I have been tossing this idea back and forth for a bit with some VERY brilliant people. Is truth subject to the whim of "truth-seekers?" Or, is it something to be discovered? Further... is science the venue to look to for guidance on how truth ought to be applied? Is there some other system of understanding which leads people to better outcomes?
Lately these questions wake my gentle slumbers. They do so, through metaphor, insinuation, and parallax within the context of my dreams. Am I questioning the very nature of truth itself in the billowing ethereal realm of REM sleep? Perhaps...
Yet, as I doubt and question my in-tact brain (read consciousness) it seems to stubbornly adhere to the tenets of reason and science. Am I so entrenched in my own "system" of thought that paradoxes are ignored/dismissed? Zeno's paradox's come to mind suddenly. Zeno looked at the wall and thought, "should I take steps towards that wall eventually I will be half way there. Should I, then, take more steps I will be another half way there. By this reasoning I should, forever, be half way there. Yet, I reach the wall. Touch it and recognize this fact." Two opposing possibilities. Yet, in practice, only one some to fruition. Should I dismiss reason in order to accept the data of my senses? The answer is simple. Of course I should!
I have a few brilliant associates who argue that there are things, outside my system of access, which must be accepted (through reason) which cast doubt of reason. That seems somewhat paradoxical to me. Most point to mathematical analysis (particularly Godel) as the justification for such conclusion. However, does Godel's analysis extend anywhere beyond mathematics (a man-made absolute set of constants which have application only when used non-theoretically)?
The argument from Entropy comes to mind. Some say that evolutionary theory is impossible because a closed system, like the Earths, would lead to the greatest degree of chaos (not order). They are wrong on two fronts. First, the earth is not a "closed" system. It has an outside source of energy (we call it the sun). Second, the theory of entropy is only about the distribution of energy across a certain limited space. It implies nothing about "organization" as we understand it from a biological (genetic) perspective. The fallacy of equivocation. Are my brilliant (I never use this term lightly) colleagues engaging in the same fallacy? Is Godel's theory of incompleteness" a mathematical theory; which has no implications outside a system of absolutes called "numbers?" I think so.
Chief among criticisms is that science may be dogmatic. But is science (qua science) dogmatic? Or, (as an alternative theory) are Scientists (humans under the control of non-scientific variables) as human subject to social pressure and other variables? Science, as I see it, is only a method of effective knowing. It doesn't matter who engages in it. Scientists, however, are subject to more than the data as a controlling source of their behavior. Yes, I wrote that... "behavior." What needs analysis? The research or the behavior of scientists? Sound like a false choice? It may be. BOTH deserve scrutiny! But, to draw a parallel... can the behavior of the scientist be, in any reasonable way, compared to the religionists? I don't think so. I can demonstrate a thousand times how scientific outcomes have IMPROVED mankind's life (socially, environmentally, etc.) yet I can not point to ONE way that religion has done anything but contradict decency, compassion, and kindness. If it is s choice between scientific dogmatism (useful but not error-less), Post-modernist dogmatism(what exactly is its benefit?), and religious dogmatism (wishful nonsense based upon ignorance and hatred of "other") I will take scientific dogmatism every time.
I refuse to reject the evidence of my senses (no matter how wrong they, may initially, be). That is naturalism (as I define it) and what makes me a "bright."
My head hurts again. Damned Anarchists. Damned post-modernists. I want to fit you in there too SE (but you are smarter than all of us... you refuse to accept a label).
Your input would be greatly appreciated.
HH =)
7 comments:
I just deleted priod comment due to the high number of typo errors which I guess is a good indication that I do not belong to the "brilliant associates" group!
But I appreciate the complement..too smart to accept a label? Hmm..never thought of it that way. Not sure I have much control over who does or doesn't label me and what those labels might be. I guess I only have control over what I label myself, and honestly I haven't figured out who the fuck I am yet. (sometimes, the only way to express the intensity of how I feel is exactly with that little word, as unladylike as it is)
As to your post. Which posed some brilliant questions btw.... I had a discussion (fight?) over this exact subject with my hubby just yesterday. It started of course, as most of our fights do with something that seemed benign (what shall we do this afternoon?) But it was complicated by the fact that it was a SUNDAY afternoon. (Nothing with us ever seems too simple) It ended up with an examination of what we want to teach our kids. He told me that above all he wants to teach our children to be seekers for truth, assuming, I think, that we finally agreed on something. Until I told him that I don't put much stock in the concept of objective truth. Wait a minute...he protested, holding onto the side of a wooden piece of furniture...I know right now that I am touching wood. This is an objective truth! Is it not?! But...how do you know you are touching wood? How do you know what wood is? How do you know that by your very examination that it isn't being altered somehow from it's natural and "truthful" state? Of course, we weren't really talking about something as concrete and immediate as "wood" anymore. The discussion collapsed into an exploration of how we know anything, our reliance on the collective world view of "others", our reliance on our own senses (which, as you suggested, are not infallible sources of information) Language, labeling, simplifying, quantifying, perceived control...how those and other behaviors can potentially alter and even distort "truth". How all truth is ultimately subject to perception, which is subject to bias, error and misinterpretation. In the end, we got no where in our dicussion as these discussion typically go with us. But it did get me thinking about this more, and your post fit in well with these thoughts. I can't pretend to be a scientist or even to claim to have anything more than a working knowledge of the scientific method. But I guess I can concede that any process which welcomes an exploration of it's own errors, a willingness to examine how a theory might wrong, what other explanations might be offered, and an inherent demand that the "finding" is reviewed and replicated independently,.. I guess it's probably the best method we've got, but I think even then, explanations of "truth" should be offered with a good deal of humility. I believe there is a lot of hubris in science. Just like there is in religion. Although I realize that the methods involved are vastly different. Still, there seems to be enough ego to go around.
But this is just my opinion...which is certainly open to alteration! Since I'm so willing to alter my opinion, I guess that is why labels just never seem to stick for very long.
Thanks for a great post. Interesting and stimulating ideas!
Still planning to get back to this, but it might have to wait until the weekend.
Ooh, I want a label.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a good one, amigo.
Lisa,
You are a videophilic-NewYorker. VN for short. ;)
Shane,
Thanks Bro.!
I need to go take my Dones Pills, and get in a quick nap. God, I feel old today. At least I look half my father's age. Darn lumbago. ;)
HH
This is such a big issue that I might have to do a full-length essay to do it justice, but, for now, I'll address a few of the issues you raised:
You wrote:
"I have a few brilliant associates who argue that there are things, outside my system of access, which must be accepted (through reason) which cast doubt of reason. That seems somewhat paradoxical to me."
That sounds like a giant Straw Man to my ears. I have never in my life heard anyone argue that we must use reason to accept truths outside of reason. Is that really what your associates are saying or is it what you wish they had said--because then it's easier to refute?
You wrote:
Most point to mathematical analysis (particularly Godel) as the justification for such conclusion. However, does Godel's analysis extend anywhere beyond mathematics (a man-made absolute set of constants which have application only when used non-theoretically)
The verdict is still out. If the human mind is anything like a Turing machine, then the theorem almost certainly implies something about the limitations of human intelligence. If the mind isn't like a Turing machine, and I don't believe it is, then Godel's theorem might be applied only to the human faculty of science, where deductive proofs are essential. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking, for example, have argued that the theorem sounds the death knoll for "a unified theory of everything", because it prohibits the formulation of a finite number of principles.
You wrote:
Chief among criticisms is that science may be dogmatic. But is science (qua science) dogmatic? Or, (as an alternative theory) are Scientists (humans under the control of non-scientific variables) as human subject to social pressure and other variables? Science, as I see it, is only a method of effective knowing.
Saying that science is a means of "effective knowing" is a dogmatic statement, no different in any way than a statement by a religious person confirming that prayer is a means of "effective knowing". If I define knowledge as "the word of God revealed through prayer" then the latter statement can't be dismissed. It becomes dogma--something that doesn't have to be proven in order to be believed. And if I define knowledge as data produced via the method, then the former statement works in the same way--it's dogmatic and thereby doesn't require proof.
You wrote:
But, to draw a parallel... can the behavior of the scientist be, in any reasonable way, compared to the religionists? I don't think so. I can demonstrate a thousand times how scientific outcomes have IMPROVED mankind's life (socially, environmentally, etc.) yet I can not point to ONE way that religion has done anything but contradict decency, compassion, and kindness.
That, again, is an extremely dogmatic statement--the same kind of statement that we've heard for centuries from Christians touting the superiority of Christian over heathen culture. What's more, by claiming that you can "demonstrate a thousand times how scientific outcomes have IMPROVED mankind's life", you're sidestepping the issue. If I demonstrate that heroin is useful in reducing pain--that it can IMPROVE my life in that way--that doesn't demonstrate that heroin is good for me or for society as a whole and that everyone should start using it. It's not fair, in other words, to say on one hand that science is only a method and can't be blamed for its misapplications and on the other hand to say that science is valuable because it has IMPROVED the lives of mankind. It's like saying that a drug that will cure the flu but in the process give you severe and permanent brain damage is a good thing because it has a proven benefit. This is the same kind of reasoning that Christians use when touting the historical benefits of Christianity while simultaneously dismissing the abuses as the result of misapplied theology and it's the same kind of reasoning scientists use when touting the medical advances in the fight against cancer while ignoring the ways in which scientific advancements have caused cancer rates to quadruple in all industrialized nations. If you want to convince me that scientific dogmatism is a good thing, you'll need to treat science as it actually is (dogmatic and belief-based, for one thing) and as it's actually practiced rather than as what it could be--and then provide a cost/benefit analysis supporting its value.
And, in my mind, the costs of scientific outcomes have FAR outweighed the benefits, primarily because one of the dogmatic tenets of scientific practice is the idea of "usefulness" and the conjunctive notion that the natural world is a resource rather than an autonomous entity that you have to enter into a reciprocating relationship with. In the same way that you can't, in my view, ignore any link between the misogynistic beliefs of religion and the common misogynistic practices of religion, you can't ignore the links between scientific beliefs about objectivity and functionality and Science's primary use as a means to better exploit the natural world as a resource for mankind's utility and pleasure. The primary effect of scientific achievement has been industrialization, which has been a disaster for the health of the planet and may very likely result in the extinction of our species. I don't think that's just a misapplication of the method. I think it's a correct application of the scientific belief system, most specifically the belief that reality is a a type of "property"-- is absolute, objective, and universal (a very Christian idea, by the way) rather than a conditional, subjective, and local.
Most often when I hear arguments about the benefits of science, I hear statements showing that a world governed by scientific ideology is superior to a world governed by religious ideology. That might be true, but who cares? Maybe hanging is an easier way to be executed than getting gassed, but I hope I'm never forced into making that decision.
Okay, gotta get back to fighting my cold now. Happy Monday!
Post a Comment