Defending scientific methodology

[Kyle Taggart]

Hello! I could use some expert help in defending the methodology and nature of natural science as a broad discipline from some odd arguments made by an acquaintance at college. I hope you folks can help me: I’m a biology undergrad debating with a philosophy undergrad, and he’s making it a bit hard for me to defend the very basis of my field, a fact of which I admit I’m ashamed. I’m posting this here also (perhaps innaproproately, and if so of course I understand if the mods end this thread) for two reasons: I’m studying to be an evolutionary biologist, and my interlocutor is an ID advocate :). He says: 
“the God of the Gaps argument does not asses that God cannot be inferred because it is not empirical as you say, but that the God explanation is a way to explain the unexplained via an explanation which will be eventually falsified. Lot's of the people who claim the God of the gap fallacy are not strict empiricists, they simply presuppose the future unveiling of materialistic explanations. Clearly it cannot be defended by saying that God is in the philosophic realm and not scientific, because, as a person would go forth in utilizing both for a specific conclusion, the objection would fall immediately, as it did with you I think. If you claim abductive reasoning you claim the validity of inference, and most of all, not empirical inference (a theory is not empirically verified in itself, given its abstract nature). If abstract inferences can be made as a consequence of scientific reasoning, it is also consistent to infer a personal agent as God as the cause of an explicandum”
I think I’m okay with most of this, but I need help mainly on one part: the argument that theories are (in themselves) non empirical and abstract. For context, my argument is that science deals only in empirical data and can only reach empirical conclusions, and so no matter how strong some case for God from science might hypothetically be, science (by its nature) can’t infer such (since God is by definition immaterial and so non empirical). How can I defend the fact that theories are empirical and not abstract? 
Now this I really need help with: 
“I agree that empiricism is maintained by positing necessary requirements for science such as reproducibility and falsifiability. While their sufficiency can be granted for a scientific inqury, it is your job to show why such conditions ought to be necessary. I completely reject these terms as necessary and I think lots of scientists implicitly do. The whole historical science inquiry is not conducted via scientific method, rather, sound reasoning which reasembles more analytic philosophy. Clearly the truthworthiness of the standard big bang model is not assessed via reproducibility. The necessity of reproducibility is a great mistake as I show in my article https://confident-faith.com/2018/07/25/answering-arons-ra-epistemic-claims-regarding-his-criterion-for-modal-evaluation/
If your definition of science does not show why such definition ought to be true, there ought to be a more fundamental principle whihc you will have to defend which will entail the necessity of the scientific method. So how do you justify the restrictedness of your definition of science?”
So far I’ve argued successfully that what science IS (how it is practiced universally) is as an empirical discipline that thrives on falsifiability, reproducibility, and testability. But now I’m confronted with this: WHY? Why must science be this way? How do I respond to the Big Bang claim, and how do I respond about the claim against historical science? I’m studying to be an evolutionary biologist, and this is shaking my worldview a bit...how DO I justify my restricted view of science? 
I also find this difficult to rebut; the discussion is on dark matter, which he claimed was non-empirical, I showed it was, and then he said this: 
“I never claimed it what not physical, that would be very disingenuous... I claimed that it is assessed on non empirical grounds. How can you deny this? If you do you have to show that: 1) dark matter was believed because of it being tested and 2) that the testing comes from direct observation and not inference (otherwise empiricism is lost).  
It's existence is assessed because of its explanatory power.”
Responding to my claim that everything science investigates is empirical, he says this: 
“I am sorry, this is just false. If you mean by empirical as potentially empirical I agree, but if so also God is potentially empirical. If by empirical you mean actually empirical the claim becomes absurd. 
To say that all scientific postulations are empirical entails that certain reductios which I will ask you do defend: show me there is empirical evidence of every single mutation that proceeded from the first single celled organism to now days. Clearly no person will believe this is possible, Evolutionism work also via inference and extrapolation, to limit it to direct observation (empricism) is a form of suicide”
I could really use help, thank you! 

[studiot]

On 21/08/2018 at 9:03 PM, Kyle Taggart said:

I think I’m okay with most of this, but I need help mainly on one part: the argument that theories are (in themselves) non empirical and abstract. For context, my argument is that science deals only in empirical data and can only reach empirical conclusions, and so no matter how strong some case for God from science might hypothetically be, science (by its nature) can’t infer such (since God is by definition immaterial and so non empirical). How can I defend the fact that theories are empirical and not abstract? 

I would start by realising that not everything in Science is empirical, and also understanding the difference between Scientific processes (there are more than one) and a rigid belief system.

1) Science makes significant use of 'balance of probability' reasoning.

2) Science is constantly (albeit sometimes slowly) revising its conclusions, even without new information. This is impossible for a belief system. Science is dynamic, belief systems are static.

3) Science makes predictions and then tests them.

4) Science employs 'working hypotheses, it knows to be incorrect or incomplete, but adequate for the job in hand. How would the working hypothesis "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in God" operate? Can you say I approximately believe in God as Science can tell you that it is approximately half an hour to tea time?

5) Science acknowledges there are other approaches besides Science or Belief, such as guesswork (Is a guess bound to be wrong?) and happenstance.

6) Science incorporates both the empirical and the non empirical into its methodology. The point particle is an example of a purely theoretical non empirical device in Science that has many uses in many different branches, although it contravenes empirical observation.

So this shows just how versatile and flexible scientific processes are and I make no claims that my list is exhaustive.

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by studiot

[mistermack]

The God of the gaps argument is fine for a discussion. It's correct but it's rubbish. True, where there's a gap, you can always insert God. And closing that gap doesn't disprove God, he's in every gap, and there will always be gaps. The reason that it's rubbish, is that it doesn't tell you anything. Fill a gap with God, and you are no wiser. Everyone has an opinion what it means, but that's all it is. So, there will always be gaps, and there will always be Gods stuffed into them. That's not going to change. And stuffing God into a gap doesn't get you one millimetre closer to verifying his existence. It does nothing either way.

You can't say it's not science though, if you can't test a scientific hypothesis. Einstein predicted gravitational waves. It wasn't possible to verify it for a hundred years. That doesn't mean it wasn't science. 

[DrP]

On ‎21‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 9:03 PM, Kyle Taggart said:

Hello! I could use some expert help in defending the methodology and nature of natural science as a broad discipline from some odd arguments made by an acquaintance at college. I hope you folks can help me: I’m a biology undergrad debating with a philosophy undergrad,

When I was at uni studying science we had a number of philosophy students that would seek us out for 'debates'. After getting to know them for a bit one confessed to me that they were told by their lecturer to 'seek out' science students for debate. They were told to introduce the question "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it does it make a sound?"  As first year science students we were all over it arguing that of course it DID make a sound by very definition of what a sound is (vibrations through the air) and by knowledge of what happens when a tree falls and solids impact on each other. They knew all this and kept coming back with - 'but how can you know'? We would defend the science behind being able to predict precisely what would happen when a heavy wooden object came crashing to the floor and they would question this further.   They did not care if they won the argument or not as they did not really care about the question (they knew the answer anyway) - it was more about semantics, but they were to keep the discussions going as long as possible. They were being sent out to practice their debating and thinking skills.

I am not saying that this is why your pal is debating this subject with you....  but be aware that they do do this deliberately sometimes to scientists in particular because they know you will bite and give them a good argument.  I have no idea if they still do this or if it was a one off with the lecturer at our uni with his particular students or if it is a standard exercise done with philosophy students. I really do not know. 

 

Anyone know if this was a one off thing or do philosophy students get told to do this everywhere? Cheers.

 

 

[Kyle Taggart]

On 8/23/2018 at 10:15 AM, mistermack said:

The God of the gaps argument is fine for a discussion. It's correct but it's rubbish. True, where there's a gap, you can always insert God. And closing that gap doesn't disprove God, he's in every gap, and there will always be gaps. The reason that it's rubbish, is that it doesn't tell you anything. Fill a gap with God, and you are no wiser. Everyone has an opinion what it means, but that's all it is. So, there will always be gaps, and there will always be Gods stuffed into them. That's not going to change. And stuffing God into a gap doesn't get you one millimetre closer to verifying his existence. It does nothing either way.

You can't say it's not science though, if you can't test a scientific hypothesis. Einstein predicted gravitational waves. It wasn't possible to verify it for a hundred years. That doesn't mean it wasn't science. 

Your point is a large part of my contention: Einstein's prediction WASN'T verified for a hundred years. But it was always hypothetically verifiable because it's an empirical hypothesis. The statement that God created life from non-life (or ex nihilo), however, is not scientifically verifiable because there is no experiment that can ever show it to be true: science restricts itself to the workings of the universe (or multiverse). God is, by definition, outside the universe, immaterial, immutable, etc. He can't be tested. Gravity can. So I maintain what I am saying: if a proposition is untestable, it is not science. If a proposition is testable but simply can't be tested with current technology, it may be science. 

 

On 8/23/2018 at 10:37 AM, DrP said:

When I was at uni studying science we had a number of philosophy students that would seek us out for 'debates'. After getting to know them for a bit one confessed to me that they were told by their lecturer to 'seek out' science students for debate. They were told to introduce the question "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it does it make a sound?"  As first year science students we were all over it arguing that of course it DID make a sound by very definition of what a sound is (vibrations through the air) and by knowledge of what happens when a tree falls and solids impact on each other. They knew all this and kept coming back with - 'but how can you know'? We would defend the science behind being able to predict precisely what would happen when a heavy wooden object came crashing to the floor and they would question this further.   They did not care if they won the argument or not as they did not really care about the question (they knew the answer anyway) - it was more about semantics, but they were to keep the discussions going as long as possible. They were being sent out to practice their debating and thinking skills.

I am not saying that this is why your pal is debating this subject with you....  but be aware that they do do this deliberately sometimes to scientists in particular because they know you will bite and give them a good argument.  I have no idea if they still do this or if it was a one off with the lecturer at our uni with his particular students or if it is a standard exercise done with philosophy students. I really do not know. 

 

Anyone know if this was a one off thing or do philosophy students get told to do this everywhere? Cheers.

 

 

Haha, thanks for sharing that! Now is a good time to admit that I am a double major in phil and bio, although bio is what I am studying for a career in (evolutionary bio specifically) and I'm just doing philosophy for enjoyment. But what I don't like is sophistry: arguing for the sake of arguing, employing rhetoric instead of logic. Although, I understand a point you made: it is a way of sharpening debate skills. So that's fair! Although I don't think debate has much of a purpose if it isn't logical, honest, and meaningful. 

I appreciate your input, friend!

On 8/22/2018 at 6:44 PM, studiot said:

I would start by realising that not everything in Science is empirical, and also understanding the difference between Scientific processes (there are more than one) and a rigid belief system.

1) Science makes significant use of 'balance of probability' reasoning.

2) Science is constantly (albeit sometimes slowly) revising its conclusions, even without new information. This is impossible for a belief system. Science is dynamic, belief systems are static.

3) Science makes predictions and then tests them.

4) Science employs 'working hypotheses, it knows to be incorrect or incomplete, but adequate for the job in hand. How would the working hypothesis "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in God" operate? Can you say I approximately believe in God as Science can tell you that it is approximately half an hour to tea time?

5) Science acknowledges there are other approaches besides Science or Belief, such as guesswork (Is a guess bound to be wrong?) and happenstance.

6) Science incorporates both the empirical and the non empirical into its methodology. The point particle is an example of a purely theoretical non empirical device in Science that has many uses in many different branches, although it contravenes empirical observation.

So this shows just how versatile and flexible scientific processes are and I make no claims that my list is exhaustive.

 

I certainly agree that science is not a belief system. However, while there may be instances in which scientists understand empirical data in a more complete or even different way, as in the modification of a theory to better fit the data, the theory (or whatever we're dealing with) remains a synthesis of solely empirical data (which is why such discussions as God and the soul are left to the equally valid, but methodologically foreign, discipline of philosophy). I still don't understand what is being understood as non-empirical. 

Yes, science makes predictions and tests them. I couldn't agree more. This is why God cannot be assessed by science: by definition, He cannot be tested. What's non-empirical here?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your working hypothesis mention to the topic at hand. Would you mind elaborating? Thanks! Forgive my ignorance.

Absolutely there are other valid approaches besides science: the deductive power of abstract logical reasoning (philosophy's domain) is an ideal example. That doesn't change the methodology of science: it is an empirical discipline. It seems to me that emphasizing different approaches to knowledge strengthens my contention (I could be totally off here): we admit non-empirical disciplines. What makes them so different from science? Science is empirical, they are not. 

Point-like particles like electrons and quarks are not non-empirical. They are not extended particles (like Protons), but just like dark matter are not immaterial: they just have different properties from extended particles and are not able to be viewed/sensibly apprehended in the normal way via current technology. They are surrounded by electric fields which have an effect on one another. They are empirical, despite having what is referred to as "zero-size": merely because they're too small for CURRENT tech to apprehend directly. 

 

[studiot]

Answering you fully will take more consideration than I have time for tonight but you have raised several matters that have received repeated airing here.

Firstly the difference between Science and Pholosophy is that they address different questions.

Science does not explore the motivation behind an action or circumstance. It tells you how.

Philosophy can explore this motivation since you can ask the question - why?

I strongly disagree that 'logic' is the province of Philosophy.

It is a process that Science, Mathematics and Philosophy all employ.
We had a long thread about their overlap and this subject not long.
I remember drawing several Venn diagrams.

 

As a biologist/philosopher perhaps you don't understand what a point particle is.
A point particle is a body whose dimensions are insignificant compared to the system of interest.
So Mechanics treats the Earth (and Jupiter) as point particles in relation to the mechanics of the Solar System.

This is an entirely theoretical treatment since we can measure the actual size of the particle concerned. That is non empirical.

On the other hand the only way to describe the value of gravity as it varies over the surface of the Earth is empirical. We have to go measure it.
Thre is no theory accurate enough, or that could ever be accurate enough, to provide an entirely theoretical value.

 

Finally you are still ,isunderstanding the distinction of empirical v non empirical.

This distinction is an example of an (ie one) important process of definition in all three of Maths, Philosophy and Science.

To be empirical it must correspond to the definition.

Everything else (that does not correspond) is non empirical.

There are many examples where you can get this process the wrong way round ie define the wrong one of the pair.

For example the colour of an object is blue or non blue.
Non blue can be further divided into green, red etc, if it suits your purpose.
But it doesn't work the other way round.

 

[Kyle Taggart]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Answering you fully will take more consideration than I have time for tonight but you have raised several matters that have received repeated airing here.

Firstly the difference between Science and Pholosophy is that they address different questions.

Science does not explore the motivation behind an action or circumstance. It tells you how.

Philosophy can explore this motivation since you can ask the question - why?

I strongly disagree that 'logic' is the province of Philosophy.

It is a process that Science, Mathematics and Philosophy all employ.
We had a long thread about their overlap and this subject not long.
I remember drawing several Venn diagrams.

 

As a biologist/philosopher perhaps you don't understand what a point particle is.
A point particle is a body whose dimensions are insignificant compared to the system of interest.
So Mechanics treats the Earth (and Jupiter) as point particles in relation to the mechanics of the Solar System.

This is an entirely theoretical treatment since we can measure the actual size of the particle concerned. That is non empirical.

On the other hand the only way to describe the value of gravity as it varies over the surface of the Earth is empirical. We have to go measure it.
Thre is no theory accurate enough, or that could ever be accurate enough, to provide an entirely theoretical value.

 

Finally you are still ,isunderstanding the distinction of empirical v non empirical.

This distinction is an example of an (ie one) important process of definition in all three of Maths, Philosophy and Science.

To be empirical it must correspond to the definition.

Everything else (that does not correspond) is non empirical.

There are many examples where you can get this process the wrong way round ie define the wrong one of the pair.

For example the colour of an object is blue or non blue.
Non blue can be further divided into green, red etc, if it suits your purpose.
But it doesn't work the other way round.

 

Yes, they address different questions. That is one of the things that makes them different disciplines. It is not the only thing: they also have vastly different methodologies. 

I never said logic is used ONLY by philosophy. That would amount, dare I say, to insanity. It absolutely upholds all three of those disciplines. But it is the essence of philosophy, whereas natural science is broader and more expansive in its methods: it is much more than armchair reasoning. 

I think the guidelines say something about not using logical fallacies; in that light, please don't address my occupation when discussing the validity of my points. I do understand what a point particle is, and just explained as much. We agree. Because you cannot measure the size of the particle does not make it non-empirical. We observe the electrical field that surrounds the particle: it is thus an empirical entity. Mass and dimensions are not the only thing empiricism deals with.

I don't see how I am misunderstanding the definition of empirical...confused a bit there. 

Also, and i just picked up on this, are you suggesting that by that definition planets would be considered non-empirical? Just asking, I may have misunderstood you. I also wanted to add that it is fallacious to claim our inability to currently measure the dimensions of a physical entity we nonetheless have concrete evidence for does not mean it is non-empirical. This amounts to a chronological relativism in which protons and neutrons would have been non-empirical, atoms before that, and cells before that. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Kyle Taggart

[quiet]

On the first page of the Discourse on Method, Descartes wrote the following. Intelligence is the best distributed thing in the world, because no one complains about having little and all people consider that they have enough.

We believe that this phrase exudes irony. But in a universe where something elementary, like the photon, exhibits conduct that deserves to be qualified as intelligent, where there are signs of intelligence in plants, in minerals and in all animal organisms, we can write without irony the same phrase.

Some people harbor in their minds the idea of a god and other people do not. In my life I met people in enough variety and quantity to have a statistical sample. We assume that I form a function of two variables. The dependent variable is the degree of mental adherence to the belief in a god. The independent variable is the amount of intelligence of the person. In the statistical sample of my experience, a Gauss bell would appear when plotting that function. That is, my less intelligent acquaintances and my more intelligent acquaintances do not adhere to the idea of a god. My acquaintances who have intermediate intelligences adhere to that idea. I do not take into account what people say to be good to those who listen. I keep in mind the behaviors. The behavior sample is represented by a Gaussian bell.

Why is the lack of intelligence and maximum intelligence inadequate to believe in a god? Politics is another issue where those two extremes of intelligence fail. The same applies to surgery and other manual health services, such as kinesiology, nursing, etc.

Obviously there are privileges reserved for intermediate intelligence, completely inaccessible for low and maximum intelligence. If I wanted to gather, for my personal purposes, most of the population, I would create an institution whose distinctive flag was the idea of a god. And I would create it by pure pragmatism, regardless of my personal stance on that idea.

To analyze from science and from philosophy the idea of a cosmic being, the first step is to get rid of everything that the pragmatic institutions teach, that congregate people under a flag to lead the masses more easily, with the same ease of the shepherd leading a flock.

To analyze from science and from philosophy the idea of a cosmic being, equanimity is essential, a faculty that is at the antipodes of pragmatism.

Can I achieve equanimity? In my personal case, that is impossible. Can I achieve a condition that imperfectly substitutes for equanimity, even if it partially serves to analyze the idea of a god? I guess so. And I suppose that sometimes I have reached that condition, which helped me to make the idea of a god pass through the scientific-philosophical filter. At the exit of the filter there are no reasons that guarantee the existence of a universal being. But when I do not demand guarantees, I find in science and philosophy indications of an appreciable probability with respect to the existence of that being.

[studiot]

Interesting thoughts, quiet. +1

I note you use the term analysis, which would nicely introduce a further concept to Kyle.

Analyis v Synthesis.

 

Kyle

9 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I think the guidelines say something about not using logical fallacies; in that light, please don't address my occupation when discussing the validity of my points.

I seem to remember that you have stated your occupation to be student.

I can't see how anything I said could be taken as being offensive, but I apologise if something was taken that way, no such thing was intended.

But neither you nor I have the qualifications to claim the definition of a point particle.
I gave such a definition, which has been accepted in Mechanics for several hundred years. It is not my own concocted definition.

9 hours ago, Kyle Taggart said:

I do understand what a point particle is, and just explained as much. We agree. Because you cannot measure the size of the particle does not make it non-empirical.

Unfortunately you have misquoted it since I said nothing whatsoever about our abiltity to measure size.

 

If you are going to continue to misinterpret and misquote my thoughts then I don't see how the discussion can continue.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by studiot