Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Weekend Roundup 07-09-2007

A few things to keep you busy over the weekend…

Enjoy!

Editor
  1. This week on the Skeptico podcast Greg Koukl says that scientist
    In my biology classes, I teach my students that science is the systematic study and application of nature and physical laws. The old maxim is: The domain of science is nature (for an elaboration, see J. A. Moore (1990) American Zoologist 30:715-722).

    There are at least two underlying assumptions:

    1) All possible observable phenomena are natural occurrences.

    2) Therefore, the underlying cause(s) of these occurrences are natural/physical laws.

    When Greg Koukl talks about the underlying philosophical basis of modern science, he is partially correct. There is a particular philosophical approach that serves as the foundation to science.

    Notice that I said “partially.” Science must deal with that which can be observed, analyzed, etc., and be able to do this in a consistent, orderly fashion. That is hard to do with (if I may coin a word) “non-natural” phenomena, which tends have a very elusive aspect. As someone with a scientific background, I feel that that is all well and fine. As is the case with any field or discipline, scientists should be the ones who determine or define what is science. After all, they are the folks that are actually doing science. So to this extent, at least, Koukl has missed the point.

    Since “the domain of science is nature,” ascribing non-natural causes (e.g., supernatural, paranormal, etc.) to an occurrence is properly pseudoscience. The problem to my mind is that because something appears to be outside of science, it automatically gets the label of being false or untrue when this should only mean that it cannot be tested or examined in a proper scientific context. This is where I feel that many scientists are not playing fair, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Most non-scientists don’t understand the underlying philosophical basis of modern science and scientists often don’t take the time to explain that their researches should be viewed within this conceptual framework.

    A common, related misconception is that science is engaged in finding “TRUTH.” What science attempts to do is discern and gather the facts and then interpret those facts. Just because facts have been gathered does not mean necessarily that the truth has been attained. In science, facts are subject to re-interpretation. In this sense, science should at most be comprehended as being the best available understanding of the facts. Indeed many philosophers (e.g., Karl Popper) have pointed out that it is not in the nature or purpose of science to prove anything (contrary to the more common, popular viewpoint). The most that can be said is whether or not the data/facts support a given hypothesis.

    To conclude, Koukl is correct about the “materialistic” philosophy that serves as the basis for modern science. However, that is not the real problem. The real problem is that 1) the general public does not understand what science is and 2) most scientists have not elaborated on the fundamental assumptions and philosophy of modern science.

    1. A scientist in our midst!! Who let the door open?? 😀
      Great comment, and I admit we have to mantain a firm background in science when dealing with our topics of discussion, at least to know what the “other” side is saying and why. We need balance to mantain objectivity.

      There are a couple of things I would like to ask you:

      *What should we understand by NATURE?
      *hence, what should be understand when we say a phenomenon is OBSERVABLE?

      “Since “the domain of science is nature,” ascribing non-natural causes (e.g., supernatural, paranormal, etc.) to an occurrence is properly pseudoscience.”

      I think I’m not alone when I say that the term PSEUDOSCIENCE is demeaning and belittles the efforts of people who try to study these misteries. Why then not use the term PARASCIENCE, or METASCIENCE instead? Although I agree there are a lot of people in these fields who do not deserve the term “scientific” (or intelligent for that matter).

      I really love science, I read everyday something new about space exploration or the new discoveries in genetiv research. There is certainly a lot of debt we owe to science; but it’s not useful to science when some people forget its main function (a powerful tool to try to interpret the events of the world we live in) and try to erect it as the ONLY valid method of knowledge; because that’s when science becomes just another form of religion. And stubbornly trying to force some phenomena to the rules and control of a lab is as foolish as tryng to peruse the sky with a microscope; for that a telescope would do a far better job.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

  2. What is science?
    Hello Red Pill Junkie-

    No doubt there have been numerous times in my life when folks have wondered who left the door open. =D

    You make some very valid and well thought-out statements. I just want to make sure that it is understood that my statements were made primarily in the context of the current scientific paradigm. That having been said, I am in full agreement with your objection to the notion that science is “the ONLY valid method of knowledge.” Again, I completely agree with you.

    To respond to what I understood to be your main points:

    1. “What should we understand by NATURE?”

    In modern scientific parlance, “Nature” means the physical world and everything in it. By that definition, anything that is spiritual, paranormal, supernatural, preternatural, or whatever, is automatically excluded. Accordingly, whatever is observable is natural.

    I am fully aware that other definitions for “nature” exist and, given the limitations of any human endeavor, I have no inherent problem with those definitions.

    However, don’t think that I disbelieve in the spiritual or the supernatural. Perhaps I am guilty of compartmentalization, but to use a phrase that I heard a long time ago, “My religion doesn’t dictate my science; my science doesn’t dictate my religion.”

    2. “The term PSEUDOSCIENCE is demeaning and belittles the efforts of people who try to study these mysteries.”

    I certainly appreciate your point here and you are correct; that is how it is often used. That is not, however, what I meant when I used the term. I simply meant that such researches are not science according to the current paradigm. Remember, I said,

    “The problem to my mind is that because something appears to be outside of science, it automatically gets the label of being false or untrue when this should only mean that it cannot be tested or examined in a proper scientific context.”

    Again, this is the “proper scientific context” as currently defined. I think that it should be clear from the context of my previous statements that I do not feel that such research endeavors should be invalidated simply because they don’t conform to the “domain of science is nature” paradigm. As you said above, science is not the only valid approach. Nevertheless, if we are going to call something “science” or “scientific,” then we should be clear as to what those terms mean.

    Perhaps “parascience” or “metascience” might be less offensive terms, but (and I don’t mean to sound cavalier) that is a little off from the points that I was trying to make.

    Perhaps what is needed for science in general is a new scientific revolution or paradigm shift.

    3. “Although I agree there are a lot of people in these fields who do not deserve the term “scientific” (or intelligent for that matter).”

    Though this wasn’t one of your major points, I do want to respond to it briefly. I certainly cannot claim to be the brightest light bulb in the package but I don’t want people thinking that all scientists are necessary that smart. My observation is that while most are indeed knowledgeable within their specific disciplines, they are often otherwise no smarter than the average person. In fact, some of them are considerably less.

    By the way, there are some very eminent scientists who do not always conform to the accepted pattern. Rupert Sheldrake (I seem to recall that there have been a number of TDG posts/news items about him) and Henry Bauer are just two examples of scientists whose researches have extended into areas usually considered “pseudoscience.” Bauer is also known for his criticism of the scientific method. [By the way, though we were in different departments, he is a professor emeritus at my alma matter (Virginia Tech)]. I would also mention the late Paul Feyerabend, considered among the more important philosophers of science. Like Bauer, Feyerabend was critical of the scientific method and advocated what is sometimes called the “anything goes” approach.

    I hope that you have good weekend.

    1. artificial
      There are also the sciences of the artificial. Computer science, materials, engineering.

      This is part of the “natural” world, in the sense that pieces of the natural world are manipulated to make stuff that we don’t see occuring by nature.

      Quite a few scientists don’t accept these things as science, since it is “only engineering”. Yet every reasonable natural science (and the unreasonable ones too) depends on the sciences of the artificial today.

      In turn, the sciences of the artificial depend on mathematics, in one way or another.

      —-
      Wanderer, kommst Du nach Liechtenstein – tritt nicht daneben, tritt mitten rein.

      1. And where
        Does mathematics come from?

        —–
        It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
        It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

        Red Pill Junkie

        1. historically
          historically, mathematics comes from counting beans, sheep, and from astronomy. Astronomy needs mathematics to predict the growing seasons.

          Also, mathematics was needed for navigation. But that is somewhat later in history I think.

          That is the early history, as far as we know. It doesn’t come from the gods, it was discovered (not invented) by humans.

          Right?

          —-
          The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

          1. I dunno!
            I think there was a book by Hawkins, that speculated whether mathematics, and the laws of physics in general, have an “independent life” of their own regardless of its discovery by man.

            And mathematics has also a long lineage of mysthicism embedded in its history. The Platonics regarded the 5 regular solids as “divine”. And we have the reverence the egyptians had of Pi, and we have this incredible ubiquity of Phi in all aspects of nature. That’s why the masons referr to God as “the great architect”. So there’s this almost magical quality in numbers, that let us delve into realms inaccesible to our common sense, like when we see representaions of polytopes.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

    2. Great answers Speer
      And let me clarify that not for once I assumed your use of the term PSEUDOCIENCE as an active criticism or a disregarding for paranormal claims. In fact, based on your comment, I guess that we should conclude that on some cases the apparent lack of credibility the mainstream has given these unorthodox disciplines is that, unlike established scientific fields, there doesn’t seem to be an structured and ordered METHODOLOGY when trying to study phenomena that seem to go beyond the scope of our physical reality.

      In the end the ethymologic definition of SCIENCE is: knowledge; but what distinguishes it from philosophy for example, is the use of a set of rules known as the scientific method. An structured methodology is something that has escaped such endavours as Ufology, where anyone can claim to be a researcher just because he reads a lot of books and goes interviewing witnesses. A nethod, that may have a lot in common with the scientific method, but in some instances may vary greatly, without loosing effectiveness or validity, that’s what we need folks.

      What I wanted to establish when I mention “observable” is that we live in rather peculiar times, when the limits of what we can or can’t detect either with our natural senses, or with our equipments that are but extensions of those senses, are getting fuzzier and fuzzier. Some scientists do not believe in things like the “soul” because they claim it cannot be either observed nor measured in a quantitative manner, yet there are some fields in science when it’s sort of OK to believe in stuff that hasn’t been discovered (in other words,observed) yet. For instance DARK MATTER or DARK ENERGY, that when looked in blunt cynism, seem like nothing but PATCHES to try to hold up the current Cosmological model of the Universe that is supported by both the notion of the Big Bang, and also the Inflationary Theory, but because cosmologists discovered the Universe is fast accelerating beyond their wildest predictions, and there’s not enough OBSERVABLE matter in the Universe that could be accountd for it… well, then there must be something our there that we cannot detect… yet.

      The same goes with the Bosson Higgs, the famous “God Particle” that most particle physicists think is responsible for giving mass to matter. But we cannot detect Bosson Higgs… well not with our current equipment anyway; but now with the LHC being finihed in Europe, who knows what we will discover.

      What I’m getting to with this long and tedious diatribe, it’s that for me at least, it is very difficult to understand the limits of what we call “physical universe”. Just because we are unable to detect something does not mean we won’t be able to observe it in the future. If string theory physicists are correct, then besides our 3 spatial ordinary dimensions and 1 temporla dimension, there are at least 7 more that may never be fully observed at all. Is it really valid to make the distinction between “natural” and “supra-natural” or is it merely a convenient distinction that help us feel a little more comfortable in our immense ignorance?

      Stephen Hawkins once told of a time he was gathered with a group of cosmologists in the Vatican, and the Pope (JPII) came to talk to them, telling them it was not appropiate for them to try to discern what happened at the exact moment of the birth of the Universem, since that was knowledged reserved only to God.

      Frankly, I don’t have a problem with science telling me what happened at the moment of the Big Bang, or who were my evolutionary ancesters that first swam the primordial oceans, later crept to the young earth and after playfully jumping from tree to tree decided to come down, walk on two legs and stared at the night skies in awe.

      Science is a great tool to know abut he HOWs.

      What it cannot answer, is the WHYs. And in the end, those may be the more important questions to be answered.

      Good weekend to you too. Hope we get into discussion in the future 🙂

      PS: And yes, some scientists are just too literate for their intelligence, and driven by emotional impulses like the rest of us, no matter how many PHDs they have on their offices.
      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Good debate
        Some good points being raised here. If I can raise a couple myself.
        The problem of ‘natural’ phenomena is that it is a concept defined by science, as ‘observable’ at this time, as opposed to being ‘natural’ within the universe. So often we find that the parameters of what is scientifically credible is based more upon science’s ability to measure, or define it. Too many scientists seem to be unable to accept that this is a limitation of our abilities, and decide, instead, that it is an absolute.
        A further point is that many scientists go beyond what science is able to claim in order to try to ridicule that which science has maybe not yet grasped. Oh dear, that’s a mouthful, but hopefully you’ve got my point. Basically, science is all too often used ‘politically’ in order to maintain the paradigm, and the public do not realise that this is not science speaking, but individuals with opinions.

        Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

        Anthony North

      2. Everything is natural.
        There is no such a thing a non natural occurrence.

        What there is is ignorance and that ignorance is very much the result of:
        1- the withholding of information
        2- the strong magnetization of our material-animal senses and of memory.

        I have added memory in there because knowledge is a double-edged sword.

        On one hand it has allowed material progress but on the other hand at the expense of instantaneous realization.

        Memory and knowledge tend to crystalize mentalities in the impression to know. This gets in the way of a true learning process that should always be free from the influences of the past, even though this process may be aware of the cumulation of deductive science that was always based on a partial and segmented vision.

        Even science in its current state is too specialized to give itself a global vision of the known without having to revert back to philosophers of science. It is like the intellect, separating and compartmenting observed items and then trying to put them back together the way it thinks it ought to work careless of the gaps and incongruities.

        This of course does not make science useless but it severely limits it in its ability to know the whys of the descriptive functions it can put on the table.

        It is limited to the effects and is blind to the causes, the fundamental causes, until it can observe these causes in action.

    3. Just a small comment on pseudo pseudoscience
      If a scientist had senses that allowed him to scrutinize and observe phenomena that are not visible or detectable to others, it would still be science. Scientists that could not do those observations, even if they refused to recognize the scientific reality of this new science probing realms alien to them could not thus invalid reality. Reality would simply escape them.

      It is interesting that when a man makes claims of so called para normal abilities that this man may be tested by science to validate the claim whereas that man could simply work with scientists to improve on the field of investigation of what becomes then observable.

      Unfortunately, those men of heightened senses either still have severe limitations over them, rendering those senses highly unreliable on the verge of randomness, or if not limited, are not likely to share their vision with scientists who still work within the framework of a psychological humanity still prone to egocentrism, greed, domination and their destructive consequences.

      1. predictions and measurements
        A measurement is basically a way of prediction. If you can measure something that you observe, then you have some way of what happens if you see that observation again.

        Now, those people who claim that they can consistently (to some non-random extent) observe something, they should be able to make some predictions. To some degree of accuracy, not precisely of course.

        If someone says, “I know this X thing will happen, because I seen this Y thing”, I expect some kind of accuracy. And this accuracy has to be seriously more accurace than the X think happening for unrelated reasons.

        Especially if the “Y thing” cannot be observed by any other than the person who says they observed the unobservable.

        Another way of saying this:

        I you can make a prediction bassed on something that you observed or felt, then you made a measurement. So if you did that, don’t tell me that it cannot be measured, because you just did measure it.

        —-
        The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

        1. Method
          Good morning Earthling,
          The above is very true, but you’ve left something important out of the scientific method. A measurement and prediction must come in line with a working theory.
          Science, in general, won’t even look at the subject. Hence, by refusing, no attempt is made to produce a working theory. This guarantees that the process you speak of cannot happen.

          I’m fanatical about moderation

          Anthony North

          1. working theory ?
            Perhaps.
            But what is your wrking theory? can you say it ?

            —-
            The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

          2. Working theory
            Hi Earthling,
            You obviously haven’t been linking to my posts here.
            How can I place it in a nutshell?
            As a species, makind has communal influences, from cultural ‘archetypes’, through instinct, maybe even to genetic coding. This is ‘communality’, but is a product of the unconscious. As to that unconscious, ancient myths suggest that ancient man didn’t have one. There was a one level mind where ‘gods’ (or archetypes) seemed to do the thinking for us.
            With the advent of technology, concentration was required on a task at hand, requiring a repository for unrequired input at that time. This was the birth of a personal mind, and as information through technology increases, this communality recedes further from normal consciousness. Hence, when information in the outside world is reduced, we access this communality, as in trance, sleep, hypnosis, etc. This is why paranormal talents are not open naturally to us any more.
            The conscious mind acts like a filter to only place ‘attention’ upon what we need, but everything our senses can ‘sense’ passes into the unconscious. Hence, we have a vast data base within us which I argue is like a ‘reflection’ of the outside world.
            Through talents such as cryptomnesia, we know this vast memory recall can answer much phenomena. But I argue that the mind can also make ‘connections’ from this information that seem to suggest clairvoyant communication.
            Culture plays an important part in who we are, and I argue that storytelling can produce ‘categories’ of phenomena dependent upon the ‘story’ we believe at any particular time.
            This can involve communal ‘psychodrama’, where a community can, through emotion, begin to live an alternate reality, where, as a society, they descend to the unconscious elements of mind, and display phenomena. This can range from a poltergeist outbreak to a global ‘psychic wave’, such as the UFO, with repetitive stories giving us alien abduction, etc.
            The data of the communal mind can also prompt premonitions, based on information unconsciously received in the present, such as subliminal information providing, through thought, a possible outcome.
            With this mind model, we must then compare it to ideas in quantum theory to see if there is a greater validity that can make these abilities ‘fundamental’ as opposed to just ‘psychological.’ And we already have in quantum theory ideas concerning the observer having an effect upon reality, and action at a distance
            Further, in looking at ‘life’ levels – the person, the cellular construct, and our electromagnetic fuzz – we have an increasing communality as we descend through the levels. As one level has an effect on the next one up, it is rational to summise that phenomena of one can filter into the next.
            This is, of course, a very basic explanation, but it is a model that can offer predictions of future behaviour, and can answer most of the sceptic’s arguments against such powers.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          3. well….
            I have to study what you said here.

            But if you think that what you is clear and concise you will have to wait until another day. It is neither.

            Be patient. It may become more obvious aftern some reflection and study.

            —-
            The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

          4. Ponder
            Hi Earthling,
            Here’s something to ponder while you’re pondering. I have tried to squeeze some 20 years research and theorising into a short post. It is practically impossible for a ‘science type’ to grasp the ideas from that, but I’m open to any questions you have.
            Now, being a ‘science type’ (not meant in a derogatory way), how much data and explanation would you demand for a theory in your sphere?
            I suspect it would be voluminous. Now, unless you’re researching my ideas deeper on my blog, you are going to try to understand my ideas from a post.
            Think about that for a minute, and you may – just may – grasp the automatic prejudice in the scientific mind against the paranormal.
            And you, I consider open-minded. What hope of the average scientist even considering it?

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

        2. Measurement VS predictions
          Hi Earthling

          I don’t agree that measurement is prediction.

          A measurement is the objective evaluation based on subjective parameters to give a value to a phenomena so that this value can be used in an appreciation that can be grasped empirically.

          These measures are then inserted within mathematical models that project mechanical functions that then are used to make logical predictions.

          Because there are consistencies in the whys that generate the causes, the results will then be in accord with the predictions, although the predictions remain based upon the manifested phenomena and not the underlying cause.

          But this is all semantics until we can see that what we project can never be greater than what can be contained within the framework used to make such projections, until it starts breaking out. It is only once things will have broken out that science will accept to add to its framework.

          Real science cannot segregate itself from the whole and expect to remain unchallenged.

          On the other hand, one should not throw a stone at science for it too was useful at putting in perspective aberrations of the past.

          It is science after all that brought man to develop his mental faculties and not spirituality.

          1. Good things here
            A lot of good comments by earthling and Anthony. And I also like what Richard wrote that our limited measures of a particular phenomenon is forced to “fit” in a mathematical model that tries to view the Universe as a mechanical engine. The sort of big clock machinery that Newton tried to grasp. The problem is that with the advent of Relativity and Quantum theory, the idea that the Universe works thus is being challenged on daily basis.

            That’s why a lot of people challenge the different views about climate change, because those views are based on computer simmulations of weather patterns, but all those simmulations are bound to be incomplete. They work well during several itterations, but as time increases they become more and more divergent. This is not the fault of the computer, because it is doing its best with what little data we feed it.

            And, should we consider the possibility that a particular observation could have completey different interpretations based on the backgrounds and cultural inheritance of the observers, as Anthony proposes? Kind of like that funny mirror in Harry Potter’s first adventure, nobody could see what the mirror showed to the person standing right next to him.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal