After studying his environment man has begun to study himself. Up to that point, he had assumed his own reason and through it seen all other things. Now, his own reason has become the object: it is as if we took out our eyes to look at them. Thus studied, his own reason appears to him as the epiphenomenona which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. His own logic, hitherto the king whom events in all possible worlds must obey, becomes merely subjective. There is no reason for supposing that it yields truth. As long as this dethronement refers only to the theoretical reason, it cannot be wholehearted. The scientist has to assume the validity of his own logic (in the stout old fashion of Plato or Spinoza) even in order to prove that it is merely subjective, and therefore he can only flirt with subjectivism. It is true that this flirtation sometimes goes pretty far. There are modern scientists, I am told, who have dropped the words truth and reality out of their vocabulary and who hold that the end of their work is not to know what is there but simply to get practical results. This is, no doubt, a bad symptom. But, in the main, subjectivism is such an uncomfortable yokefellow for research that the danger, in this quarter, is continually counteracted.
22 comments:
"His own logic, hitherto the king whom events in all possible worlds must obey, becomes merely subjective. There is no reason for supposing that it yields truth."
None whatsoever?
It must be true that I exist in some form.
My experiences must be true, that is, not the subject of my experiences but the experiences themselves.
"The scientist has to assume the validity of his own logic"
Not "assume".
I do not "assume". That is why my materialism is entirely free of self defeating self contradictions. My materialism is entirely coherent.
I provisionally postulate, not "assume".
"in order to prove"
Science does not do proof.
"This is, no doubt, a bad symptom."
Why? Why is it a bad symptom to cease claiming to prove truth when one has determined one is unable to coherently claim to be able to prove truth?
"But, in the main, subjectivism is such an uncomfortable yokefellow for research that the danger, in this quarter, is continually counteracted."
???
I am sure you were thinking many things while writing this, but most of them did not get from your brain to the document.
In any case, you seem to be somewhat worried or concerned or disappointed about the inability for science to prove truth.
Science does not need to prove truth, just declare some provisional postulates (axioms) and continue on. Sure, maybe this is all a dream, can't prove it isn't, but really, is that speculation going to keep anybody up at night wringing their hands about not being able to prove truth? Most of us just don't worry about it.
We provisionally postulate the basic reliability of the human senses, the axioms of logic, and then build the vast scientific edifice on that solid foundation, which is entirely coherent precisely because it is self consciously aware that it cannot coherently claim to prove truth.
Mathematics is essential to science, and it is full of proofs. What scientists have sometimes said is that truth isn't, and should not be the goal.
If we are ever to understand the dynamics of cognitive activity, therefore, we may
have to reconceive our basic unit of cognition as something other than the sentence
or proposition, and reconceive its virtue as something other than truth. . .. The
notion of truth, after all, is but the central element in a clutch of descriptive and
normative theories (folk psychology, folk epistemology, folk semantics, classical
logic), and we can expect conceptual progress here as anywhere else.12--Paul Churchland.'On the Ontological Status of Observables', ch. 8 of A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science (Cambridge: MIT/Bradford, 1989), pp. 150-1.'On the Ontological Status of Observables', ch. 8 of A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science (Cambridge:
MIT/Bradford, 1989), pp. 150-1.
Can we really dispense with the idea that contradictions can't be true,or do we have to presuupose it? How can this be the least bit provisional?
It must be true that I exist in some form.
Why? There is a set of particleds called Stardusty. Why assume that it is a single entity, based on scientific observation.
Well, consider this from Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine.
“each illusory self is a construct of the memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is someone inside who is in charge."
or Pinker from "Is Science Killing the Soul?"
"There's considerable evidence that the unified self is a fiction--that the mind is a congeries of parts acting asynchronously, and that it only an illusion that there is a president in the Oval Office of the brain who oversees the activity of everything."
This extract comes near the beginning of an essay of 1943 which can be read in full here.
"Mathematics is essential to science, and it is full of proofs"
Right, because math is tautological, based on axioms.
Science uses math, math does proofs, science does not do proofs.
"Why? (must I exist in some form)"
Else who or what is asking the question?
"Why assume that it is a single entity, based on scientific observation."
I don't. What I call "I" is a collection of processes that cannot be precisely defined. An inability to humanly define a process does not entail that it must not be occurring.
There must be some set of processes in the cosmos that identifies as "I", else who or what is making this assertion right now?
I have knowledge, then, of at least one incontrovertible truth, that there is an existence of some sort, as opposed to absolutely nothing at all.
I have knowledge, then, of at least one more incontrovertible truth, that in this something, this cosmos, whatever it is, there must be some set of processes that identify as "I".
"There's considerable evidence that the unified self is a fiction--that the mind is a congeries of parts acting asynchronously, and that it only an illusion that there is a president in the Oval Office of the brain who oversees the activity of everything." -Pinker
Right, not a single entity in charge. Not unified as in a single process with ultimate control.
But unified in the sense of a collection of processes. There must be some collection of processes that identify as "I" because I experience myself identifying as "I".
Taking my senses as basically reliable, then in that case "I" is the whole set of processes of my brain and the rest of my body.
But, just supposing this is all an illusion, so in that case I am god and you are all figments of my divine imagination, then I am the entirety of the cosmos, so even on that unbridled egomaniacal speculation there is still a collection of processes that identify as "I".
David,
Thanks for the link. As I expected, Lewis does not provide any argument of substance for god, objective morality, the soul, or any such assertion.
All he does is lament subjective morality, concluding:
"Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish."
Lewis provides no list of moral principles that are supposedly objectively good, or objectively evil.
Nor does Lewis provide any argument as to why any particular values can be shown to be objectively good or objectively evil.
His approach is to simply exhort the reader to believe in some vague unspecified version of objective morality.
Lewis might have been an entertaining writer of fiction, but he provides no value in philosophical arguments for god, objective morality, or just about anything.
Lewis is merely a writer of vacuous screeds with no explanatory value in his pointless words.
I was entering a comment on my iPhone and copy/pasted some of SP's comment. Autocorrect took over:
"StardustyPsyche is merely a writer of vacuous screeds with no explanatory value in his pointless words"
It appears that Apple has collected terabytes of data on Stardusty over the years and their latest OS has an AI feature that fact checks in real time, similar to Community Notes on Twitter.
:-)
To defend Lewis a bit.
1. He gives an anthropological argument for a natural morality on p6 para 'And what of...' An atheist could accept this. When theists speak of the expression of the moral order as the 'word of God', atheists can see this as the collective moral wisdom of the human race accumulated over the millennia. Jordan Peterson comes close to saying something like this.
2. Lewis says the maxims of traditional morality must be accepted as axioms of practical reason which neither admit nor require argument to support them, (p4, para 'All idea of...'). I take him to mean that we cannot see why or how natural morality 'works'. It is beyond our cognitive capacity. A bit like grasping all the evolutionary twists and turns that led to today's species. So choosing how to live becomes a leap of faith. That is our situation.
The point of using this passage from the Poison of Subjectivism is to notice that many people, such ss bertrand Russell, and I might add, Stardusty, are subjectivists about moral values, but believe that thered are objectively correct methods of discovering the truth. This asymmetry bhas been noted by such secular thinkerrs as William Lycan. Why the aswymmetry? Norms don't fit into the causal history of the world given materialism.
It’s interesting that this parallel [between ethics and epistemology] goes generally unremarked. Moral subjectivism, relativism, emotivism, etc. are rife among both philosophers and ordinary people, yet very few of these same people would think even for a moment of denying the objectivity of epistemic value; that is, of attacking the reality of the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable belief. I wonder why that is? (Lycan 1985, p. 137)
"It appears that Apple has collected terabytes of data on Stardusty over the years and their latest OS has an AI feature that fact checks in real time"
A great boon to humanity indeed, perhaps AI will not be the death of us or even merely benign, but actually a savior of sorts...
bertrand Russell, and I might add, Stardusty, are subjectivists about moral values, but believe that thered are objectively correct methods of discovering the truth.
That aspect seems to always get ignored by these people. When it's pointed out to them they seem to shrug their shoulders and carry on without having the slightest realization that they just sawed off the philosophical branch that they were sitting on.
Just redefine every word to where you're right and you can't be wrong.
It's an asymmetry not a contradiction. Russell was rather good at spotting contradictions. But is this asymmetry so surprising? Suppose moral facts have the form, if, in general, in situation X people do Y, then, in general, things go better. This is not an immediate empirically evident fact. Nor is it likely to be the conclusion of some experiment. It's rather vague. It's open to exceptions. It's not clear how it rationally generates an 'ought'. Given that our decision-making is powerfully affected by the moral emotions, it's understandable that people are drawn to subjectivism, etc.
Victor,
"Stardusty, are subjectivists about moral values, but believe that thered are objectively correct methods of discovering the truth."
Strawman, I never said that.
When you presume to be an expert on what other people believe you are very likely to be wrong, as you are in this case.
"Norms don't fit into the causal history of the world given materialism."
Materialism coherently accounts for norms. But you are inclined to use strawman projections of what you assert I believe, so I doubt you understand that fact.
"I wonder why that is?"
It isn't. You are making up a strawman, painting materialists as some sort of unselfaware clods. As though materialists somehow have not structured views on epistemology carefully and coherently. You are just lacking in understanding of materialism, its epistemological framework, and its account for morality and much else.
Care to receive an education? You are manifestly in great need of one if it is true you actually want to learn how to think coherently about existence and our place in it.
You speak as though you received your education by reading Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare by Dennis Bonnette. Or did you imagine your strawmen all on your own?
My materialism is entirely self consistent. You cannot possibly caricaturize it correctly as containing self-contradictions because it does not.
Perhaps you react that such a claim is rather bombastic, or far fetched, or that you have somehow already identified self contradictions in naturalism.
I always liked RC Sproul, as he discusses the basic reliability of the senses at the end of this vid, and elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhbZ27kj66g
What Sproul calls "assumes" I more accurately call "provisionally postulates".
That is at the core of why my materialism is free of self contradiction.
I don't assume. I provisionally postulate.
It really cracks me up every time some theist acts like he has provided some great revelation of self contradiction to the poor little blindly bumbling about naturalist. Really? You really think I never thought of that?
How many times some apologist will proclaim "you are using your senses to verify your senses so you are being circular!" Really? You actually think you have shed some great revelatory light on my cloddish foolishness? I mean, Victor, really?
Just save you any future bother, I already considered that, OK?
My materialism is free of circularity precisely because I am already aware of the uncertainty of the extramental reality.
There you have it. Circularity dissolved. Pretty simple. I am not making a claim of certainty of the extramental reality. The basic reliability of the humans senses is not an assumption I make, it is a provisional postulate.
On that postulate it sure seems like if I kick a rock it will hurt my toe. But who knows, maybe I am god an you are just a figment of my divine imagination, as is the rock. No assumptions therefor no circularity. Pretty simple.
Did you really need me to explain that to you?
Apparently, yes. You have written again and again with your gotchya arguments as though you have uncovered another example of self contradiction in naturalism. In fact, you have identified zero contradictions in naturalism, or at least in my naturalism, I have no need to defend anybody else's.
Comment deleted. Kevin is correct.
You can't hold a reasonable dialogue with someone who makes up definitions or uses words in highly unorthodox manners and then insists it is everyone else who got it wrong.
You can't hold a reasonable dialogue with someone who constantly says their beliefs have no flaws, none whatsoever, and that they are so smart the possibility is zero that a flaw or contradiction exists and they simply missed it.
And you can't hold a reasonable dialogue with someone who is intentionally insulting and petty.
When all three are exhibited by the same individual, the only rational response is completely ignoring their tragically arrogant lack of self-awareness until they go away.
New Atheism proves itself the antidote to rationality and maturity once again.
Well I stand corrected. Apologies all around.
I do find it extrenely annoying that we get mere assertions tha, of course, materialism has no problems. But let me ask thia. Does materialism impose any constraints? what are they?
"materialism has no problems."
You are annoyed at a strawman, at least in my regard.
I certainly never said materialism has no problems.
I said my materialism is free of self contradictions. Does that annoy you?
"Does materialism impose any constraints?"
Depends on the context of "impose". I am not sure what sense you mean that in.
Materialism is limited by human limitations. No system of human thought can extend beyond the capabilities of human beings. Human beings cannot observe beyond the limits of our technologically aided senses. We cannot hold active in our brains an unlimited number of thought processes of unlimited scope and complexity.
We are limited by our observational and cognitive capacities. It may turn out that there are fundamental limits to observation that cannot be overcome even in principle, owning to limits in observing the very small, or very large, or events prior to the big bang.
Is that what you mean?
Mathematics is famously incomplete, and necessarily so. Pretty obviously, our present state of physics and chemistry and biology and the other sciences are all highly incomplete and inaccurate.
But materialism per se, can be and in my case as a matter of fact most certainly is free of self-contradiction. That is no accident, rather, by design.
You cannot name any self contradictions in my materialism, you never have. That is also by design. I have read a great many arguments asserting supposed self contradictions and I have formulated my claims to be free of such self contradictions.
The supposed epistemological nightmares of naturalism as described by, for example, Dennis Bonnette, are strawman misunderstandings of naturalism, as are your repeated strawmen.
To avoid being so annoyed all I can suggest is that you cease with your strawman assertions, learn what naturalism or materialism actually claim, and educate yourself on the complete coherence of naturalism or materialism when it is carefully formulated to be free of self contradictions.
OK, here's a quote by materialist Andrew Melnyk. \
“Naturalism claims that nothing has a fundamentally purposeful explanation…Naturalism says that whenever an occurrence has a purposeful explanation, it has that explanation in virtue of certain nonpurposeful (e.g. merely causal) facts.”
Do you concur with this statement, or not? Do you think a materialist can, or should, reject this?
=
Post a Comment