have blocked it out completely :)Origenes_{December 2, 2017
December
12
Dec
2
02
2017
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST}

Origines, see here for the full article. KFkairosfocus_{December 2, 2017
December
12
Dec
2
02
2017
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

Ds, It seems pretty clear to me that Lewontin did not repudiate the core worldview commitments as cited. However, these commitments are question-begging, improperly closing off of freedom of inquiry by locking into a materialistic circle, and self-referentially incoherent. Thus, false. KFkairosfocus_{December 2, 2017
December
12
Dec
2
02
2017
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST}

Lewontin has a stronger commitment to materialism than to science. But is that not exactly what is meant by "scientism"? Does anyone here believe that Lewontin would welcome a scientific refutation of Darwinism/materialism? I sure don't believe that he would. And that attitude defines for me the core of scientism.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [source: wiki]
That's true scientism, right there.Origenes_{December 2, 2017
December
12
Dec
2
02
2017
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply