Subjectivity/Objectivity and evidence in science and philosophy

I find it interesting that you won’t answer my question, but want me to repeat an answer I already gave to someone else’s question. Not very helpful.

I have already said that human rights are a subjective belief about how humans want to govern themselves. They aren’t an objective part of the universe. Human rights aren’t true in the same way that Mercury being a planet is true. In the words of Hume, human rights are how things ought to be according to humans, not how things are.

So can you answer my question?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:188, topic:35961”]
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.
[/quote]

There is no contest. Philosophy just simply hasn’t been that useful in science.

I understand it just fine. It is partly why I am an atheist.

It is understood that way by some theists, no doubt. Scientific theories aren’t opinions. It isn’t an opinion that microoorganisms cause diseases. It isn’t an opinion that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. It isn’t an opinion that water is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen. Just because scientists may have opinions does not mean that all of science is opinions.

@T_aquaticus

If you are here to discuss Theism, you need to remember how Theism works for Theists …
… not how Theism aggravates you.

Facts are facts … and I concur that this is the best method for dealing with textual analysis…

But in that area of “Faith” or “Belief” … talking about facts becomes a more malleable thing…
We pile up 10 sloppy facts … and for some that is more powerful than 3 concrete facts.

1 Like

To understand it is not to criticize when it happens…

1 Like

@T_aquaticus

For the heck of it … if you think it’s worth mentioning… what exactly is it that you think is not being shown to exist (for the purpose of this recent discussion) ?

1 Like

Theism doesn’t aggravate me.

The problem is that facts are even being cast into doubt. They are being described as opinions. At times, it is an attempt at a false equivalency when one side’s argument is not backed by facts.

1 Like

There is a lack of positive evidence for Adam and Eve being the genealogical ancestors of modern humans. Simply pointing to a lack of evidence disproving the existence of Adam and Eve runs into the Cosmic Teapot problem.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.–Bertrand Russell

@T_aquaticus

The conventional trajectory for this kind of disputation is the “happy burden” is on the Evolutionists who don’t require Creationists to prove there was an Adam & Eve …

… the Evolutionist mission is to show that Adam & Even could not be the ancestors (either genealogical or genetically), based on analysis of today’s human genome.

Most Christian Evolutionists accept this asymmetrical arrangement.

I don’t doubt they do, which is the whole point of Russell’s teapot metaphor.

@T_aquaticus you are pretty entertaining. I’m familiar with your type of perspective.

Your point of view is not common among scientists. In our work we are constantly impressed by the smallness of scientific knowledge in comparison with what is to be discovered. We care deeply about ethics, even though we know that science cannot establish them. We are concerned about injustice, even though science is blind to it. We are constantly facing questions with objective answers that we are unable to address with our current and foreseeable limitations.

Can you tell us a bit about yourself? What is your experience doing scientific work? It seems like most of your understanding of science is hearsay, based on what you have read from some of the mainstream pontificators. Can you explain a little bit more about why you care about this topic and how you think science works? What are your influences?

It sounds like you like the idea of science, without having much experience with it. If I am wrong though, please show me how.

2 Likes

You aren’t impressed by what we have discovered in the last 100 years?

Also, I never said that I am not concerned about morality, ethics, or injustice. What I did say is that these are subjective. Just because it is subjective does not mean that I don’t care about those things.[quote=“Swamidass, post:205, topic:35961”]
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? What is your experience doing scientific work? It seems like most of your understanding of science is hearsay, based on what you have read from some of the mainstream pontificators. Can you explain a little bit more about why you care about this topic and how you think science works? What are your influences?
[/quote]

I have worked in biomedical research and am an author on 8 primary papers, if memory serves. I have attended many of the top conferences in the field of host/pathogen interactions, talked and had dinner with many of the top researchers in the field, have worked with many scientists and infectious disease docs, and have trained many a post-doc and undergrad. My expertise lies in molecular biology including DNA cloning, protein chemistry, and gene regulation.

I would say that I care about this topic (i.e. intersection of science and faith) because I care about science. At least in the US, there is a political movement that seeks to undermine scientific progress in the name of theological purity, and I think that is a bad thing. I come from a devout family and was raised in the church, but have no animosity towards Christianity. During my youth I was first introduced to YEC in all its glory, and after a little digging on my own I realized that I was being lied to. However, I never saw YEC as a reason to reject Christianity. I became an atheist for other reasons.

Since I have spent ample time in both camps I have always been curious, fascinated, and intrigued about the creo v. evo debate. This was furthered by discussions I had in college with my biology professors who were predominately Methodists. They were also interested in the intersection of faith and science, and that interest stuck with me.

So you are a bit wrong. I am a scientist, I know how science works, I have 20 years of experience in the sciences, and have worked along other scientists for nearly my entire adult life. My side interests include theoretical physics which led me to Steven Weinberg’s books, and much of what he wrote paralleled my own views and experiences, hence the quotes found in this thread.

And you? Have you worked in the sciences?

@T_aquaticus,

It is an asymmetrical arrangement for a reason. As soon as you tell a YEC that he has to “prove” Adam & Eve existed, they laugh and walk away.

Thanks for clarifying!

Please don’t take offense at my questions. I’m familiar with your line of reasoning but do not find it commonly among the biologists that I know. I believe you, but (in my experience) it is somewhat atypical to come across someone like you that has experience in science.

Yes, I am a science professor at a leading university. I run a research group and have been working in this area for a couple decades now. I’m pretty easy to find online: http://swami.wustl.edu/ and http://peacefulscience.org/.

Of course I am. I love science, and this is where I found my home.

You have a lot in common with us here. Most of us oppose that political effort to control science, and as Christians we may be some of your most important allies.

Speaking for myself, I think our disagreement is not about science itself. We probably agree on most everything here. Rather, I think we disagree on how to think of things outside of science. This is probably because you are a certain type of atheist, and I am a certain type Christian. As a Christian and a scientist, it seems I am more open to the existence of important and object truth that is beyond our current understanding. Some of this truth is objective but not even accessible in principle by science.

Science, even when it is correct, is just never a complete account of the world. From this uncontroversial (for most) starting point, I see value in wondering about things beyond our knowledge. Not because we know the details are true, but because imagination both (as a Christian) the flourishing of the human soul and (as a scientist) the way science progresses. One of the best atheist thinkers on this is Alan Lightman. Have you read much of his work? Einstein’s Dreams is great.

1 Like

I completely agree with that.[quote=“Swamidass, post:211, topic:35961”]
As a Christian and a scientist, it seems I am more open to the existence of important and object truth that is beyond our current understanding. Some of this truth is objective but not even accessible in principle by science.
[/quote]

That is probably where we disagree. Claiming something is objective without demonstrating it to be objective is indistinguishable from subjective. I have no doubt you believe that there are objective truths that scientific investigation can never uncover, but how is that distinguishable from something that doesn’t exist? In your own line of work you would never claim that there is an objective link between a specific gene and a specific disease, but also claim that such a link can never be detected by scientific means.

But like many things in life, there is no reason why we have to agree.

Then the multiverse doesn’t exist. Whew! Some of us were tired of worrying about it.

2 Likes

Sorry – I didn’t realize I had left a loose end up there somewhere. Looking back briefly from here (not on my own computer at home at the moment …) the only question I found quickly that maybe I didn’t answer was your: “How can you know they are true if you can’t test them against facts?” (If I guessed wrong on this, let me know … and please repeat the actual question you have in mind so I’ll know what you’re asking!)

Hoping that I guessed correctly here …

My answer: For many things probably you can’t know. At least not with the narrow empirical testing within which you want to restrict all evaluation. The point I’m trying to help you see is that just because something is not demonstrable within your own desired framework does not mean that it is not true. It just means we probably won’t be able to demonstrate its truth to your satisfaction! Asking then how it can be true is like thinking that something cannot exist if it is not in your field of view. That’s all I have time for now … gotta run again.

1 Like

You state a number of factually correct matters and then? I point out that much of what scientists discuss use terms that are, and must be, examined philosophically (as a means to understand). Making vague generalities does not advance your case, nor does you outlook on philosophical contemplations make sense.

What are you trying to get at?

My question was more about how you can be satisfied that something is true even though it can’t be demonstrated.