Is science inherently atheistic?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by tsig

I'm rather bemused at this emergence of human decision making as some unknown territory where science dare not tread.

As others here are bemused at people who think they and science have solved the is/ought problem.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by dafydd

If I decide to fry an egg, science provided the technology to enable me to use my gas cooker. Science is everywhere, even in the mundane.

The question is how did science help you decide to fry an egg?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Please describe an actual case where science can takes 'ises' and provide an ought. The process to even begin requires an ought; I 'ought' to do this (with science).

That original 'ought' is a result of brain processes which imnsho are not science per se, but yes could be described by science one way or another.

Gradually, a number of people participating on this thread are beginning to grasp that understanding the process that leads to a decision being made is not the same thing as having an objective guide to making decisions. I think that the ones who are most attached to the erroneous view cling to it because they think it's in some way more rational to believe that rationality provides the answer to everything. It's wrong of course - any rational view of life recognises that rationality will take us so far but no further. It can't tell us what to want.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AlBell

The question is how did science help you decide to fry an egg?

Brain chemistry yet again. Stomach sending signals to the brain. Hunger messages from the brain. It wasn't woo messages from another dimension.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AlBell

As others here are bemused at people who think they and science have solved the is/ought problem.

And it's been repeatedly stated that science can investigate why people make decision all it wants, and find out in as much detail as it can - but that still won't tell people what to do. I think that the fact that these are two different issues has dawned on a number of people, but the rearguard action continues - mostly it consists of "Yay! Science!" but occasional variations surface.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Brain chemistry yet again. Stomach sending signals to the brain. Hunger messages from the brain. It wasn't woo messages from another dimension.

Dafydd, I thought we were cool on this. Two different things - how things are decided, and what we should decide to do. Science is totally able to tell us what goes on when we make a decision. (In theory at least). It can't tell us what decision is best.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

And it's been repeatedly stated that science can investigate why people make decision all it wants, and find out in as much detail as it can - but that still won't tell people what to do. I think that the fact that these are two different issues has dawned on a number of people, but the rearguard action continues - mostly it consists of "Yay! Science!" but occasional variations surface.

You still seem to leaving a gap for a non-scientific impetus that tells us what to do.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

Dafydd, I thought we were cool on this. Two different things - how things are decided, and what we should decide to do. Science is totally able to tell us what goes on when we make a decision. (In theory at least). It can't tell us what decision is best.

I was replying to AlBell

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

Dafydd, I thought we were cool on this. Two different things - how things are decided, and what we should decide to do. Science is totally able to tell us what goes on when we make a decision. (In theory at least). It can't tell us what decision is best.

Fair enough. But you never know if the decision is the right one, you'd have to be able to see into the future to know that.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AlBell

As others here are bemused at people who think they and science have solved the is/ought problem.

When you wake up in the morning is it is or is it ought that you should get out of bed?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

Gradually, a number of people participating on this thread are beginning to grasp that understanding the process that leads to a decision being made is not the same thing as having an objective guide to making decisions. I think that the ones who are most attached to the erroneous view cling to it because they think it's in some way more rational to believe that rationality provides the answer to everything. It's wrong of course - any rational view of life recognises that rationality will take us so far but no further. It can't tell us what to want.

Then what do you think tells us what to want?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by tsig

When you wake up in the morning is it is or is it ought that you should get out of bed?

That sentence makes no sense to me; please re-phrase it. Thanks.

The decision I choose (stay in bed vs get up) is based on my brain examining the 'is' as best I understand what goes into those 'is' factors and deciding which 'ought' will happen.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Brain chemistry yet again. Stomach sending signals to the brain. Hunger messages from the brain. It wasn't woo messages from another dimension.

Thank goodness I didn't suggest there was any such input involved.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

That's a different claim. You were talking about making a decision.

It's entirely possible for me to make a completely scientific decision for me based on my brain chemistry and rational, scientific data input.

If you think that, you are mistaken. Of course, you can make a decision due entirely to your brain chemistry - but then so can the alchemists, or an octopus, or an ant. That's a meaningless distinction because it covers everything. Rational and entirely irrational decisions are equally mediated by brain chemistry. Why bother to mention it?

What you cannot do is make a decision based on nothing other than the scientific data, because the scientific data alone will not carry a preference. I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent informed people can continue to avoid thinking about this obvious fact, and still more that they regard it as some kind of metaphysical bogeyman to be opposed by rationalists.

Quote:

'Running our affairs' suggests that somehow these decisions would also be optimal for others and since they have different brain chemistry that would be a silly assumption.

The simple fact is that they will have different preferences.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Thank goodness I didn't suggest there was any such input involved.

I really thought that Dafydd had got it, and here he is with his extra-dimensional fairies.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Fair enough. But you never know if the decision is the right one, you'd have to be able to see into the future to know that.

Why do you think that there is any such thing as the "right" decision? There are decisions, that's all.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I was replying to AlBell

Which is reasonable enough, if Al Bell had gone off on some different path. He hasn't, he's just reiterating what I said, and what other people have said. He may well have a hidden agenda, as might I - but all he's said is that decisions cannot be made on an entirely scientific basic. Let's not go backwards when we've been making good progress. If Al Bell starts to smuggle God in by the back door, we will spot him doing it and clamp down on him. In the meantime, shall we just focus on this one issue?

I know that it seems petty, but this is the philosophy forum FFS. If people want to talk about matters of simple fact that are quickly resolved, then they should be on the NBA forum.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

You still seem to leaving a gap for a non-scientific impetus that tells us what to do.

No, I'm not. Even if the human being is just a two-state machine switching randomly between a pair of options, it is not deciding its preferences on a scientific basis. If you allow that it is possible to decide things on an unscientific basis, then you have to distinguish clearly between scientific and unscientific criteria. Scientific criteria are not enough to establish a preference.

If you insist that decisions made according to scientific activity - brain chemistry, for example - are scientific decisions, then you are forced to accept all decisions as scientific decisions, because they are all resolved by brain chemistry. As soon as you accept that such a thing as an unscientific decision is possible, you have to distinguish between decisions made on scientific grounds and those made on other grounds, because they are all equally made by the physical activity of the brain.

I almost feel that if I can get one person in the world to understand this argument (even if he disagrees with it) then the whole tedious business will be worth while.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by AlBell

The question is how did science help you decide to fry an egg?

How do you think anyone decided in the first place what "cooking" was, and why it seemed a good idea?

How do you think humans ever developed the idea of "frying" anything in the first place?

The way those ideas arise is not through completely random chance. On the contrary, the entire basis of developments like that is that people began to use human intellectual capacity to think logically about what things might be possible, about whether such things might be useful to them, and about how to begin testing those ideas etc. .... those are all parts of a scientific approach to problem solving and the rational investigation of things, whether it's cooking an egg, or anything else.

That doesn't mean that people cannot override rational and objective analysis to do things which are seemingly irrational. They could for example, after working out how and why to fry eggs, decide to do something apparently bizarre like putting the cooked egg in their ear. But generally they don't do things like that, and instead they do something far more objectively rational with the egg, like testing to see if it's edible.

Originally Posted by westprog

Science is totally able to tell us what goes on when we make a decision. (In theory at least). It can't tell us what decision is best.

How can you write something as badly mistaken as that?

Do you never read what you have written before posting it?

Far from being "unable to tell us what decision is best", that is almost the entire function of science, it's what science does a million times every day.

The whole point of scientific research, and more simply the process of rational objective & coherent assessment that humans automatically use when confronted with everyday issues, is that the "scientific" nature of that decision making is very clearly not only our most accurate way of deciding which of several courses of action is "best", but also seemingly unavoidable as the method inherent in all thinking in intelligent animals, inc. homo sapiens.

Science constantly tells you precisely “what decision is “best“ “. Do you really not understand that?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

If you think that, you are mistaken. Of course, you can make a decision due entirely to your brain chemistry - but then so can the alchemists, or an octopus, or an ant. That's a meaningless distinction because it covers everything. Rational and entirely irrational decisions are equally mediated by brain chemistry. Why bother to mention it?

What you cannot do is make a decision based on nothing other than the scientific data, because the scientific data alone will not carry a preference. I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent informed people can continue to avoid thinking about this obvious fact, and still more that they regard it as some kind of metaphysical bogeyman to be opposed by rationalists.

Well done, you have broken down what I said into two parts and managed to get both entirely 180-degrees-about-face wrong.

I was quite clearly not talking about a decision made entirely by brain chemistry but a decision based entirely on rational data input and analysis + brain chemistry.

Yes, you can input crap data and get crap out. Nobody disagrees on this.

But I have shown you a clear example of where I can make a scientific, logical, rational decision from start to finish based on facts and rational analysis.

If you want to keep insisting there is something more at play that is unscientific then you are going to have to point out what it is and where it comes from rather than simply re-asserting that it's obviously there.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

I really thought that Dafydd had got it, and here he is with his extra-dimensional fairies.

Let me categorically state that I do no believe in extra- dimensional fairies.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Thank goodness I didn't suggest there was any such input involved.

I didn't say that you did. i wish some people would respond to what other posters actually type.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

If you want to keep insisting there is something more at play that is unscientific then you are going to have to point out what it is and where it comes from rather than simply re-asserting that it's obviously there.

I second that.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Science constantly tells you precisely “what decision is “best“ “. Do you really not understand that?

No, it doesn't. We always start off with the idea of which outcome is best. Two different people can use science to choose an outcome, and get a different result as to which is best for them. Is science giving a different answer to the same question? No. Science says what will happen, not what should happen.

Feel free to pontificate about Westprog's scientific qualifications, but the above remains true.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Let me categorically state that I do no believe in extra- dimensional fairies.

No extra-dimensional fairies are required for the discussion at all.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

...

Yes, you can input crap data and get crap out. Nobody disagrees on this.

Yes, we all agree on that.

Quote:

But I have shown you a clear example of where I can make a scientific, logical, rational decision from start to finish based on facts and rational analysis.

If you want to keep insisting there is something more at play that is unscientific then you are going to have to point out what it is and where it comes from rather than simply re-asserting that it's obviously there.

It's obviously true since something other than science provided the initial "Why don't I ______?".

'Fry an egg' is a prior example. Alternatively: cereal, toast, breakfast drink, do nothing, etc.

You will likely cite 'hunger', but I've provided other choices available not amenable to science for selection.

We continue to have difficulty understanding why many posters seem to think 'brain chemistry' has solved or obviated Humes' Is / Ought problem.

Do you contend Pol Pot made good choices? I don't think his choices can be explained by citing 'crap data' either.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I didn't say that you did. i wish some people would respond to what other posters actually type.

Me too, in this case you.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

No, it doesn't. We always start off with the idea of which outcome is best. Two different people can use science to choose an outcome, and get a different result as to which is best for them. Is science giving a different answer to the same question? No. Science says what will happen, not what should happen.

Nope. Entirely wrong.

Science typically predicts what "should" happen.

Science does not know what "will" happen ... that would be a matter of impossible "certainty".

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

But I have shown you a clear example of where I can make a scientific, logical, rational decision from start to finish based on facts and rational analysis.

You also have to have an initial objective or value, which is not itself based on facts or rational analysis.

You can continue to assert that the intial objective or value is always present and therefore can be ignored, but that's similar to asserting that I can make an omlette using butter and cheese alone, nothing else (because I assume eggs to always be present and therefore discount them).

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Nope. Entirely wrong.

Science typically predicts what "should" happen.

Science does not know what "will" happen ... that would be a matter of impossible "certainty".

Nice nit-picking avoidance of the main point.

Of course science predicts what will happen. It doesn't do so with certainty, that's all.

Using the word "should" in this context is extremely ill-advised, because it has two seperate meanings. When science says that something "should" happen, that is in no sense a value judgement. It's just a prediction. It's very different to saying that something "should happen" because it is a "better" outcome.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I second that.

Are you claiming that it is impossible to make a decision on unscientific grounds?

If you are going to insist that unscientific decisions require some kind of magical extra-dimensional fairies, then obviously, you are ruling out unscientific decisions.

If you accept that it is possible to make a decision on unscientific grounds, then the discussion can proceed.

It seems that LotF is arguing that unscientific decisions are impossible. I doubt whether he thinks that, but if he does I'd like him to explicitly say so. If he accepts that they are possible without benefit of magic, then we can proceed on that basis.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

Nice nit-picking avoidance of the main point.

Of course science predicts what will happen. It doesn't do so with certainty, that's all.

Using the word "should" in this context is extremely ill-advised, because it has two seperate meanings. When science says that something "should" happen, that is in no sense a value judgement. It's just a prediction. It's very different to saying that something "should happen" because it is a "better" outcome.

Absolutely - so in saying that science tells us what "should" happen", I mean "should" in the sense of "likely" ... science tells us what is "likely" to happen.

You seem to be using the word in some entirely different sense ... what do YOU mean by the word "should" in the context that you used it here?

By "should" are you implying some sort of unexplained pre-ordained decision making?

Are you implying some sort of God who decides in advance what things "should" happen?

Science does not tell is what "Will" happen. It never claims that. Instead it claims to tell us what "should" happen in the perfectly ordinary sense of meaning the thing most "likely" to happen ...

... what science most certainly does not do, is try to tell us what "should" happen in any sense of implying that "should" means something pre-decided by some unexplained intelligent designer.

It seems to me what’s happening here is that you are implying some sort of unexplained intention or "intelligent designer" behind your use of the word “should”?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

It seems to me what’s happening here is that you are implying some sort of unexplained intention or "intelligent designer" behind your use of the word “should”?

There is no need for any "intelligent designer" or unexplained intention. The "should" could be a parent telling his children that they should go to bed.

It's precisely to avoid confusion that I suggested that the term not be used. If a word can have multiple connotations in a particular context, then another should be preferred. (N.b. here I use should as indicating that one approach is better than another).

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You also have to have an initial objective or value, which is not itself based on facts or rational analysis.

No, because I quite clearly stated that my initial objective 'don't die' is based on the simple objective fact that I do not want to die. This can be tested, demonstrated and examined in a number of ways not least of which being if I really wanted to die I could jump out the window but I don't.

Now if you want to claim it's not a fact then fine. What is it?

Originally Posted by westprog

Are you claiming that it is impossible to make a decision on unscientific grounds? It seems that LotF is arguing that unscientific decisions are impossible.

No, I've spelled it out several times. I am arguing that entirely scientific fact-based decisions are possible. I have given an example of one.

Unscientific decisions are entirely possible but the unscientific part relates to the processes related to data input and analysis. It can also relate to the decision making act in that we have uncertain information. What it doesn't relate to is the brain chemistry which provides us with individual preferences which are simply biology and as such are objective fact.

I don't deny that the preferences are complex and can be difficult to articulate simply and clearly. Often they are contradictory. They may change over time. But they exist. They are an 'is'.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

It's precisely to avoid confusion that I suggested that the term not be used. If a word can have multiple connotations in a particular context, then another should be preferred. (N.b. here I use should as indicating that one approach is better than another).

That’s the seconed time you have complained that it’s inappropriate to use the word “Should”. But that was not my word, it was yours! I was quoting you when YOU introduced the word “should”. So you can blame yourself for that.

Originally Posted by westprog

There is no need for any "intelligent designer" or unexplained intention. The "should" could be a parent telling his children that they should go to bed.

Well that's a hopeless example for your case. Telling children that they "should" go to bed, because it's as you say "better" for them, is firstly introducing the vague and ill-defined concept of what is "better", and second it seems to be fundamentally based on a scientific deduction anyway, ie - the parent has decided that sleep is necessary for entirely practical reasons, such as not being too tired to do things the following day...

... that's an objective assessment that people make about the requirements for, and benefits of, sleep.

You might want to try tracing that back to homo sapiens first beginnings on Earth, and ask how & why we originally decided that sleep was necessary. Or indeed whether we even had to decide ... because it might have been inescapable simply as an irresistible bodily reaction to expended energy, which itself would be an automatic scientifically explained response ... but, ...

... if we are talking about the situation today, and why anyone today might tell their children that they "should" go to bed because it's thought to be "better" for them, then that appears to be a scientifically reasoned and deduced opinion from the parent.

But apart from all the above - all your arguments here seem, like the above, to be simply messing about with the meaning of words, trying to introduce numerous different vagaries and obfuscations due to the words being used to mean different things.


Science tries to avoid arguments of that kind based on semantic use of language and philosophical attempts to "win" mere word arguments, because that has nothing at all to do with actually discovering and truly explaining real things.

That's a major difference between the relatively new subject of science compared to the very ancient subject of philosophy, where philosophy is historically bound up with religious belief and to that extent suffering similarly from pre-conceived ideas about what must be right or wrong due to the meaning it attaches to mere words and language.

But the words and the language of philosophy and ancient religious-philosophising, are only something that mankind developed as an aid to communicating vocally with one-another. Those words and the language do not necessarily have any actual explanatory power when it comes to studying what really happens in this universe.

I'm sure that various philosophers in the past must have realised that. And in fact it would not surprise me if that realisation, which totally undermines the use of philosophy as any kind of rival to science, is actually the motivation for philosophers trying to claim that science does not measure "reality" ... ie they want to preserve their academic status by trying to claim that there are certain things which science cannot do, such as even to know that it's measuring "reality" ...

... perhaps that's why some more recent philosophers such as Wittgenstein apparently said “ The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language” … as Stephen Hawking remarked when giving that quote “what a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p193).

[Rufo]

It depends on what attributes we attach to the concept of God.

If God has attributes that can be subject to scientific inquiry, such as answering prayers in a consistent manner, suspending natural laws or allowing people to make interpretable, otherwise impossible predictions through prophetic visions, then science should be able to confirm the veracity of these phenomena and assume God's existence to draw further conclusions about the world. It hasn't, so it could be argued that science is inherently atheistic to such a God; it operates as if such an entity does not exist until it discovers evidence to the contrary.

If, on the other hand, God is construed as fundamentally undetectable by science, by working in mysterious ways, being intentionally elusive or being impossible to understand coming from a scientific mindset, then science is inherently agnostic to such a God and nothing more. It has nothing to say about that God except that it can't tell you anything about it.

Of course, there are plenty of scientifically minded people who are atheists concerning the latter God as well, since they hold science in high regard as their method for pursuing knowledge. But one should not confuse this personal philosophy with the scientific method or its results.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Rufo

It depends on what attributes we attach to the concept of God.

If God has attributes that can be subject to scientific inquiry, such as answering prayers in a consistent manner, suspending natural laws or allowing people to make interpretable, otherwise impossible predictions through prophetic visions, then science should be able to confirm the veracity of these phenomena and assume God's existence to draw further conclusions about the world. It hasn't, so it could be argued that science is inherently atheistic to such a God; it operates as if such an entity does not exist until it discovers evidence to the contrary.

If, on the other hand, God is construed as fundamentally undetectable by science, by working in mysterious ways, being intentionally elusive or being impossible to understand coming from a scientific mindset, then science is inherently agnostic to such a God and nothing more. It has nothing to say about that God except that it can't tell you anything about it.

I'm glad that you point out that such a God can indeed intervene in the world, and that science will not detect such intervention. That seems an obvious point to me, but it's not been generally accepted. (Believing that such a God exists is of course something else entirely).

Quote:

Of course, there are plenty of scientifically minded people who are atheists concerning the latter God as well, since they hold science in high regard as their method for pursuing knowledge. But one should not confuse this personal philosophy with the scientific method or its results.

Of course, the motives for scientists being atheists - or not being so - may vary widely.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

No, because I quite clearly stated that my initial objective 'don't die' is based on the simple objective fact that I do not want to die.

No, the fact that you do not want to die is a description of your objective, which isn't based on any facts -- it's just what you want.

There's no logic that makes you want that; there's no underlying rationale for wanting it. It's a premise of your reasoning system, not a conclusion. And it itself (the desire not to die) is not an objective fact; it's just what you want.

In order to make a decision, objective facts alone aren't enough -- you also need one or more of these "oughts", which aren't objective at all. They're motivations, not facts. They're not fact-based; they just are.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, the fact that you do not want to die is a description of your objective, which isn't based on any facts -- it's just what you want.

There's no logic that makes you want that; there's no underlying rationale for wanting it. It's a premise of your reasoning system, not a conclusion. And it itself (the desire not to die) is not an objective fact; it's just what you want.

In order to make a decision, objective facts alone aren't enough -- you also need one or more of these "oughts", which aren't objective at all. They're motivations, not facts. They're not fact-based; they just are.

It's a self-evidently true statement; if you have a problem admitting that's a fact then I'm not sure where to go from there.

Note I didn't say it was based on fact, or logic, or reasoning. I said it is a fact. There is no rationale that underlies it only biology. Would you argue that a seed growing into a flower is not a fact because it didn't reason its way to doing so?

Seeds grow, the sun rises, rocks are hard, water is wet, i don't want to die. Simple biological and physical facts.

It also is evident that some people change their view on the subject at times in their lives. In that sense it cannot be considered a premise but is clearly a conclusion. The biological machine is continually testing and changing the premises it bases decisions upon.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Would you argue that a seed growing into a flower is not a fact because it didn't reason its way to doing so?

I would say that a seed growing into a flower is an action, not a fact. We can also make the statement "the seed is growing into a flower", and that is a fact.

Again, you're failing to distinguish between the thing itself and a description of the thing. Your goal is not a scientific fact; it's a goal. A goal (or objective or desire) is different from a fact, although we can of course then make a statement about the goal that is a fact.

What you're failing to distinguish between are the following two things:

"Don't die." <-- goal, not fact

"I don't want to die." <-- fact about a goal

We can do this with any other goal:

"Maximize personal utility; minimize personal suffering" <-- goal

"Jane is a utilitarion who works to maximize her utility and minimize her suffering" <-- fact about a goal

Do you follow the distinction?