• In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

"A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

Science is not an interpretation. It's a set of methods for examining the world
Of course it is.

Gravity is interpreted differently in different regimes.

Newtoninan conceptions of gravity are different than Einsteinian conceptions.
It's based on context, as I said.
This is will known.

"Examining" the world is limited, of course. And our limits mean there are limits to the data that is available for interpretation.
Interpretations that describe the behavior of phenomena. There is no examining ontological claims pasted on to examinations of the world.

science is objective?
far from it.
History of science clearly demonstrates it is not.


Sorry, but I am critical whenever anyone throws in a "science is objective" claim.
There is too much baggage attached to a claim like that to take it as an accurate conclusion.
I reject it.

Off for some fun and games!
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

There are different methods in physics than in psychology, for example. There are also some methods that are general, meant to eliminate human bias in general across the entire enterprise.
Of course there are. But that's not what I meant.

was, say, the methodolgy of physics for Einstein the same for Neils Bohr?

I say it wasn't the same.

So, you've used the phrase "proper method" before here.

If there was a distinction between Einstein and Bohr's method, which one was proper?
And was the difference between the two based on subjectivity?
I say it was.

Thanks
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

Sorry, but I am critical whenever anyone throws in a "science is objective" claim.
Critical to what degree? The rabbit hole goes deep, and I remember being down there with you discussing Feyerabend. Objectivity is a concept that has no firm meaning. The products of science are objective - the things it deals with through examination. The process used in examination is often subjective, at the same time that it is more objective than any other to knowledge. We can refer to something as objective in a relative sense, in the attempt to express how it's more objective than the item of comparison. Or the idealist version, we can refer to the unattainable objective reality, that even our sense datum are only second hand measurers of. There's objectivity in journalism, which is closely related to process objectivity in science.

If you're critical when someone says something, do you immediately assume they are taking the incorrect stance, or do you use intellectual empathy and interpret their words with charity? You say science is far from objective. Do you mean there are other ways to acquire knowledge that are more objective? The way I see it, nothing is truly objective in the idealist sense. We are miles away. Where we approach the closest is science, so in that sense we can say science is objective.
"Examining" the world is limited, of course. And our limits mean there are limits to the data that is available for interpretation.
Interpretations that describe the behavior of phenomena. There is no examining ontological claims pasted on to examinations of the world.
We can examine the ontological claims. Why shouldn't we use philosophy to try to glue things together into a worldview? The data is a starting point, like picking a handful of points on a map. From there, we use logic and philosophy to the best of our abilities to figure the world out from a wider perspective.
Of course it is.

Gravity is interpreted differently in different regimes.

Newtoninan conceptions of gravity are different than Einsteinian conceptions.
It's based on context, as I said.
I'll think on this. I won't say there isn't interpretation in science, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call science interpretation. There is interpretation involved in the higher order processes, but not so much in the rituals used to extract data.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

Its hard responding and expanding on comments ive made and replies to comments on a smart phone.

Ill have to elaborate more because seeing an inconsistency with your definition of objectivity and how it relates to knowledge generated by science.

But this caught my eye in one of your replies

"We can examine the ontological claims. Why shouldn't we use philosophy to try to glue things together into a worldview? The data is a starting point, like picking a handful of points on a map. From there, we use logic and philosophy to the best of our abilities to figure the world out from a wider perspective"

In a philosophical context, of course you can examine claims of ontology.
From a strictly scientific context, ontological conclusions do not come with raw data.
Nor is ontology a necessary element of method.
Sure - its a starting point to develop your worldview. But a worldview is subjective.
Theory ladden data does not grant your worldview objectivity.
(I support the idea that data is indeed laced with theory.)

Ontological claims add nothing to scientific objects.
They also add nothing to a scientific theory's predictive success or explanatory power.

Its also NOT like picking points on a map.
Data is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted. It is not a fixed point of reference.
it may anchor us temporarily. But it does not anchor us in place.
And what we are mapping is in flux.
but maybe I am being too pedantic with your analogy.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

Critical to what degree? The rabbit hole goes deep, and I remember being down there with you discussing Feyerabend

Feyerabend is one of my favorites. I am relatively familiar with his philosophy.
He is often misunderstood.

It was the process of discovery that Feyerabend considered methodologically anarchical, not justification of knowledge.
From a historical perspective, Feyerabend advanced the idea that ambiguity and contradictions are unavoidable features of our reasoning.

My introducing of Quine's thesis ties into this as well.
If the goal of science is ultimately to discover Laws of nature, then those Laws must expressed deductively.
Wouldnt laws of nature need to be analytic to be True?

But Quine's thesis states (among other things) that analytic statements are faith based;, they are simply tautologies that tell us nothing because they provide no new information.
If synonymity of terms can not be realized within our language (because of its ambiguity)how can analytic statements ever be developed to express Laws?

Where does that leave objectivity?
If it's relative, why bother even saying "science is objective"?
Being close to objectivity is not the definition of Objectivity.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

ant wrote:If it's relative, why bother even saying "science is objective"?
Being close to objectivity is not the definition of Objectivity.
One of the connotations of objectivity is to do with a gradient. We don't shoehorn definitions into what we want them to be, we use what people understand. The people in this context are philosophers. That something is relative does not mean that it is necessarily subjective.

I take my information from the SEP rather than a college course, so there may be a more authoritative source. But I don't have access to it. From the SEP's article on Scientific Objectivity: "This article discusses several proposals to characterize the idea and ideal of objectivity in such a way that it is both strong enough to be valuable, and weak enough to be attainable and workable in practice."

This directly implies the notion of objectivity that is not a dichotomy, but is instead flexible. Read the article from top to bottom, the notion is all throughout.
Wouldnt laws of nature need to be analytic to be True?
True with a capital T? Why not accept them as provisionally true, and avoid the false certainty that comes with a capital T?
Data is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted. It is not a fixed point of reference.
it may anchor us temporarily. But it does not anchor us in place.
And what we are mapping is in flux.
That the data isn't fixed doesn't mean it is free-floating either. There is a margin for error between different scientific values that are used to interpret the data. If you value accuracy when looking at the map rather than simplicity, the dots will be in slightly different places. But not grossly different. With the data comes a measure of objectivity, even when value-laden.

From the SEP: "According to the second understanding, science is objective in that, or to the extent that, the processes and methods that characterize it neither depend on contingent social and ethical values, nor on the individual bias of a scientist."

Value-laden interpretations are laden with epistemic(cognitive) values, such as simplicity, accuracy, scope, coherence, etc.

Theory laden issues are worse, from my understanding of the concept. This would be looking at the map and it's points, and assuming it represents a territory in Russia rather than the US. This is always a concern, and traces back to not only the problems Kuhn discusses with paradigms, but even the problem of induction.

This is why I mentioned Quine, because not only did he criticize science in the areas you mention, but he offered something of a solution to the idea that we can't justify anything if everything is relative. The web of belief as it applies to the map analogy would consider the point we're looking at on a larger map, as it relates to many other countless maps.

At least in this sense, the theory-laden issues are reduced and more localized. Which means that like the issues with value-laden interpretations, there is objectivity in the sense that our margin for error is limited as time goes on(verisimilitude). Not the ideal, Objectivity, because that is impossible to achieve scientific or otherwise.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

I take my information from the SEP rather than a college course, so there may be a more authoritative source. But I don't have access to it. From the SEP's article on Scientific Objectivity:

I will look at this later this evening.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

ant wrote:
I take my information from the SEP rather than a college course, so there may be a more authoritative source. But I don't have access to it. From the SEP's article on Scientific Objectivity:

I will look at this later this evening.
I read it.

Be reminded of what promoted me to question objectivity was your comment "science is objective."

Without clarification it would be easy to assume what you mean is that
science generates objective Knowledge about Truths of Reality.
Framing your claim of objectivity within the context of an atheistic worldview can be misleading to someone not aware of the different "degrees of objectivity" that can be argued about.

I am not arguing that knowledge generated by science should not be provisional if its to be valued.
Ive already stated before that theories evolve over time. That should have clued you in if there was any doubt about my attitude toward scientific knowledge.

Part of the epistemic value of a scientific theory is that it is an interesting theory.
Scientists can't tell whether a theory is true or not simply by inspecting it.
A scientist needs to be able to perform experiments and make observations.

Interesting theories involve empirical generalizations of which imagination plays a key role.
Einstein would not disagree with that statement, I dont think.

Generalizations are often universal in scope and arr about entities and processes that can not be directly observed (ie dark matter).

To arrive at judgements about the truth of a given theory, scientists must rely on a set of assumptions they hope have some connection with truth.
The goal is for a theory to eventually be predictive to the greatest degree possible.
Prediction and confirmation I would think go hand in hand.

There are simply too many popular misconceptions related specifically to the practice of science.
"Science is Objective" is one of them. I think you know that but I think you intentionally blabber that for personal reasons.

I dont think the general public is enamored by degrees of scientific objectivity.
it is technology and the modern conveniences that interest the public most, not the practice of science or its supposed abilities to falsify certain worldviews that actually are of no SCIENTIFIC interest (see above) to science whatsoever.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

ant wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post133331.html#p133331
i didn't know this and found it shocking from someone who is supposed to value rationality:
The reaction to Oppenheimer’s story was swift and did much to support the claim that the atheist community protects sexual predators, much like the Catholic Church did during the priest pedophilia scandal. Richard Dawkins, possibly the most famous atheist in the world, immediately went on a tear on Twitter, blaming victims for their own rapes if they were drinking. “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk,” he tweeted, comparing being forced to have sex with the choice to drive drunk.

When called out on it, he doubled down by suggesting that rape victims are the real predators, out to get men put in jail: “If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”

For someone who is a supposed rationalist, Dawkins refused to even acknowledge the basic difference between making the choice to break the law and being the victim of a crime. But only for rape, of course. It’s unlikely Dawkins would think it’s your fault if you are standing there minding your own business, while drunk, and someone hits you for no reason. But if the assault occurs with a penis instead of a fist, in Dawkins’ mind, suddenly the victim is the person at fault.
I can see why women would be outraged at this, especially when it comes from someone who claims that atheism has a monopoly on rationality. Utterly repugnant. :no:
Recognising that this is a complex issue, sexism and atheism, I do nonetheless think this is yet another example of what Quine might euphemistically call posterior analytics by ant.
ant wrote:If the behavior of men like Harris and Dawkins should not reflect badly on non belief, lack of belief, or whatever it's called tomorrow, the bad behavior of perverted and corrupt priests should not reflect badly on religion, or spirituality, or theism, or whatever you wish to call it.
Ant here seriously compares a tweet from Dawkins on the morality of people having sex while drunk to a wide international syndrome of priests raping innocent children and the church siding with and protecting the priest to continue his spree in unsuspecting new dioceses. Sure. And even if someone can question Sam Harris's choice of words, the sort of mock outrage ant is confecting with his false moral equivalence is itself surprising, to deploy another Quinian understatement.

Just one moral difference between atheism and conventional Roman Catholic dogma is that atheism promotes rational and logical and polite thought and dialogue, whereas Catholics promote a sick and false pathology, centred on the misogynist madness of Mariolatry, that has historically been widely exploited as a cover for pedophiles and for rampant patriarchal oppression and delusion.

Ant really should have linked his source. The extract above can be found at http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_ath ... s_partner/
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: "A movement needs a moral cause beyond glamorizing disbelief"

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:How can morals be determined by physical science?
Morals cannot be determined by physical science. Morals are interpretive statements of values. Science is objective statements of facts. Facts can inform but not determine values, which are grounded in our sentimental emotions about what is good and evil.

However, it is possible to measure the consequences of rival paths of action and assess their value against a moral framework. That can be an entirely scientific moral process.

I have gone back to the Salon link at the opening post, and find that its claim that Hitchens had no moral core is no more than a political critique of his support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is fine to criticize the Gulf War, but critiques of Saddam Hussein did have some moral core.

The Salon article is essentially calling for atheism to return to its communist roots, such as Karl Marx’s denunciation of religion as the opiate of the masses, and to get away from support for liberal capitalism. Unfortunately for progressives who want to co-opt atheism, I think writers like Dawkins and Harris are liberal capitalists, not socialists.

The writer says America’s “levels of food insecurity resemble countries like Indonesia and Tanzania.” Given this sort of evidence-lite assertion, it is hardly surprising the author is upset about his inability to bully atheists to agree with him. Tanzania has GDP per capita of about US$ 700 per year, or two dollars a day. The USA figure is about 80 times higher. Tanzania has a malnutrition rate fifteen times that of the USA. When critics of atheism exhibit order of magnitude incapacity on that scale, they illustrate the challenges facing robust dialogue.

It shows that disbelief can valuably benefit from a lot more glamour, given the tendency of belief to promote errors arising from a contempt for sound method and covert promotion of political agendas.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”