Saturday, April 17, 2010

Questions for accomodationists

Following up on and drawing from recent conversations, I have a series of questions for accomodationists:

1) Do you, personally, believe in a deity of any sort? If so, on what basis? If not, why don't you?

2) Can you clearly define the supernatural entities (including that of the supernatural itself) that you believe to be untestable as to their facticity? Not name in a general way, but define them as entities, such that people can ascertain whether they're amenable to investigation.

3) Do you believe that science is the only reliable means for acquiring knowledge about the world? If not, please describe the others. What knowledge have they produced independently of science? More generally, what is knowledge that isn’t scientific knowledge?

4) If you answered negatively to the first three questions – therefore demonstrating that there is no rationale that you personally can accept for believing in a deity, that the supernatural concepts you’re defending can’t be defined coherently, and that there are no reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the world other than science – on what basis do you promote respect for the beliefs and epistemic “systems” you do?

It seems to me extremely hypocritical to encourage respect for beliefs that are not formed on the basis of science – a reasoned (logical, including parsimonious) and honest systematic engagement with the evidence – while claiming to promote science and personally rejecting those beliefs and approaches. It is dishonest to argue "Well, whatever is true in science, we’re not always scientific in every area of our lives," such that science is presented, in a silly ahistorical manner,* as limited to what professional scientists do in very specific contexts, having no claim on beliefs in general. This is because the questions that immediately follow are: Is this OK? Is an evidentiary basis for our beliefs not a moral requirement? Are we not all required by intellectual honesty and basic morality to base our beliefs, which form an essential foundation for our actions, on the most honest engagement with the best evidence we have?

If you argue that the moral requirement doesn’t hold because some beliefs can be maintained "benignly," without affecting people’s actions or decisions, you need to consider three things. First, even if it might be accurate in some specific cases, this is often not a true claim - people's beliefs are not generally quarantined from their actions in this way. Second, matters on which beliefs that might at one time or one place not be important to people’s actions can become so. Would you recommend agricultural, reproductive, or environmental policies based on beliefs that are not derived scientifically when these are matters of life and death to people? Further, does pondering nonscientific notions interfere with and draw time and resources away from important scientific investigations? Third, and most importantly, in defending nonscientific beliefs and epistemic systems of any sort, aren’t you encouraging nonscientific thinking in general, such that people influenced by you will have fewer intellectual and practical defenses against even those products of nonscientific thinking you find reprehensible?

*(which is, moreover, the contrary of how science education should be encouraging young people to think about science)

29 comments:

  1. The way I understand it:

    people who answer negatively to the first 3 questions still split in two different sets because of differing views on what can and should be achieved.

    First you have people who think the most important goal is to promote Science not only via the acceptance of its findings but also the scientific method as a way of systematically justifying one's ideas (empirical justification, logical deductions, inference, parsimony). More generally, they believe the most important is to educate people so as to equip them with the ability to reason critically. Only then will people be capable of thinking rationally about the world we live in and converge on similar conclusions about the important moral and societal issues.

    Second you have people (accomodationists) who believe this is a too ambitious goal and choose to promote science by a better acceptance of its findings. They want to educate people with a list of scientific facts (the Universe we live in started with the big bang, the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, all living species evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor, etc...).
    Accomodationists believe the biggest impediment to the acceptance of those scientific facts is the idea that Science is incompatible with Religion. So they change this to a different frame where those scientific findings aren't incompatible with certain religious beliefs (the existence of a supernatural God who created the universe and all living species via the laws of nature, a divine purpose for our existence, an after life and the existence of a supernatural realm in which to place the soul).
    They claim that science is not incompatible with religion but in fact what they mean is that the scientific findings they cherish aren't incompatible with a certain number of religious beliefs which are those of the so called moderate Christians in opposition to those who interpret scriptures litterally. They admit that this won't solve the confrontation on moral and societal problems, but they consider that is not their goal.
    They claim that their approach is more pragmatic in getting people to accept those scientific facts, but I see no evidence of this. Indeed, I doubt someone who rejects those facts is going to change his mind because he is told they are not incompatible with some other aspects of his religious beliefs. I don't think fundies become moderate Christians because of this. I think it's more likely that they, or more importantly cheir children, will abandon their faith entirely when they are able to reason critically and accept the importance of justifying their beliefs by confronting them to evidence and logic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. negentropyeater,

    But I really want to hear people's answers!

    With regard to the first group, I don't see how they're accomodationists (to whom the post is addressed :)).

    With regard to the second (accomodationists who answer the questions negatively), if someone's accomodationism is based on political/pragmatic considerations and not a real respect for these beliefs or for nonscientific epistemic systems, I think people should be honest and clear about that. It's a different sort of question, and makes what I see as condescension (and therefore disrespect) of believers and the dishonesty of the position plain.

    If we move this to the political terrain you're talking about, that accomodationism is manipulative and dishonest becomes clear. And I agree with you that they're wrong (and I argue from a position of some expertise). I've also asked people to provide sociohistorical support for the accomodationist political argument, and haven't seen any yet. It's another realm in which people seem to think they can make arguments without empirical support, and that doing so isn't unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. facticity? that's so not a word! :-p

    anyway, i'd love to see answers to those questions, too. because to me, it seems like that sort of accomodationism boils down to "some people are just to deficient to learn to be critical thinkers, so we should leave them their magical beliefs, as long as they do no harm."

    that seems kind of condescending.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "1) Do you, personally, believe in a deity of any sort? If so, on what basis? If not, why don't you?"

    To paraphrase Laplace, I have no need of that hypothesis.

    "2) Can you clearly define the supernatural entities (including that of the supernatural itself) that you believe to be untestable as to their facticity? Not name in a general way, but define them as entities, such that people can ascertain whether they're amenable to investigation."

    Well, the FSM is clearly untestable, since any scientific results that appear to contradict his existence and activities have been touched by his noodly appendage. Okay, that's a silly example of a supernatural entity, but it demonstrates the problem of the testability of the supernatural. Of course, if someone is (a) not dealing with a trickster, Last-Thursdayist god such as the FSM, and (b) making a claim about a miracle that would leave traces that can be clearly studied, such as the levels of radioactive by-products from uranium decay, or the ordering of fossils in strata, then one can test the particular claim in question. Now many religious don't believe in a trickster god, but they also avoid positing miracle claims that have testable consequences, so testing their supernatural beliefs is a problem and can even be like nailing jello to a wall.

    "3) Do you believe that science is the only reliable means for acquiring knowledge about the world? If not, please describe the others. What knowledge have they produced independently of science? More generally, what is knowledge that isn’t scientific knowledge?"

    I don't use science to gain the knowledge that the traffic light ahead of me has just turned red, nor do I use science to determine the truth of a mathematical theorem, so science certainly is not the only means of gaining truth about the world.

    "4) If you answered negatively to the first three questions – therefore demonstrating that there is no rationale that you personally can accept for believing in a deity, that the supernatural concepts you’re defending can’t be defined coherently, and that there are no reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the world other than science – on what basis do you promote respect for the beliefs and epistemic 'systems' you do?"

    I don't worry about respecting beliefs as such, so much as I worry about those beliefs not getting in the way of teaching and doing science. Yes, it would be best, at least in the long run, for religious believers to shed their beliefs, but if believers choose to reinterpret or modify their beliefs so that they don't interfere with science, I'll take that as a second-best solution, especially if those believers are unwilling to shed their religious beliefs altogether.

    (And yes, not all beliefs get in the way of doing science. Ken Miller's Catholicism, for example, clearly does not get in the way of doing his work in biology.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. They're good questions. Why would someone uncritically defend arguments that are used to defend a belief in God, despite the fact that they're atheists and thus must consider that argument inadequate?

    However, I'd advise you not to hold your breath. I've asked De Dora something similar myself (see here, my comment in #8 and his reply in #11). I can't describe the reply as anything other than a dodge. Frankly, that's about what I've come to expect from accommodationists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @negentropyeater:
    If accommodationists are indeed treating science as a body of knowledge, rather than a method or process, then we need to oppose them even more, because they're selling science short.

    But then I don't understand why accommodationists can be so fond of philosophy and yet be so reluctant to teach about the epistemic importance of the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, the FSM is clearly untestable, since any scientific results that appear to contradict his existence and activities have been touched by his noodly appendage. Okay, that's a silly example of a supernatural entity, but it demonstrates the problem of the testability of the supernatural. Of course, if someone is (a) not dealing with a trickster, Last-Thursdayist god such as the FSM, and (b) making a claim about a miracle that would leave traces that can be clearly studied, such as the levels of radioactive by-products from uranium decay, or the ordering of fossils in strata, then one can test the particular claim in question. Now many religious don't believe in a trickster god, but they also avoid positing miracle claims that have testable consequences, so testing their supernatural beliefs is a problem and can even be like nailing jello to a wall.

    You misunderstand. I asked for a coherent definition/description of the supernatural entities whose existence is claimed. You haven't provided any (including of the FSM!). The question wasn't about "trickster," but about "god" more basically.

    I don't use science to gain the knowledge that the traffic light ahead of me has just turned red,

    Of course you do! That you think you don't is a major problem.

    nor do I use science to determine the truth of a mathematical theorem, so science certainly is not the only means of gaining truth about the world.

    Again, yes, you do. What means do you use that aren't part of science? Mathematics in relation to fact claims is a bit more complicated, but I would include it within science as a set of rules, but not evidence. Einstein's ideas had to be tested against the evidence, as do those of theoretical physicists (see LHC).

    I don't worry about respecting beliefs as such, so much as I worry about those beliefs not getting in the way of teaching and doing science.

    So,

    a) You acknowledge that you don't in fact respect religious beliefs?

    b) You haven't read the rest of my post?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why would someone uncritically defend arguments that are used to defend a belief in God, despite the fact that they're atheists and thus must consider that argument inadequate?

    Exactly.

    However, I'd advise you not to hold your breath. I've asked De Dora something similar myself (see here, my comment in #8 and his reply in #11). I can't describe the reply as anything other than a dodge.

    I'll say! Thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  9. SC: "I asked for a coherent definition/description of the supernatural entities whose existence is claimed."

    Not quite. You asked if I could clearly define them, and you appeared to be looking for reasons why I found such entities untestable. Since we both know what the FSM is about, we don't need to flesh out a description, and I made clear why a god such as the FSM isn't testable. I also discuss what sorts of claims were and weren't testable.

    SC: "Of course you do [use science to determine whether a traffic light has turned red]. That you think you don't is a major problem."

    On the contrary, I'd say that it's a major problem that you redefined science such that it included a snap judgment about a light changing. That obscures the deliberative nature of science.

    SC: "Again, yes, you do [use science to determine the truth of mathematical theorems]."

    Science is an empirical enterprise based on inductive reasoning. Mathematics is not empirical, and its truths are deductions from axioms and postulates. Science and math are related in practice but are not the same thing.

    You seem to be trying to use the word "science" as a synonym for rational thinking in general. This is a misuse of the term.

    SC: "You acknowledge that you don't in fact respect religious beliefs?"

    What, this surprises you? Consider, for example, how much respect Eugenie Scott has for Ken Ham's beliefs, or more to the point, how little. The respect that a very different Ken gets, namely Dr. Miller, is due largely to his accomplishments rather than his religion. Why assume that accommodationism is necessarily about respect?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not quite.

    Yes, quite.

    You asked if I could clearly define them,

    Yes.

    and you appeared to be looking for reasons why I found such entities untestable.

    No, I was asking you to provide clear definitions that would allow people to determine whether they're amenable to investigation.

    Since we both know what the FSM is about, we don't need to flesh out a description,

    First, baloney. Second, do we both/all know what "God" is "about" in the sense of a real definition? If it's so obvious, then why don't you define it? It seems to me that any proposal to a funding agency based on concepts so ill-defined would be rejected prior to considerations of testability. It doesn't have to be rejected as an untestable hypothesis - it can be dismissed as not even a hypothesis.

    and I made clear why a god such as the FSM isn't testable.

    You can't make that clear since you haven't defined what it is.

    On the contrary, I'd say that it's a major problem that you redefined science such that it included a snap judgment about a light changing. That obscures the deliberative nature of science.

    Science is about a reasoned evaluation of empirical evidence. Are you talking about looking at a light and seeing that it's red? Estimating the time since it turned yellow? What? A reasonable judgment based on the evidence is scientific. You don't have to be in a lab.

    Science is an empirical enterprise based on inductive [and deductive] reasoning. Mathematics is not empirical, and its truths are deductions from axioms and postulates. Science and math are related in practice but are not the same thing.

    Actually, I think the distinctions you're making are increasingly being eroded (this doesn't make them the same thing, but in the same family). Are you going to address the examples I offered? More to the point, are you going to suggest a way religious beliefs have been arrived at and confirmed through math (independently of science as you understand it)?

    You seem to be trying to use the word "science" as a synonym for rational thinking in general. This is a misuse of the term.

    How could I seem to be doing something that I'm quite plainly not doing?

    What, this surprises you?

    Yes, if we're talking about any religious beliefs, and not just those you find false-but-allegedly-harmless (of course, you've still not dealt with the last section of my post), and if we're talking about the same meaning of "respect."

    Consider, for example, how much respect Eugenie Scott has for Ken Ham's beliefs, or more to the point, how little.

    This is one sort.

    The respect that a very different Ken gets, namely Dr. Miller, is due largely to his accomplishments rather than his religion.

    Word games. Do you respect any or all of his religious beliefs? If so, which ones? Why do you respect them if you don't find a reason not to reject them?

    Why assume that accommodationism is necessarily about respect?

    In fact, it seems to be about disrespect. Are you or are you not acknowledging that you recognize that these beliefs and the epistemic systems by which they've been arrived at are not valid but that accomodationism is entirely about politics? I'm happy to discuss that, too, but I think we should be on honest ground.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SC: "You can't make that clear since you haven't defined what it [the FSM] is."

    If you don't know what the FSM is, go here: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

    SC: "Science is about a reasoned evaluation of empirical evidence.... You don't have to be in a lab."

    True, you don't have to be in a lab to do science, but it is still more formal than just a reasoned evaluation of empirical evidence. I can look at a situation and decide that it isn't worth the effort to do more than the usual cognitive miser mental shortcuts for evaluating evidence. That's a reasoned evaluation, especially regarding the trade-offs between deliberative thinking and snap judgments, but it isn't science. Think about scientific surveys, where effort is placed into ensuring proper sampling and taking margins of error into account. Or think about a drug trial where double blinds are put into effect to account for the placebo effect. Or think about the rigors of peer review. In all of these, systematic efforts or protocols are in place to make the results as rigorous as possible and minimize bias. That's science.

    "More to the point, are you going to suggest a way religious beliefs have been arrived at and confirmed through math"

    Why should I? In question #3, you merely asked if "science is the only reliable means for acquiring knowledge about the world." There's no reason to assume that an answer to the question should involve religion.

    SC: "Are you or are you not acknowledging that you recognize that these beliefs and the epistemic systems by which they've been arrived at are not valid"

    I'd say that their religious beliefs are unfounded and sometimes fuzzy. As for "epistemic systems," I only have half an idea what you are talking about, and I'm skeptical that you can provide the other half. I've heard bits about the idea that "faith" is a competing epistemology with "science," but those bits seem to involve very hazy ideas about science and on what the religious think "faith" is and what they expect it to be able to do. I have yet to see a religious person think that DNA can be sequenced by faith, at least in the sense of "belief without evidence," and even young-earth creationists, for all their talk about needing faith in the Bible, still are desperate to show that their beliefs have empirical grounding.

    SC: "but that accomodationism is entirely about politics?"

    Not entirely about politics. There is a genuine conviction that some religious beliefs are compatible with science, which doesn't make them true so much as it means that they stay out of the way and are mostly harmless.

    SC: "of course, you've still not dealt with the last section of my post"

    To be honest, there isn't much to it. In your last paragraph, you neglect to show how your first and second concerns apply to the beliefs that accommodationists actually tolerate, and the third concern is based on the notion that nonscientific beliefs are being defended rather than accommodated.

    Seriously, I'd recommend looking at what John Wilkins and John Pieret have to say about accommodationism, which is actually pretty different from what Mooney and Kirshenbaum are about. There is very little in their views that has to do with respecting beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you don't know what the FSM is, go here:...

    Oh, FFS. Are you being willfully obtuse? I’m asking for a clear and coherent definition that would allow people to determine a concept’s amenability to investigation.

    True, you don't have to be in a lab to do science, but it is still more formal than just areasoned evaluation of empirical evidence. I can look at a situation and decide that it isn't worth the effort to do more than the usual cognitive miser mental shortcuts for evaluating evidence. That's a reasoned evaluation, especially regarding the trade-offs between deliberative thinking and snap judgments, but it isn't science.

    What snap judgments are you talking about? How do they constitute an approach to knowledge that is separate from and alternative to science? Can you answer actual questions?

    Think about scientific surveys, where effort is placed into ensuring proper sampling and taking margins of error into account. Or think about a drug trial where double blinds are put into effect to account for the placebo effect. Or think about the rigors of peer review. In all of these, systematic efforts or protocols are in place to make the results as rigorous as possible and minimize bias. That's science.

    Procedural/evidentiary standards and expectations in different contexts vary, but the principle remains the same. You appear to be saying simply that certain contexts don’t require elaborate procedures. Duh. You’ve done nothing to show that the epistemic approach you use for determining whether a light is red is anything other than science.

    And we enforce procedural obligations of belief (described by Allen Wood) all the time. What are legal grounds for driving through red lights? Are there any that claim to be alternatives to science?

    Why should I? In question #3, you merely asked if "science is the only reliable means for acquiring knowledge about the world." There's no reason to assume that an answer to the question should involve religion.

    Let’s assume you’re right about math (you haven’t argued with my response, but anyway…). You’ve only talked about means of acquiring mathematical knowledge, and not even that, really (if you’re deducing from axioms and postulates, where’s the new knowledge?). The discussion is about accomodationism. How is this relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd say that their religious beliefs are unfounded and sometimes fuzzy.

    Do you reject them or not? Why? Stop dodging.

    As for "epistemic systems," I only have half an idea what you are talking about, and I'm skeptical that you can provide the other half. I've heard bits about the idea that "faith" is a competing epistemology with "science," but those bits seem to involve very hazy ideas about science and on what the religious think "faith" is and what they expect it to be able to do.

    They seem to believe it can provide the basis for making fact claims. This is what the issue is. What is the “faith” epistemology? How does it produce knowledge? What knowledge has it produced?

    I have yet to see a religious person think that DNA can be sequenced by faith, at least in the sense of "belief without evidence," and even young-earth creationists, for all their talk about needing faith in the Bible, still are desperate to show that their beliefs have empirical grounding.

    And of course they’re wrong. But what knowledge do you think they think faith can establish?

    Not entirely about politics. There is a genuine conviction that some religious beliefs are compatible with science,

    This passive voice is so evasive! Is this your conviction or isn’t it? If it is, define these beliefs and defend the means by which they’ve been developed as compatible with science, acknowledging that you yourself have rejected them. If it isn’t, then it’s entirely about politics. 100%.

    To be honest, there isn't much to it. In your last paragraph, you neglect to show how your first and second concerns apply to the beliefs that accommodationists actually tolerate, and the third concern is based on the notion that nonscientific beliefs are being defended rather than accommodated.

    No, I don’t. You can’t read. Ken Miller is a Catholic. Francis Collins is an Evangelical. Yet they’re treated much like deists and allowed by accomodationists to present different beliefs in different circumstances (none are valid, but this is dishonest – they’re not deists). With regard to my second point, any beliefs can potentially become highly significant, and any investigations consume resources. But my third point is most important. Explain and defend the difference between “defended/tolerated” and “accommodated” on both a political and a nonpolitical basis. What don’t you understand about defending a nonscientific approach while promoting it with your other face?

    Seriously, I'd recommend looking at what John Wilkins and John Pieret have to say about accommodationism, which is actually pretty different from what Mooney and Kirshenbaum are about. There is very little in their views that has to do with respecting beliefs.

    Seriously, I’m familiar with them, and this is a Courtier’s Reply to accomodationism. Make an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You seem to have missed this question:

    "Do you respect any or all of [Ken Miller's] religious beliefs? If so, which ones? Why do you respect them if you don't find a reason not to reject them?"

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. SC: "Explain and defend the difference between 'defended/tolerated' ..."

    The fact that you lump "defended" and "tolerated" together speaks volumes. If you can't understand the difference between those two things, you cannot engage in debate at an adult level.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The fact that you lump "defended" and "tolerated" together speaks volumes. If you can't understand the difference between those two things, you cannot engage in debate at an adult level.

    What are you talking about? I referred in my post and comments to "defending" beliefs, and you response referred to "the beliefs that accommodationists actually tolerate." The logical conclusion was that you were using these interchangeably (or at least not drawing a strong distinction that made a difference in this context). What a bizarre comment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. SC: "What are you talking about? I referred in my post and comments to 'defending' beliefs, and you response referred to 'the beliefs that accommodationists actually tolerate.' The logical conclusion was that you were using these interchangeably"

    That's not a logical conclusion but a huge leap, especially when the paragraph where I say "the beliefs that accommodationists actually tolerate" is the very same one where I contrast defending a belief and accommodating it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi SC,

    Anton Mates here. This is long, and may end up duplicating some of our discussion at TFK, but hey.

    1) Do you, personally, believe in a deity of any sort? If so, on what basis? If not, why don't you?

    No. For pretty much all gods I've heard of, either there's evidence against their existence (e.g., gods whose nature requires them to work obvious miracles), or their existence is untestable, or I don't understand their definition, or they don't really seem like gods to me in the first place (e.g. "God is love").

    2) Can you clearly define the supernatural entities (including that of the supernatural itself) that you believe to be untestable as to their facticity? Not name in a general way, but define them as entities, such that people can ascertain whether they're amenable to investigation.

    Depends on the god. For the personal god believed in by monotheistic laypeople, I think you can define it as "an intelligent being with total control over the state of the observable universe." There's room to argue over what "total control" means there, but even a fairly modest criterion puts it outside testability.

    For the impersonal god believed in by other laypeople--a "force" or "energy" or "spirit" that guides or sustains the universe--I'm not really sure how to define it. Sometimes it sounds like they basically mean the laws of physics. Sometimes it doesn't sound like much of anything. In the latter case, of course, I don't know how you would test it. Ditto for the gods of some pagans and New Age adherents, who are defined something like "A being of indeterminate powers with whom I can communicate, which sometimes conveys useful knowledge to me or arranges for helpful things to happen."

    Finally, I'd define "supernatural" as the property of being governed by laws which cannot be empirically determined by humans (and, ultimately, by me.) There are other definitions, of course--Sastra at Pharyngula has ably defended "supernatural" as the property of being ultimately based on mental rather than physical phenomena--but the above definition is the one which IMO implies untestability.

    3) Do you believe that science is the only reliable means for acquiring knowledge about the world?

    Yep. Unlike J. J. Ramsey, I consider mathematics to fall under psychology--the truth of a theorem is an empirical fact about how I and other people react to its proof.

    4) If you answered negatively to the first three questions – therefore demonstrating that there is no rationale that you personally can accept for believing in a deity, that the supernatural concepts you’re defending can’t be defined coherently, and that there are no reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the world other than science – on what basis do you promote respect for the beliefs and epistemic “systems” you do?

    Perhaps this hinges on the meaning of "respect," but I don't promote respect for non-scientific beliefs or epistemic systems. I am perfectly happy for people to criticize, condemn and ridicule them; I think the world's a better place because people like Dennett, Dawkins and PZ do so, and so do I in some contexts. I simply don't feel that I or anyone else is obligated to attack them whenever they come up.

    In terms of science education, again, I don't think Dawkins (say) is hurting the cause at all--I think he's possibly the most effective individual popularizer of science on the planet right now. But I don't think that the tasks I was performing as an NCSE staffer would have been facilitated by copying his approach. Our niches are different. (Dawkins himself has pointed this out, of course, re: American court cases. Not that I had anything to do with those.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Finally:


    Further, does pondering nonscientific notions interfere with and draw time and resources away from important scientific investigations?

    Not so far as I can see. I'm sure it has for some individuals, but for other individuals it has motivated the investment of time and resources into scientific research, Newton being the most famous example. Most people, of course, are uninterested in spending time and resources on science or theology.

    So all told, I think that the effect of pondering nonscientific notions on scientific practice is either neutral, or slightly beneficial just because pondering anything is good practice for the brain. Even hashing out the implications of the dietary and sexual rules in the Torah will exercise your memory and logical reasoning skills, which is probably better than spending the same period of time watching reality TV.

    Third, and most importantly, in defending nonscientific beliefs and epistemic systems of any sort, aren’t you encouraging nonscientific thinking in general, such that people influenced by you will have fewer intellectual and practical defenses against even those products of nonscientific thinking you find reprehensible?

    Again, I'm not defending them, if by "defending" you mean "claiming that they're valid." But no, I don't think I'm weakening people's defenses. When I find a product of nonscientific thinking reprehensible, it's usually for a more specific reason than the mere fact that it's nonscientific, so I don't think that a general attack on nonscientific beliefs is an effective way of strengthening people's defenses against such products.

    The most general class of nonscientific beliefs with which I have a problem are those which directly conflict with science, but I think it's probably more effective to fight that by encouraging scientific thinking than by discouraging its set complement.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Continued:

    It is dishonest to argue "Well, whatever is true in science, we’re not always scientific in every area of our lives," such that science is presented, in a silly ahistorical manner,* as limited to what professional scientists do in very specific contexts, having no claim on beliefs in general.

    I don't see how you infer the latter from the former. We're not always scientific in every area of our lives, regardless of what claim science may have on beliefs. People don't work that way.

    Is this OK? Is an evidentiary basis for our beliefs not a moral requirement? Are we not all required by intellectual honesty and basic morality to base our beliefs, which form an essential foundation for our actions, on the most honest engagement with the best evidence we have?

    No. Intellectual honesty requires us to be consistent, honest and open about the justifications for our beliefs. It does not require us to accept a particular set of justificatory principles in order to satisfy other people. If someone concludes, upon reflection, that valid beliefs need not always be based upon scientific evidence, it would be intellectually dishonest of them to ignore that conclusion and use science as their sole tool for forming beliefs.

    That said, intellectual honesty is not my highest good in the first place--I don't mind someone deluding hirself if the behavioral payoff is sufficiently beneficial.

    If you argue that the moral requirement doesn’t hold because some beliefs can be maintained "benignly," without affecting people’s actions or decisions, you need to consider three things. First, even if it might be accurate in some specific cases, this is often not a true claim - people's beliefs are not generally quarantined from their actions in this way.

    Correct. However, I see little reason to believe that the actions produced by untestable beliefs are more harmful, on average, than those produced by testable ones. For every person who thinks God wants them to beat up gays, there's a person who thinks God wants them to help the poor. Sometimes they're the same person. It's possible, of course, that if you integrated over all of human history you'd find a net negative impact from untestable beliefs; I just don't think anyone's done that in a rigorous manner yet.

    Second, matters on which beliefs that might at one time or one place not be important to people’s actions can become so. Would you recommend agricultural, reproductive, or environmental policies based on beliefs that are not derived scientifically when these are matters of life and death to people?

    To the degree that those policies are concerned with testable questions, I don't want them based on beliefs that conflict with the conclusions of science. To the degree that they're concerned with untestable questions, I don't really care what beliefs they're based on so long as they support the policies that will save lives. Epistemological purity is not as important as a matter of life and death.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Great post, SC. It's hard not to notice these truncated definitions of science that seem to be common among accomodationists. Having a conception of science limited to something akin to controlled laboratory experimentalism one of the key assumptions that allows them to claim that science is “just one among many ways of knowing”. 'Course, like you're implying, I don't ever hear any coherent account of just what those ways of knowing might be, how they could be used, or what knowledge has ever been gained from them. They don't seem to realize that as an added bonus their models of science would exclude historical natural sciences like paleontology/cosmology, the social sciences and history itself!

    Having such an amputated idea of science also allows them to reify science into some special niche practice only engaged in by designated scientists, operating apart from the rest of our social relations. One reason I think folks have trouble recognizing a broader definition of science like yours is that they are deeply discouraged from thinking scientifically in any areas outside of a small band of natural sciences (in which that thinking can be tightly contained as experimentalism). Maybe it would be clearer to say that they are discouraged from recognizing the wide applicability of science, since the danger is that people who take a consciously reasoned, evidence-based approach to history and social issues tend to end up with radical opinions that are quite unacceptable to the powerful.

    ReplyDelete
  22. SC and JJ seem to be talking past each other. SC uses the term "science" but more accurate, and what is relevant to her point, is "the methods of science", which include observation (e.g., looking at a traffic light to see what color it is) and logic (e.g., deriving a theorem from axioms). The question is, why should we respect beliefs and knowledge claims that are *not* obtained by the methods of science, but rather through raw assertion, unreasoned "faith", "revelation", having read it in a book of myths, hearing it from a preacher, via fallacies such as affirmation of the consequent, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @J.J.
    As for "epistemic systems," I only have half an idea what you are talking about, and I'm skeptical that you can provide the other half. I've heard bits about the idea that "faith" is a competing epistemology with "science," but those bits seem to involve very hazy ideas about science and on what the religious think "faith" is and what they expect it to be able to do.

    You should be more skeptical about your own understanding of the point. Scientific and religious epistemology have radically different standards for justification of belief.

    @SC
    if you’re deducing from axioms and postulates, where’s the new knowledge?

    The new knowledge is that the conclusion follows logically from the postulates -- we didn't know that before seeing the proof.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And yes, not all beliefs get in the way of doing science. Ken Miller's Catholicism, for example, clearly does not get in the way of doing his work in biology.

    That's too narrow of an understanding of getting in the way. As Jerry Coyne said, "By discussing science and religion together and asserting that science more or less points you to evidence for God, he blurs the boundaries between science and faith, boundaries which I think have to be absolutely maintained if we're going to have a rational country and we're going to judge things based on evidence rather than superstition."

    ReplyDelete
  25. The fact that you lump "defended" and "tolerated" together speaks volumes.

    SC's point was about encouraging respect for beliefs; either tolerance or defense does that.

    If you can't understand the difference between those two things, you cannot engage in debate at an adult level.

    That's a childish comment.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yikes! I'm away from the blog for a few days and come back to so many comments. My apologies to all for not having posted them sooner.

    Anton Mates, I haven't forgotten about our discussion on the other blog, and will get back to you here and there as soon as I complete my work (end of the semester and all).

    tm, good to see you here!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Great blog, SC. Been following for a while now and finally decided to comment, even if it's a bit late to the conversation.

    JJ: "Mathematics is not empirical, and its truths are deductions from axioms and postulates."

    Yes, but your claim originally was that in using math you were "gaining truth about the world". There are many axiomatic systems (many of them incompatible with one another) that can be studied. Finding theorems is just establishing truths about one of these systems. However, if you're claiming a system accurately reflects the world (or an aspect of it), then you're doing science.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks, Feynmaniac! I'm flattered.

    ...even if it's a bit late to the conversation.

    I hope not! I'm buried right now, but I hope to return to the conversation within a couple of days.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anton Mates, I haven't forgotten about our discussion on the other blog, and will get back to you here and there as soon as I complete my work (end of the semester and all).

    No problem. I too have ridiculous amounts of work to finish up for this quarter.

    ReplyDelete