Regarding the 2nd sentence: very much agreed!
Also agree on your first sentence too provided that by it you really mean your 2nd sentence. Beyond that, though, regarding how much truth there is to be discovered … who would know of any limits on that?
Quoting myself --isn’t that horrible!? But I wanted to add an extra thought to this one.
Some scientists might (and apparently do) object that no philosophy enters into their actual professional papers/work. They have no need of it, never mention it or appeal to it in any way. To me this is like a train engineer announcing that the only things that help move his/her train along are the train engine itself and the tracks that the engine rests on. Planet that allegedly supports the tracks? What planet? Don’t have any use for any stinking planet! And it’s never once mentioned in the manual that helps me run my train.
That is what it sounds like to me when scientists try to pretend that they are somehow “above” philosophy.
So you are saying that evidence is relative, and can itself be an opinion?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
I propose that Weinberg is just plain wrong here. (or maybe not even that?) I don’t doubt that he is correct that he can’t think of any significant help, and he probably is crafty enough to define “help” in such a way that nobody else would be able to produce a name to gainsay his narrow opinion. My objection is against his entire premise that philosophy is somehow excluded (at least in any helpful way) from the professional work of the scientist.
[/quote]
If you disagree then you should be able to point to counterexamples. If you can’t think of a physicist in the postwar era that has been helped significantly by philosophy, then why do you think Weinberg is wrong?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
As to whether physicists are languishing or thriving … the jury is apparently still out on that too.
[/quote]
That jury gave its verdict a long time ago, and the verdict is that it is thriving. Physicists 200 years ago would be absolutely stunned at what has occurred in the field over those 200 years. The knowledge gained just over the last 60 years is more than we learned in the previous 200,000 years.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
Those who are so inept outside of their own profession that they can’t even see or make connections between their work and a world of beauty and love and all manner of non-scientific yet thoroughly objectively existing treasures, then it seems to me that they may come up short of evidence for the “thriving” part of that.
[/quote]
Scientists see beauty as well, they just don’t confuse the subjective with the objective.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
They may turn out notable work (though that probably not for long in the absence of any broader good life), but in what direction did they help push the aim of the whole profession? Is their philosophy attempting to steer the profession into needless rivalry and conflict with all other humanities/philosophies/religions? Or do they have a more science-friendly philosophy that is helping push their profession toward science in whatever contexts it can be found?
[/quote]
I would say that the overall attitude among scientists is that the objective truth is what is important, no matter what beliefs or philosophies it may conflict with. There is even a cavalier attitude that scientists should ask the dangerous questions if it means discovering a truth.
What philosophy does a train engineer have to use? Does the train stop if the train engineer follows Kierkegaard instead of Nietzschte? What philosophy does the train engineer need to follow in order to understand the planet below him if physics is so woefully lacking?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:175, topic:35961”]
That is what it sounds like to me when scientists try to pretend that they are somehow “above” philosophy.
[/quote]
It is philosophers who pretend that they are somehow “above” scientists.
yes and yes. We can’t escape the opinion part. Like I said and opinion can be everything from “well, I think it may be so” to “Of course it is.”
I’ll qualify my yes answers above by adding that I don’t doubt the objectivity of a well-crafted conjecture. It will either be objectively right or wrong quite independently of belief or even evidence. Evidence just helps us try to bring probability into it. But in the end, it is still an opinion as to how we rate that evidence too. Objectivity is not in question. Our opinions may be, and science can help some with this. I’m sure you would agree though you would state it more strongly and remove the word some. [quote=“T_aquaticus, post:176, topic:35961”]
If you disagree then you should be able to point to counterexamples. If you can’t think of a physicist in the postwar era that has been helped significantly by philosophy, then why do you think Weinberg is wrong?
[/quote]
Your slip is showing! [by that I mean ‘philosophy’]. Have you been reading what I wrote? I would have to labor hard (and fail) to find any scientist who has not been heavily influenced by philosophy. Maybe not the formal “arcane” details they so love to deride. I’m talking about real philosophy where the rubber meets the road.
Good. I do suspect, though, that they have a rather tunnel-visioned view of their own work in this regard.
Amen to that! And the subjectively apprehended truths may [I argue: do] include a few important objective truths too, such as one that Joshua brought up above. We just have a much harder time convincing each other over these since they aren’t amenable to empirical testing. That doesn’t make them any less potentially true or less potentially important.
You do understand that the whole train thing is a metaphor, right? Would I be right in guessing that you don’t have much use for metaphors? I was trying – am still – to help bridge two concepts: By limiting our vision to one aspect of one thing we can convince ourselves we have no use for anything outside our vision. To the extent that the train engineer can make the train go down the tracks without knowing a thing about any planets, or Kierkegaard, or Nietzschte – Weinberg would be right. To the extent that the train will do nothing of the sort, and would never have existed at all without the planet – Weinberg is dreadfully wrong. Philosophy (in my analogy) is the planet.
Your excitement over two centuries of astonishing discovery is echoed and affirmed by me. I don’t stop there, though. I go on to ask … now what? Where does this get us and what are we doing with it? One might say I just don’t see the end of the story yet. An engineer may get excited about their success in getting a certain computer chip and mechanical system to function within the specified parameters. He/she gets excited about a good day’s work. MLK Jr., though, with his ever broader view observes: “today we have guided missiles and misguided men”. He was not as easily impressed after seeing a wider context in which all the “accomplishments” exist. I’m following him in that much needed cultural self-reflection (with all its gloriously attendant philosophies). And I invite others to the same. There are disconcertingly many things where “the jury is still out”.
One more final thought before my lawn finally gets its needed attention…
Here I think you nail a/the real issue. Rivalry, triumphalism, and humiliation always seem to be in play, and as usual, mischief comes with it too. I don’t question your observation here. Philosophers probably do feel physics envy (you know all that two centuries of stuff that physicists are given credit for), so maybe you can’t blame them for putting up aires when they can? If it helps both professions to feel better, they are both the brunt of jokes for so many people-on-the-street these days. I propose that it’s probably a healthy thing to refrain from denigrating entire professions in order to build one’s own up. Arrogance is never becoming from anybody. So if I’ve participated in some of that here, and it is pointed out to me, I’ll hope to have the grace to sincerely apologize. I don’t really think physicists are inept outside of their professions, certainly not as a whole anyway!
Okay … grass. sigh.
Yes, we can escape the opinion part. It is called empirical facts.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:178, topic:35961”]
Your slip is showing! [by that I mean ‘philosophy’]. Have you been reading what I wrote? I would have to labor hard (and fail) to find any scientist who has not been heavily influenced by philosophy. Maybe not the formal “arcane” details they so love to deride. I’m talking about real philosophy where the rubber meets the road.
[/quote]
And . . . ?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:178, topic:35961”]
Amen to that! And the subjectively apprehended truths may [I argue: do] include a few important objective truths too, such as one that Joshua brought up above. We just have a much harder time convincing each other over these since they aren’t amenable to empirical testing. That doesn’t make them any less potentially true or less potentially important.
[/quote]
How can you know they are true if you can’t test them against facts?
Then your metaphor makes no sense.
The whole point of finding the truth is to narrow your vision onto the truth, not cast it wide on things that are fantasies, wishes, and opinions. If you can’t demonstrate that something is true, then why think it is true?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:179, topic:35961”]
I’m following him in that much needed cultural self-reflection (with all its gloriously attendant philosophies). And I invite others to the same. There are disconcertingly many things where “the jury is still out”.
[/quote]
There are many subjective aspects of humanity, that I will agree with.
I think it comes down to how scientists view their work. Scientists are pragmatists. Philosophers are not. The vast majority of scientists are able to do top notch science without knowing anything about philosophers or philosophy. When scientists ask philosophers what they can offer them, they get very little in return. Popper came up with the idea that you can’t prove a universal negative, but scientists already kind of knew that. Kuhn talks about paradigm shifts, but theories had come and gone well before Kuhn. Not to overuse Weinberg, but I agree with many of his sentiments:
“Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.”–Steven Weinberg
That is funny, and as a physicist I would be inclined to agree. Not to the dramatic point that philosophy is dead, and there is a better form of knowing. I think most could agreet a an increasingly weak case when your main argument is a philosophical technicality like with William Lane Craig. I particularly enjoyed the debate between him (someone who knows philosophy) and Sean Carrol (someone who knows science and some philosophy). Normally when debating scientists WLC does quite well but this debate was definitely not one of them and my personal favorite. (One debate link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8)
This could’ve been written in the 19th century. It’s the kind of thinking Dostoevsky was already poking fun at in “Notes from the Underground.” As before, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I was just wondering if you had a basis for all that confidence that exudes out of you … 
I’m pretty certain of it. It makes the most sense out of all the data, such as the “Messianic secret” motif. We can kick it around more in another thread, if anyone besides the two of us is interested.
I never felt that you crossed the line. You tip-toed up real close to it, though. Haha
We are back at this, Mr. T? @Swamidass is not discussing pure science. He is discussing the fusion of science with faith.
Read Hume … and how feelings, emotions and non-rational cognitive processes are the heart of humanity…
Until you understand what @Mervin_Bitikofer is writing in this paragraph, you will never understand Theists.
Please tell me you’re just kidding with this! By the way, did you ever answer Joshua’s question about whether or not we should believe in human rights? Do you really want to turn skeptical on that?
Good. That’s a healthy and hopeful sign. That means that you think something might probably be true even when it hasn’t been or perhaps can’t be objectively verified.
There is much in here to respect beyond my initial reactions against what I was imagining of Weinberg from above. At least here there is some acknowledgment of at least some philosophy rather than a primitive dismissal of all of it. He lapses back into error toward the end of it a bit I think by again imagining there is some big contest in which philosophers are supposed to be proving the worth of their trade on scientific grounds. But even so, this still has some hopeful nuance.
Well, since George was at least somewhat impressed (thank you, George!) I should take the time to clarify and even correct a few hasty words of mine. So when I wrote …
But in the end, it is still an opinion as to how we rate that evidence too. Objectivity is not in question. Our opinions may be, and science can help some with this.
Let me clarify that when I said Objectivity is not in question, what I really meant was that objective truth (reality) does exist as I’m sure we all here agree. And on the opposite token, our human appraisal of that reality can never be 100% objective. I.e. there is no question that pure objectivity on just about anything will never be attainable for the human mind. We get closer on some things more than others, yes – and science is a strong player helping that to happen. But never complete. So when @T_aquaticus says that science is objective because it has established facts, I don’t think it is quite that easy. Yes, there are many facts we are happy to consider established. But it is still going to involve opinion in at least some degree as to whether we accept a consensus appraisal of evidence or do we on this or that point strike out against the consensus? Perhaps hoping to forge revolutionary new paradigms (as Einstein did) or perhaps just mistrusting large bodies of experts or writing consensus off as conspiracy (as some science deniers today do.) Whatever your motivation there will always be opinion involved --hopefully well-warranted opinion if you are professionally pushing something, but opinion nonetheless. I guess what I’m saying here is that concepts like “opinion” and “fact” are really on a continuum without a hard dividing line to neatly separate the two. For useful communication we do agree to call lots of things facts – those are the things that lots of the most accessible (empirical) evidence. But it still has just a smidgen of opinion since it isn’t really 100% proven, and it is even more into areas of opinion when and how we choose to enlist any such fact and for what purposes. Objectivity is, I think, a high ideal that we rightly hold up not just with science but in general. And yet we (scientists included) will probably spend most of our lives mucking about in subjective things and with subjective motivations being human as we are even in the laboratory. We rightly try to reduce that as much as we can, but we never completely get rid of it.
That’s all my drum-banging for tonight. Hope I didn’t give anybody a headache!
I have not read all on this issue, but I offer these comments in the hope for some clarity (instead it may add to the confusion 
).
The exuberant subjective view of science by @T_aquaticus is somewhat entertaining. I think some of the comments on “subjective”, “objective”, “truth” “evidence” (all terribly philosophical terms) may be better understood as “scientists have opinions and seek facts”. I have yet to meet a scientist who did not offer an opinion (on much data and experimentation), and I have yet to meet one who did not favour some theory over another (this is often harder to discuss without bringing in uncertainty and the type of experiment performed).
This talk of evidence is strange to my scientific ears - one seeks evidence when discussing a mystery. Scientists seek to add to the knowledge and insights of their chosen discipline, and none can say this is philosophy.
Thanks for the clarity, George. Perhaps we are used to different contexts around certain words depending what part of the world we’re from. I know you and I are across the puddle from each other and I don’t know about T_aquaticus. Regarding your last line I pasted above, I think I’m using a broader definition for philosophy than perhaps you or T_, who might well be assuming something stricter. Maybe that would explain our misunderstandings.
I should have added Mervin, that as a scientist I have spent a considerable amount of time reading (and trying to understand) philosophers of interest and PoS - while I cannot think of any that defined an experiment or clarified a scientific problem for me, I can unequivocally state that my ability to think and approach scientific theory from various vantages has benefited to an enormous extent from my effort at understanding some philosophy. I recommend this approach to any aspiring scientist.
Perhaps we should go back to my previous statement:
“I will leave it up to you and other Christians to decide how science impacts your theology and interpretation of scripture. What I am more interested in is what the science allows us to include as being supported by evidence, not necessarily exclude. The same data could allow for a situation Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa were snatched up by aliens and transported back in time where they became the genealogical parents of all of humanity. It becomes a bit of a Cosmic Teapot or a “Dragon in My Garage” situation, to name a few famous examples of the same type of argument.”
I am also talking about the intersection of science and faith. A quick google for “Cosmic Teapot” should land you on a webpage explaining that whole diddy.
What I am saying is that I (as in me) am more interested in what can be shown to exist, not simply things that haven’t been shown to not exist. I completely agree that when you can’t show something to exist with positive evidence that faith enters into the mix.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.