Reply #39: Equivocation of terms [View All]

[Selwynn]

Then, as I said to begin with, you are leaving the door wide open for the faith healers, the Christian Scientists, and all the other charlatans.

And again, that is not my problem. I am not a faith healer, nor a Christian Scientist, or a “charlatan” nor do I need to worry about “closing the door” on them by lying.

So you think it's foolish to believe that science is the only way to discover about the world? I say it's vastly more foolish to think that we can learn anything without using the scientific method.

There is an equivocation going on here. Sometimes I am taking you to say that science is identical to the scientific method. Other times, I am taking you to mean “the sciences” i.e. “hard” sciences when you say "science," and then treat them as superior to other things. So pick one defnition.

If you pick the scientific method being identical with the word “science” in all your previous arguments, I agree with you, because that’s the right definition. And, frankly I said as much in my previous post. In fact, I so clearly said this already, that I’m just going to re-paste it. I gave a dictionary definition of science that I agree with, and you agree with as well.

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."

I have no problem at all with this definition of “science.” What I have a problem with are people who assume physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists and so on have a monopoly on the tools needed to apprehend the nature of existence, but our individual existence within the framework of existence, and that framework itself. What they have are one critical set of tools, but not the totality of tools needed. That’s the point.


Is interpretation necessary to use the results of the scientific method? Undoubtedly. And I'm sorry for assuming incorrectly that you were attacking science itself.


I think there have been a lot of asumptions about where I'm coming from that probably aren't true at all.

Why? Because even pseudo-science and non-science attempt to use the method, albeit incorrectly.

What to you mean by “pseudo-science” and “non-science?” if your definition of science is the “scientific method.” This is an example of the accidental equivocation I was referring to. The sentance doesn't make since unless in this case you are constrasting pseduo-science discipines to "hard" science disciplines.


People pray, observe that it brings them peace, calm, or maybe even the results they sought. So they hypothesize that prayer will always work for them. Problem is, when you get to experimenting, unless you limit the desired effect of prayer to be something like nebulous like inner peace, your experiments will fail. And so the method gets bastardized - people will either discard results that disprove their hypothesis, or will claim that the "failed" results were actually a confirmation. (The old "God works in mysterious ways" copout.)

First of all, we don’t even remotely agree about what prayer is, what it should even be said to accomplish, nor how one would even go about “measuring” “results.” And I’m using a lot of quotes because I hate most of these terms. We should probably go through a massive process of defining terms first. But I don't really feel like doing that, do you? :)

People pray and they observe things...

Before I go any further, I should say that of course I know there are many people who do not observe things, or reflect critically at all. There are people who follow blind dogma, and you’re description above is a very apt description of such people. But it is narrow and naïve (And frankly contrary to a rigorous and “scientific” approach to the question) to hastily generalize that out to any and all people who pray or think about prayer.

So, some people ask questions about what prayer is and does. They pray and they observe things. They may at first make some causal connections that later prove suspect. This happens all the time to anyone who thinks critically. But they way, I am going to stop talking about “science” because you just admitted in your post that you aren’t referring to specific scientific disciplines, you are defining science as equivalent with a method – the method – of seeking understanding about things. We can just call this critical inquiry, or rational thinking, what that means is the very point you made in your post, that in reality, the “scientific method” is necessarily applied in every instance of conjecture and refutation, no matter what the subject.

So a spiritual man “prays.” And he questions in himself about what if anything prayer does. Then at first he observes some things and make some causal connections. Nothing wrong with that at all, until the conclusion giving based on that chain is refuted by a counter-example - an instance were prayer does not result in the anticipated effect.

Now here is the key – the only reason a critical inquiry would break down at this point, is if a person were deliberately dishonest about the results. However a person is perfectly capable of saying, I don’t believe prayer causes x kinds of things to happen, at least not invariably so, because I’ve have some direct evidence that seems to refute that claim. So there are two other possibilities now. First, that prayer does nothing. Second, that prayer does something else. Which is correct? Not enough evidence either way. Of course, proving a negative is pretty tough.

Whether he decides to go on thinking about what prayer does or not is his choice. But at no point has he been intellectually dishonest, nor unfaithful to a spirit of critical inquiry. The only objection you would have is that his subject matter is a complicated abstract, rather than a concrete actual. Well welcome to the real world where the things that we experience day and day out are not simple substances, but complex conflagrations of objects and externally perceived phenomena and internally intuited experience and impressions, and emotions, drives, and personalities, and social structures, and relational interdependencies and psycho-physiological impulses and connections that we don’t even fully understand. I have no problem demanding that the spirit if critical inquiry/the scientific method be applied when ask questions about any and all of these things. I have a major problem when someone comes along and says, “just ignore nine of those twelve things because only three are really legitimate for understanding the world.” There is nothing that feels more like a person trying to tell me the world is flat, or that the earth revolves around the sun than that. That may have been the best human wisdom at one time, but it’s wrong by any modern understanding.

So, you can ask questions about prayer, and honor a spirit of critical inquiry, and at no point is it a necessary given that you will be inexorably forced to betray it. You make an assumption that the next step people follow after asking the question of what “prayer” does and then making some preliminary hypothetical causal connections is assume that those causal connections are constant. That’s not a necessary truth. Maybe someone speculates that prayer can lead to certain ends, but does not necessarily lead to those ends in all cases. I’m not making any argument for my own view here; I’m simply providing a counter example to your claim.

We run into the same problem again when you say that, “unless you limit the desired effect of prayer to be something like nebulous like inner peace, your experiments will fail.” First, you inappropriately create a zero-sum game where either prayer inescapably connects casually the things someone wishes for, or it is “nebulously” defined as inner peace. Setting aside for a second that peace is hardly something to be tritely scoffed at, there are an infinite amount of counter-examples to these two options being the only ones. The significance of prayer for example, might be that is might have more in common with just a basic spirit of deep thought and personal self-examination, the benefits of which (should be obvious) might be something like clarity of thought about a certain situation, better understanding of oneself or what needs to be done in a certain situation, etc. I am once again not arguing that this is true, I am however providing a counter example to your either/or scenario.

So in the end you try to give this example about how “non-sciences” (which you can’t decide if you mean specific “hard” sciences contrasted with their opposite, of if you mean the scientific method) “inappropriately” use the scientific method – and in your example that certainly happens. But as I’ve just demonstrated in a counter example, your example is not necessarily true in all cases – it is merely possibly true in some cases.
In the end my objection to your example and argument here leads me to counter that you can in fact correctly use the scientific method, i.e. demonstrate a spirit of critical inquiry and intellectual honesty to practically an instance in life in which you seek to answer any kind of question. The question “what does prayer do, if anything” can be approached just as honestly, fairly and “scientifically” – at least insofar as it is done critically, rationally and honestly – as anything else.

However, after critiquing that I want to return to what I consider to be the primary point:

So you think it's foolish to believe that science is the only way to discover about the world? I say it's vastly more foolish to think that we can learn anything without using the scientific method.

Believe it or not, we may be getting to a place where we can rest. I agree with you that it is foolish to think that we can learn anything about anything with out tools of rational, critical inquiry. I’ve been using the term rational critical inquiry instead of scientific method because I do believe implicit in the definition of scientific inquiry is the stipulation that it has to do with tangible external objective “things.” It might not be appropriate to say that the scientific method is applied to a philosophical question of ontology, for example, but it would absolutely be appropriate to say that tools of rational thought, conjecture and refutation, the attempt to verify hypothetical claims via credible evidence

So to rephrase what I said was foolish – I think its foolish to assume that the specific hard sciences exhaust all there is to say about the totality of existence – I think it is foolish to assume that philosophy, art and possibly other tools to not contribute in important ways to the conversation. I do not disagree however, that a spirit of rationality, critical inquiry, conjecture and refutation, recognition of biases and all the tools of the scientific method that can possibly be applied in any situation of human question most definitely should be applied. Perhaps we can agree if I’ve rephrased myself thusly.

Now re-read my main point with this rephrasing and clarification in mind:

My argument is: I think it is the hallmark of foolishness to argue that (hard sciences) and (hard sciences) alone is the only true and appropriate tool for telling everything that needs to be told about the world in which we exist, and disparage philosophy or the arts as trivial and really unable to shed any relevant insight into the reality of "being" (ontologically speaking) within the framework of Being, i.e. existing in existence - a subject which is every bit as much related to understanding the universe as anything else - and probably much more personally so.

My further argument, or I should say a stipulation to my argument is: I also, very strongly believe it is utter foolishness to argue that philosophy or the arts alone are the only true or important tools for saying everything that needs to be said about the world, and thus disparage, criticize or mock (hard sciences) as trivial or misguided.

Perhaps now we can rest?

Oh except to say this:


I think the point I'm trying to make is that while your experience of a flower (to borrow your example) is powerful and meaningful, it does not carry that particular meaning to anyone but yourself. It therefore cannot have any real effect on anyone but yourself. You might be able to describe it in a poem, or a song, and someone might get an appreciation for your feeling, but they will never actually feel it. It's a product of your mind only, a construct, which may have plenty of meaning within your mind, but - as cruel and heartless as it sounds to say it - it has no existence otherwise. It's not "real".

A discussion of what “real” is an unsolved philosophical question that could be debated tediously for days, weeks, months and years. The assumptions you are making about what must be for something to be said to be “real” are at the very least, open to debate. But it really doesn’t matter. Because in the end, I don’t care whether you label it “real” or “unreal.” I am interested in my experience of the world in which I live. Even my “non-real” experience of a flower is worth my thought, and is worth seeking to understand anything interesting about the experience and how it affects me. I really could care less whether it is a product of my mind only and not an objective experience universally applicable externally to anyone else.