From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 08:36:34 BST
Sam, Mark,
I still see a rather idealised conception of "science" in this debate
- Wittgenstein famously didn't get Popper either.
Faith based belief, scientific or religious are equally criminal. It's
about explanation and argument, building on what is previously
"believed" - fixing / plugging gaps (problems) in the consistency or
believability of that prior "knowledge". There is no fundamental
logical rationale or method in proving anything true. MoQ comes
closest for me because it builds / evolves, like anything of quality.
Dawkins (bless him, as you say) is an extreme "positivist
fundamentalist" in his public output, because he is constantly on the
defensive against religious faith-based attacks on scientific argument
- particularly in the distracting darwinism vs creationism debate - he
does himself and science no favours IMHO.
The Catch-22 for science is that religion holds the best memetic armoury.
Faith or else ... a more solid foundation than scientific doubt can ever be.
Keep talking ...
Ian
On Apr 9, 2005 2:28 AM, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > sam:
> > I think you're a) confusing two different sorts of belief, and b)
> > underrating or misrepresenting the nature of religious 'belief'.
> > These are things I've said ad nauseam on this forum, but they are
> > worth repeating.
> >
> > msh interrupts:
> > Well, before the repetition, let's make sure we understand what we're
> > arguing about.
>
> Now that really is a sensible thing to say. I repeat what I said before - I
> am genuinely glad you're back.
>
> > One position in the argument is that scientific
> > assumptions are faith-based and, therefore, no different than
> > religious assumptions. My position, expressed to Platt, to Adam, to
> > Ham, and to the kitchen sink, is that there is a world of difference
> > between the two , that scientific assumptions are made for pragmatic
> > reasons, and that to say they are "faith-based" is a nearly criminal
> > misuse of the term.
>
> Do you think _all_ scientific assumptions are made for pragmatic reasons?
> How far does the 'inherited background against which we judge between true
> and false' (Wittgenstein's phrase) play a part in scientific work? I think
> it's worth unpicking this further, because I think what you're saying is
> rather partial.
>
> > sam:
> > If a scientist or engineer 'doesn't really care whether or not their
> > belief is correct' then they don't really care about the outcome.
> >
> > msh:
> > No. The outcome is ALL they care about. They wanna land that
> > spacecraft, complete that circuit, build that bridge. What they
> > don't care about is the literal truth of their assumptions. In fact,
> > they care so little about the "truth" of the assumptions that, if the
> > assumptions get in the way of orbiting the satellite, they will DROP
> > the assumptions. This is pragmatism in action.
>
> As you say, you're describing an ideal rather than a reality here. But let's
> run with it for a bit.
>
> > Now, do religious people routinely drop their belief in God when
> > their prayers are not answered? Or when they are confronted with
> > even more powerful evidence against his existence? Of course not,
> > because the nature of their belief is fundamentally different to that
> > of a scientist.
>
> I think you're assuming the strength of the arguments against God in making
> those points. There are lots of cases where people have indeed been
> 'persuaded' away from belief in God. And just as many cases where scientists
> have persisted in belief despite superior evidence to the contrary (for a
> non-contentious example, look at how Wegener's theories about continental
> drift were first received). So I don't think you've made the case that "the
> nature of their belief is fundamentally different to that of a scientist" -
> not on these grounds anyhow.
>
> <snip the bit about Newton>
>
> > sam:
> > <little snip>You seem to make the assumption that caring about the
> > truth in this sphere is a flaw.
> >
> > msh:
> > If you're speaking of the religious sphere, I say caring about the
> > truth is essential. But it seems to me that, in the religious
> > sphere, faith, more often that not, impedes the search for truth.
> > Maybe it's supposed to.
>
> Perhaps it's a question of narrow or broad understandings of truth. I see
> scientific truth as a pretty poor thing at the end of the day. Another
> Wittgenstein quote: "We feel that even when all possible scientific
> questions have been answered the problems of life remain completely
> untouched."
>
> > sam:
> > Whereas I think it is in the caring that the truth is found - and I
> > think Pirsig makes just this point in ZMM.
> >
> > msh says:
> > I'm all for truth. As above, I think faith is more often than not an
> > impediment to truth. Pirsig makes this point, too.
>
> Yes, but what is the understanding of 'faith' that is being objected to? I
> don't think faith has to mean abandoning rational judgement and intellectual
> integrity - rather the reverse - but there seems to be this more or less
> explicit assumption about what sort of thing religious faith is, that, to
> use standard MoQ language, religious beliefs are irreducibly social level.
> Richard Dawkins, bless his heart, is admirably explicit:
>
> 'Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means
> blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The
> story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so
> that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded
> evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency
> to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that
> they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The
> meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious
> expedient of discouraging rational enquiry.'
>
> In a footnote to this passage he expands:
>
> 'But what, after all, is faith? It is a state of mind that leads people to
> believe something - it doesn't matter what - in the total absence of
> supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence then faith would
> be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway. I don't
> want to argue that the things in which a particular individual has faith are
> necessarily daft. They may or may not be. The point is that there is no way
> of deciding whether they are, and no way of preferring one article of faith
> over another, because evidence is explicitly eschewed.'
>
> He goes on to say:
>
> '.faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness. Faith is
> powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to
> forgiveness, to decent human feelings. What a weapon! Religious faith
> deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even
> footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb.'
>
> According to the Dawkins conception, then, faith is 'blind', and not open to
> rational debate. Justifiable beliefs must rest upon a rational account of
> the world, where there is recourse to publicly available evidence and
> harmony with our discoveries and experience. In other words, they must be
> scientific answers.
>
> In this he is drawing on the traditions of the English Enlightenment,
> principally John Locke (that we have a religious duty only to believe what
> can be reasonably justified). 100%SOM of course - but that will take me onto
> an argument that I'm working on in more detail elsewhere.
>
> I just think these assumptions are unfounded. Is your position different to
> Dawkins'?
>
> Cheers
> Sam
> "The popular scientific books by our scientists aren't the outcome of hard
> work, but are written when they are resting on their laurels."
> (Wittgenstein, 1942)
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 08:40:05 BST