Atheism fails on its own terms? II

 

On scientism and epistemology

 

Science as servant vs. science as master.

 Science for Insight or Science for Power?

Peter Biles

“Should machines replace mathematicians?” That’s the headline of a new post by science writer John Horgan, who comments on the current state of mathematics and the growing potential of AI and computers to do all the “heavy lifting” in the mathematical enterprise. Horgan notes that mathematicians were the ones to develop computers in the first place, but now, with the advent of advanced computing and artificial intelligence, the role of human-driven mathematics is getting to be less certain. However, maybe math is not only about input and output but a “way of being human.” For Horgan, data and computation don’t get to the heart of scientific and mathematical endeavors. It needs to mean something more than an impersonal process geared towards calculable ends. 

Science’s Core Purpose

Horgan not only talks about math in his article. He also relates the discussion to the core purpose of science. Science, in one definition, means gaining insights into nature. However, in today’s utilitarian society, science is less about contemplating the beauty of nature and more about securing power over nature for the sake of our ease, convenience, and control. He writes, 

We value science for its applications, too. Sentimental science writing, including mine, implies that science’s purpose is insight into nature. In the modern era, however, science’s primary goal is power. Science helps us manipulate nature for various ends: to extend our lives, to enrich and entertain us, to boost the economy, to defeat our enemies. Modern physics, to most of us, is unintelligible, but who cares when physics gives us smartphones and hydrogen bombs?

JOHN HORGAN, SHOULD MACHINES REPLACE MATHEMATICIANS? — JOHN HORGAN (THE SCIENCE WRITER)

Science and Magic

The comment reminds me of a famous observation by C. S. Lewis, who wrote in The Abolition of Man:

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men.

It sounds strange to equate “applied science” (i.e., technology) with magic, but doing so reveals the potential of using scientific knowledge merely as a means to power instead of as a source of “insight,” as Horgan writes.

On the metaphysics of science?

 Can Science Escape Faith-Based Beliefs? Maybe It Needs Them!

Denyse O Leary

Physicist and astronomer Marcelo Glieser offered some thoughts recently on faith and science, noting that the scientific revolution has hardly changed the picture of faith much: “the great scientific advances of the past four centuries have not radically diminished the number of believers” in transcendent realities

If science is to help us, in the words of the late Carl Sagan, by providing a “candle in the dark,” it will have to be seen in a new light. The first step in this direction is to admit that science has fundamental limitations as a way of knowing, and that it is not the only method of approaching the unattainable truth about reality. Science should be seen as the practice of fallible humans, not demigods. We should confess our confusion and acknowledge our sense of being lost as we confront a Universe that seems to grow more mysterious the more we study it. We should be humble in our claims, knowing how often we must correct them. We should, of course, share the joy of discovery, the achievements of human inventiveness, and the importance of doubt. 

MARCELO GLEISER, “FAITH-BASED BELIEFS ARE INESCAPABLE IN SCIENCE,” BIG THINK, JUNE 28, 2023

As he implies, there’s no reason why it should. Science, for better or worse, is a faith-based enterprise. Along with many easier quests, scientists continue to pursue outliers like the origin of life, whether there is life in remote star systems, and the nature of consciousness. Many such topics border on metaphysics and may well involve imponderables. But then finding the right answer might not be as important in some cases as developing the right questions.

Why must scientists have faith that we can make progress in understanding our world? Political analyst M. Anthony Mills proposes at least three general ideas about what science does. What we expect science to do for us largely depends on which one of them we adhere to.

First Model

The first is what we might call the accumulationist model of scientific progress. According to this model, science progresses through the steady accumulation of data, facts, or information. The guiding metaphor here is the container: scientists go out and find bits of knowledge and add them to the container. Scientific progress is therefore a cumulative process, linear and gradual.

M. ANTHONY MILLS, “WHAT DOES ‘SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS’ MEAN, ANYWAY?” THE NEW ATLANTIS, SPRING 2023 

This model is popular but it can lead us astray. “Science will find the answer!” is only meaningful if the question is framed in a way that science can address. Science can’t tell us whether we are our brother’s keeper, whether it profits us to gain the whole world if we lose our souls, or whether some unfortunate person’s life is worth living. Unfortunately, science is sometimes misused to add apparent weight to a given answer, when the question is really one of ultimate spiritual values, not of science.

Second Model

Another model is what Mills calls “Kuhnian,” after the famous philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996), who introduced the concept of paradigm shifts in science:

According to this account, progress is not linear and gradual; it is punctuated by moments of profound conceptual change and innovation. There are periods of relative calm — what Kuhn termed “normal” science — during which progress looks a lot like it does to the accumulationist. But these periods are interrupted by crises, when prevailing theories break down. Rivals emerge, challenge the consensus, ultimately overthrow a prevailing paradigm, and take its place, as when relativistic and quantum physics dethroned classical physics. These are the scientific revolutions that Kuhn called “paradigm shifts.”  

M. ANTHONY MILLS, “WHAT DOES “SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS” MEAN, ANYWAY?” THE NEW ATLANTIS, SPRING 2023

When we are contemplating a vast historical sweep, Kuhn’s theories are indeed helpful. But on the ground, we usually can’t know for sure whether we are living in a massive paradigm shift. Theories rise and fall all the time. Which of the changes matter? For example, findings from the James Webb Space Telescope upended a variety of assumptions but how much they will change the basic paradigm remains to be seen.

Third Model

He calls the third model Baconian, after the early modern philosopher of science Francis Bacon (1561–1626):

According to the third model, however, science progresses not by extending existing scientific paradigms, nor by resolving problems or crises internal to science. Instead, science progresses by grappling with problems posed to it from outside by social, political, and economic needs. We recognize scientific progress not by advances or innovations in our theoretical knowledge but by whether and to what extent our theories help us solve practical problems. Does science generate technological breakthroughs, contribute to economic growth, or help us solve pressing social and political problems?  

M. ANTHONY MILLS, “WHAT DOES “SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS” MEAN, ANYWAY?” THE NEW ATLANTIS, SPRING 2023

Of course, if we rely entirely on the third model, we might reject science that isn’t telling us what we want to hear, even if what it is telling us is true and important.

Generally, as Mills acknowledges, we must try all three models to see how much each can contribute to our understanding. But each model requires an initial input of faith: Faith that a big picture will emerge from small contributions (Model 1), faith that we will recognize when theories must change (Model 2), and faith in a bigger picture of the universe that we don’t allow our current issues to completely obscure (Model 3).

No matter how scientists navigate between models, Gleiser thinks that, for creativity in science, faith is indispensable:

A scientist therefore must base their approach on an imponderable process that some call a hunch or an intuition. This is an intellectually guided expression of faith in how the scientist imagines the world to be. There is no way to venture into the unknown without this guiding light, and that light comes from a source that is not completely known. This is where science meets faith.

MARCELO GLEISER, “FAITH-BASED BELIEFS ARE INESCAPABLE IN SCIENCE,” BIG THINK, JUNE 28, 2023 

It’s hard to imagine creativity in science working any other way.

From following the science to leading the science?

 Is There a Boom in Research Dishonesty?

Denyse O Leary

What to make of this news stream?

Distinguished Professor Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School was recently accused by other academics of falsifying data in a number of studies, including one on dishonesty, where she was a co-author:

Professors Joseph Simmons, Uri Simonsohn and Leif Nelson of University of Pennsylvania, Escade Business School in Spain, and University of California, Berkeley, respectively, accused Gino of the fraud on their blog Data Colada.

“Specifically, we wrote a report about four studies for which we accumulated the strongest evidence of fraud,” they wrote, stating they shared their concerns with Harvard Business School. 

THERESE JOFFRE, “HARVARD ETHICS PROFESSOR ALLEGEDLY FABRICATED MULTIPLE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE STUDIES” AT THE COLLEGE FIX, JUNE 28, 2023

Breaking Rules

Gino, currently on administrative leave, is also the author of Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life (2018). From the blurb: “Award-winning Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino shows us why the most successful among us break the rules, and how rebellion brings joy and meaning into our lives.” Here are the details at Data Colada.

Another of the authors of the dishonesty paper, the well-known Dan Ariely of Duke University, author of The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone — Especially Ourselves (Harper 2012), has also been accused by the other authors of Providing fraudulent data:

Behavioral scientists Leif Nelson and Joseph Simmons, who exposed the apparent fraud via their blog Data Colada together with their colleague Uri Simonsohn, say a thorough, transparent investigation is needed. But given other universities’ past reluctance to investigate their own researchers, they are skeptical that Duke will conduct one. That may leave Ariely’s supporters insisting he is innocent and detractors assuming he is guilty, Nelson says. “No one knows. And that’s terrible.” 

CATHLEEN O’GRADY, “FRAUDULENT DATA RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPERSTAR HONESTY RESEARCHER” AT SCIENCE (AUGUST 24, 2021)

Come to think of it, a similar situation arose over a decade ago. Harvard’s Marc Hauser, a principal investigator at the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, was famous and popular for his research claims that “the foundations of language and morality are hardwired into the brains of humans and our kin.” But he found himself in hot water in 2010 because “lab workers observed huge discrepancies between his descriptions of monkey behavior and the experimental results captured on Video.”

On Aug. 10, the Boston Globe reported the psychology professor was taking a one-year leave of absence after a three-year internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct in his lab. Days later, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith confirmed that a committee found Hauser “solely responsible” for eight instances of misconduct — three of which were published studies that needed to be retracted or corrected to remove unsupported findings. 

ERIC P. NEWCOMER AND ELYSSA A. L. SPITZER, “MARC HAUSER’S FALL FROM GRACE” AT THE HARVARD CRIMSON (SEPTEMBER 4, 2010)

Hauser resigned from Harvard in 2011 in the wake.

Dumped by Viking

As it happens, he was working on a book as the story broke: Evilicious. Apparently the book was originally to be published by Viking, with the subtitle Why We Evolved a Taste for Being Bad, but Viking dumped it, post-scandal, in 2012. Hauser later self-published it as Evilicious: Cruelty = Desire + Denial (CreateSpace, 2013). It was endorsed by (among others) some oft-quoted science celebs:

Dumbfounded Harvardites

Many Harvardites found the accusations against Hauser hard to believe:

As Hauser faces federal inquiry, many of his former co-authors, graduate students, and undergraduate advisees struggle to comprehend how the man they knew as a prolific researcher, skilled communicator, and heavyweight in the field of cognitive psychology became enmeshed in scandal. 

ERIC P. NEWCOMER AND ELYSSA A. L. SPITZER, “MARC HAUSER’S FALL FROM GRACE” AT THE HARVARD CRIMSON (SEPTEMBER 4, 2010)

But perhaps Ariely and at least some of his colleagues would take a more ambivalent view than theirs, if we are to judge by the abstract of a recent paper:

People like to think of themselves as honest. However, dishonesty pays — and it often pays well. How do people resolve this tension? This research shows that people behave dishonestly enough to profit but honestly enough to delude themselves of their own integrity. A little bit of dishonesty gives a taste of profit without spoiling a positive self-view. Two mechanisms allow for such self-concept maintenance: inattention to moral standards and categorization malleability. Six experiments support the authors’ theory of self-concept maintenance and offer practical applications for curbing dishonesty in everyday life.

MAZAR, N., AMIR, O., & ARIELY, D. (2008). THE DISHONESTY OF HONEST PEOPLE: A THEORY OF SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE. JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 45(6), 633-644

Here’s a Thought

Could seeing morality in purely materialist or naturalist terms, as above, makes it all seem like a game? Then, when dishonesty (or whatever) blows a hole in the system, the researcher finds that colleagues, unlike those human- or monkey-study subjects, are very old-fashioned about cheating… A Bible Belt without the Bible could be a really scary place.

On conflating politics with science.

March for Science Is Going to Be a Hell of a Mess — Bring It On
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

Coming on April 22 to the Mall in Washington, DC, plus hundreds of other locations around the country and the world, the March for Science is gloriously misnamed. The word “science” has many meanings, but most people think of it as the evidence-based search for truth about the natural world, with no holds barred.

In this understanding of science, there are no preconceived conclusions, no sacred dogma, no repression of disfavored thinkers or politically incorrect thoughts, no politics, no parties, no agenda beyond teasing out the truth. The March for Science isn’t really about all that.

Sure, it pays lip service to this common conception of science, derived for many people from science classes you took in high school and college. But judging from the coverage we’ve seen up till now, it looks like the march is set to be an exercise in self-congratulation and virtue signaling, political axe-grinding, a veiled grab by ideological partisans for power and funding. We venture to predict that most marchers won’t even be scientists but, instead, people looking to seize hold of the prestige of science for their own ends.

There’s been much talk of diversity, as organizers have revised the diversity statement on their website multiple times, so that nobody — no possible sexuality, ethnicity, or other identify — feels left out. This rainbow coalition, however, expects lock-step agreement with its views on controversial scientific claims.

The organizers, meanwhile, have been racked by infighting, and some clear-eyed scientists have warned colleagues to beware of conflating science with political agendas.

To all appearances, it’s going to be a hell of a mess, and we say: Bring it on.

Why? Because Americans are going to get a look at something we’ve been telling you about for years. And it’s not going to be pretty. Science, more and more, has been hijacked. Rather than glorying in freewheeling debate, it increasingly insists on conformity. It’s in step with the times on university campuses, where intellectual diversity is frowned on at best, or, at worst, drowned out by screaming, sometimes violent young people.

Advocates of the theory of intelligent design have been protesting for open discussion for two decades now. We’ve seen the closing of the American mind up close. We were the canary in the coalmine, as Darwin skeptics became among the first scholars to feel the impact of the insistence on intellectual conformity.

The academy and the media ignored our warnings. Evolution’s apologists claimed there was no controversy about evolution. They denied the existence of the rumblings going on in peer-reviewed science journals.

On the issue of evolution, Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt (2013) documented the growing discontent among mainstream scientists with orthodox Darwinian theory. He was dramatically vindicated this past November when the august Royal Society in London met to consider “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology.” The very first speaker, Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller, stood up and acknowledged that evolution lacks explanations for three major mysteries of life’s history, what most people think of when they think of “evolution.” See my article with Paul Nelson, “Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken.”

But the media covers all this up. As Meyer notes in Darwin’s Doubt, “Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed science literature.”

Rather than candidly acknowledge dissent among scientists, the media together with the academic community insists on assent from the populace in favor of what Douglas Axe calls Darwinism’s “self-righteous monoculture,” or what Jonathan Wells describes in a new book as “zombie science.”

The March for Science promises to be a massive demonstration of that monoculture, applied to several areas of scientific, political, and cultural disagreement. The marchers will demand an end to that disagreement. And if recent episodes on campuses such as U.C. Berkeley and Middlebury College are any sign, we should not be surprised to see violence.

The March’s website includes a “Statement on Peaceful Assembly and Nonviolence.” “We do not condone violence,” they say. But if they weren’t well aware of the possibility, they wouldn’t need to have a statement on it.

We take no pleasure in saying “We told you so.” But…we did tell you so. This monoculture with its intense dislike of debate seems set to be exposed in all its ugly quasi-fascism. Getting an eyeful of that, for the public, may be a step on the road to recovering intellectual freedom.

Jonathan Haidt of Heterodox Academy hit the nail on the head in a Wall Street Journal interview this past weekend. He spoke specifically of campus disorder and disrespect for genuine diversity. But what happens in Washington, DC, will likely be an extension of that.

“What I think is happening,” Mr. Haidt says, is that “as the visible absurdity on campus mounts and mounts, and as public opinion turns more strongly against universities — and especially as the line of violence is crossed — we are having more and more people standing up saying, ‘Enough is enough. I’m opposed to this.’” Let’s hope.

Indeed, looking forward to April 22, that could be the best outcome for the March for Science.

Science/faithTwo sides of the same coin?:pros and cons.