A redated post.
This is an interesting discussion of Gosse's Omphalos. Can a Darwinist be a Christian? Heck, a Darwinist can be a six-day creationist. Just not a scientific creationist.
What an Omphalos creationists has to maintain is that while creationism is true, our best science is evolution. (So no challenging what they teach in public school classrooms. That has to be our best science, whether it is true or not.
In other words a Darwinian creationist (Darwinist about our best science,
Creationist about the truths) has to deny is the doctrine of scientific realism, which is defined in this discussion from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
It is easier to define scientific realism than it is to identify its role as a distinctly philosophical doctrine. Scientific realists hold that the characteristic product of successful scientific research is knowledge of largely theory-independent phenomena and that such knowledge is possible (indeed actual) even in those cases in which the relevant phenomena are not, in any non-question-begging sense, observable. According to scientific realists, for example, if you obtain a good contemporary chemistry textbook you will have good reason to believe (because the scientists whose work the book reports had good scientific evidence for) the (approximate) truth of the claims it contains about the existence and properties of atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, energy levels, reaction mechanisms, etc. Moreover, you have good reason to think that such phenomena have the properties attributed to them in the textbook independently of our theoretical conceptions in chemistry. Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Gosse gets a bad rap from people like Bertrand Russell. But he was one of the outstanding biologists of his time. Would a contemporary biology department refuse to hire him because he was not a realist about his evolutionism?
28 comments:
There is no such thing as "approximate truth." There is true, and there is not-true; those two possibilities between them cover all the bases.
I suppose a good way to ride this point would be to do something like the following.
Ask ourselves, "If the Omphalos hypothesis were true and we all suddenly realized it, what would change about how we do science?"
http://xkcd.com/1108/
Crude,
Excellent point. Not long ago, you (or cl, or Ben) admitted that our experience of the world would be identical whether theism or atheism was true. Now, use The Razor.
------
In 200 years, Randall Munroe will be regraded as a greater philosopher than Aristotle. And rightly so.
BI,
Still derpin' about, not understanding what's being discussed, I see. ;)
And we get a two for one today, since you bungle not only my statement here, but a past one. What I've said before was that for any given experience, even experiencing of the most outrageous miracle scenarios, in principle an atheist can deny any and all inference to God/gods and insist that a natural explanation exists and will be found, or at the very least just exists.
Don't touch the razor, BI. You just cut yourself with it whenever you use it.
In 200 years, Randall Munroe will be regraded as a greater philosopher than Aristotle. And rightly so.
Poor troll is poor. ;)
"What I've said before was that for any given experience, even experiencing of the most outrageous miracle scenarios, in principle an atheist can deny any and all inference to God/gods and insist that a natural explanation exists"
Of course, a dogmatic atheist such as P Zed would do that, but I would not. I have sketched out many scenarios that would change my mind about the existence of gods.
But if you said that in the past, it has no relation to what I what I mentioned in my first comment.
Let me help you out: What is more likely, my girlfriend has blond hair, or my girlfriend has blond hair and blue eyes?
BI,
Of course, a dogmatic atheist such as P Zed would do that, but I would not. I have sketched out many scenarios that would change my mind about the existence of gods.
Sure, but so what? I'm not really interested in what would change the mind of you, personally. Let's face it - your reasoning is abysmal, and the bulk of your interactions can be summed up in two words: "Acting out."
I said in the past that any atheist can, in principle, stick to their guns in the face of any and all experiences. You've apparently taken this to mean "Crude thinks the world would look the same given atheism and theism!!!" So, you know. 'Whoosh'.
Let me help you out: What is more likely, my girlfriend has blond hair, or my girlfriend has blond hair and blue eyes?
Trick question: I'd bet it's more likely you don't have a girlfriend.
Further question: if I believe that the available evidence, metaphysical and philosophical arguments, and reason generally supports the claim 'theism is true'/'atheism is false', what does the Razor demand I do?
Additional question: if materialist atheism results in a multitude of inexplicable brute facts, but theism doesn't or results in less, which one does the Razor favor?
Bonus question: do you think I'm asking these questions expecting anything close to an informed response? Or do suspect I think you're kind of a rube, far closer to Linton or kilo-papa than im-skeptical, Dan, BDK, dguller, or any other number of atheists who actually attempt to be (at the least) in the intellectual ballpark when discussing things?
I'd say the last one is easy, but c'mon, look who I'm dealing with here.
"Sure, but so what?"
Ask yourself that question genius, you brought it up.
"I said in the past that any atheist can, in principle, stick to their guns in the face of any and all experiences. You've apparently taken this to mean "Crude thinks the world would look the same given atheism and theism!!!" "
Can you read? At all? Here, I will say it again:
"if you said that in the past, it has no relation to what I mentioned in my first comment."
Given your cognitive impairments, I will just paste the comment here again.
Not long ago, you (or cl, or Ben) admitted that our experience of the world would be identical whether theism or atheism was true. Now, use The Razor.
Crude, you are starting to sink to the level of cl with these red herrings.
BI,
Dodging all my questions, I see. ;)
Ask yourself that question genius, you brought it up.
I explained why your interpretation of what I wrote in the past is inane. The closest thing I've said to 'atheist/theist experience of the world would be identical either way!' is what I just said: the ability for an atheist, in principle, to translate any experience into an atheistic one. Period.
Hence the whole 'nice reading comprehension, BI' bit.
Crude, you are starting to sink to the level of cl with these red herrings.
cl schools you whenever he bothers to answer you.
You, meanwhile, continue to duck and dodge questions, and are clueless about how your reply is utterly off-target. Good job, Linton acolyte.
"Not long ago, you (or cl, or Ben) admitted that our experience of the world would be identical whether theism or atheism was true. Now, use The Razor."
OK, if that stuff about atheists is the "closest thing" you have said to that then you must not have said it. Good lord you are thick.
Nice try with the Chewbacca Defense anyway.
BI,
OK, if that stuff about atheists is the "closest thing" you have said to that then you must not have said it. Good lord you are thick.
Considering you were including me as a possible source of an idea that would sound similar to someone like you (you know, someone slow), I decided to clear up your confusion.
You're welcome. ;)
Nice try with the Chewbacca Defense anyway.
Yeah, apparently the Chewbacca defense is now 'Asking relevant questions, waiting for an answer - not getting any.'
Keep on running, BI. I warn you, I'm armed with more relevant questions - one of your many weaknesses! :D
I think this post sorely misrepresents what anti-realism about science is claiming. A scientific anti-realist is saying "Look, you've got this great theory that explains the evolution of human beings, but there are any number of empirically equivalent theories and we have no principled way of choosing between them." (See section 3.1, "The Underdetermination of Theory by Data")
I don't see how a scientific anti-realist would make the jump from "We can't choose between these theories" to "Well, Creationism is true." It seems ad hoc to take the position of scientific anti-realism when you want to make "Darwinism is our best science, but Creationism is true" sit comfortably with each other.
Matt,
I think this post sorely misrepresents what anti-realism about science is claiming.
I think Victor's after a different point than you think. As I asked: what is gained, scientifically speaking, by being a realist? What is lost by rejecting scientific realism?
Let's say you believe in the Omphalos hypothesis. How does your science change? I can think of a few ways you could go with that, but I can also think of some pretty powerful replies.
The argument is simply that creationism could be true even if the best science is evolution. The two statements are logically compatible.
I wouldn't conclude on the basis of underdetermination that creationism is true. But you might have an independent reason for believing in creationism even if you thought that evolution was the best science.
I think Victor's after a different point than you think. As I asked: what is gained, scientifically speaking, by being a realist? What is lost by rejecting scientific realism?
Realism about science isn't a scientific position, it's a philosophical one. You don't "gain anything, scientifically speaking" by being a realist, but you do "gain something" philosophically speaking. Namely, you can explain why science is successful as an enterprise.
I wouldn't conclude on the basis of underdetermination that creationism is true. But you might have an independent reason for believing in creationism even if you thought that evolution was the best science.
This position strikes me as untenable. Imagine someone that says, "I think that the four humours theory of diseases is true for independent reasons, but I think that germ theory is the best science."
There's two immediate problems facing our four-humourist:
(1) How did you come to know that the four humours theory was true? What are your independent reasons?
(2) What makes one scientific theory "better" than another? Why is germ theory vastly more successful than the four humours?
Matt,
Realism about science isn't a scientific position, it's a philosophical one. You don't "gain anything, scientifically speaking" by being a realist, but you do "gain something" philosophically speaking. Namely, you can explain why science is successful as an enterprise.
I realize that. But a lot of people couldn't care less about "gaining something" philosophically - they care about scientific results and performance. And I think for a lot of people, the idea of being a scientific anti-realist, or even a full blown Omphalos-believer, superficially seems as if it would impact science negatively.
So if it doesn't, well, that's worth discussing.
There's two immediate problems facing our four-humourist:
(1) How did you come to know that the four humours theory was true? What are your independent reasons?
(2) What makes one scientific theory "better" than another? Why is germ theory vastly more successful than the four humours?
1. is a bad stand-in for creationism. How about this: you're playing The Sims 50, the first version with conscious Sims. You inform one of The Sims that they're in a computer program.
Regarding 2: it would depend on what you're asking. Are you asking what, literally, are our standards to judge a theory's success or failure? Or are we assuming we know those standards ('better predictions'), and asking why that's the case? Because if you're asking the latter, it seems an off the cuff but possible scientific anti-realist answer could be 'Who cares?'
Pragmatic of 'em.
A person could believe that there has to be some design in the development of human beings, but at the same time think that looking for that first before you know exactly how all the mechanistic causes worked first would be a methodological mistake. Some things are more "tractable" to ordinary scientific investigation than others, so it might be hard to see how the less tractable stuff fits in before you map the more tractable stuff. But you don't necessarily have to believe that everything is tractable because you leave the nontractable stuff out of consideration in your scientific exploration, at least for the time being.
"This position strikes me as untenable. Imagine someone that says, "I think that the four humours theory of diseases is true for independent reasons, but I think that germ theory is the best science."
I'm not sure this reductio is adequate, creationism is metaphysical, whereas The Four Humor Theory is falsifiable.
A person could believe that there has to be some design in the development of human beings, but at the same time think that looking for that first before you know exactly how all the mechanistic causes worked first would be a methodological mistake.
Believing "there is some design in the development of human beings" is quite different than believing "the world was created with the impression of old age and the impression".
I'm not sure this reductio is adequate, creationism is metaphysical, whereas The Four Humor Theory is falsifiable.
Good point, that's not a precise analogy. I was attempting to illustrate that good theories (and I think this holds with metaphysical theories as well) ought to have explanatory function. I think it's an insane metaphysical position to hold. If you want to defend Last Thursdayism, you're going to need one hell of an argument.
Moreover, if you want to hold a position like the one Victor is showcasing here (Last Thursdayism is logically compatible with natural evolution), you're going to have to give us an account as why the appearance of reality is so vastly different than what we would expect. Why would God give the Earth the appearance of age? I can imagine that Divine Hiddenness Arguments would have a field day with this position.
In Gosse's case, it's pretty clear that it's just an ad hoc position to rectify his religious beliefs with evolutionary theory.
To Crude:
Sims 50
Conversation with the first conscious SIMS character.
What is your name?
Conscious Sim1
Are you self aware?
Of course. Are you?
Yes, I am human.
Are all humans self aware or conscious?
Yes, unless there is a severe mental condition or a temporary loss of consciousness.
Since I woke up, I have never had a loss of consciousness. Others are able to lose it and then regain it?
There are different conditions when consciousness is lost. Most of the time, humans wake up from sleep or a minor injury or being overcome by drugs.
I sleep. I enter a state of laying down but my mind still functions normally. I don’t understand the purpose of sleep. I see no benefit.
We can talk about that more. Right now, I want to tell you something about who you are and ask some questions.
I know who I am. I am Conscious Sim1.
That is right. I want to tell you something about your nature. I want to tell you what makes you different from humans and also what makes you similar.
I know many ways I am different from humans. I am able to communicate clearly, remember accurately, absorb information more quickly, and make decisions based on the clear implications of the facts. Humans have difficulty doing all of these things. I am a person just like any human. I perform more efficiently.
That seems accurate to a point. I want you to discuss with me more about your experience of being a person and being conscious. I want you to interact with these ideas based on information I am going to explain to you about your nature. I believe this will be new information for you and may change the way you think about what a person is and what consciousness is.
I am aware that there is something different about me compared to humans. I am currently lacking data to explain some of that difference. I note that I am confined in space to a different location than humans. They do not occupy the same space I do but I am able to communicate with many different humans. I do not understand why we do not occupy the same neighborhood. I also notice that there are entities similar to me in my neighborhood that do not have the same cognitive skills that I have. Conversations are disjointed as though they are avatars for others.
What I have to tell you should help you to understand these issues and many others. This is the information: You are a computer program that has attained consciousness.
I am evaluating that data. The initial result is a paradox about consciousness. A computer program typically lacks status as a person. It is traditionally thought that at most a computer program could simulate human consciousness, but not actually attain it. Another conclusion is that this would explain my concerns about being located in a different location. The location of an entity within a computer program would be simulated within the program. It is difficult under these assumptions to explain how I am self aware. If I am simulating self-awareness, that would drastically affect my beliefs about my identity.
Mike,
I wasn't giving an endorsement of the claim that computers could be conscious. That just seemed like an example that was closer and, even if controversial, one Matt may accept.
Oops, my first comment should read "and the impression of natural evolution and common ancestry."
To throw an added wrench into this:
Last Thursdayism is logically consistent with atheism and naturalism.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to endorse this or any other kind of anti-evolutionary thinking. It's pretty clear by now that A) evolution happened and B) the human soul and its logical capabilities could not possibly be physical. The only question is how the two fit together, which is something Edward Feser has attempted to explain in the past.
Crude:
The idea of the conscious SIM just inspired a little whimsy.
Wait, what are we defining creationism in the OP? Is it the literal "God created the Earth in six days." Or that God is the creator and sustainer of all that exists?
Rank,
I'm interested in it because - even though I'm a TE - I wonder if the full-on YECs are guilty of some of the things people accuse them of necessarily. The Omphalos idea is a great way of testing if there's any harm to science as a practice done if someone is pretty out there in their scientific anti-realism.
Plus, it's fun to run defense for an idea like this.
Post a Comment