AbbyNormal

I was curious as to what my fellow infidels might make of this statement regarding science (this is a response from a friend after I pointed out that ID proponents must push their ideas straight to the pop media rather than publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals):

I haven't been able to find anything on this supposed quote from Dawkins. But regardless, is it fair to say that science has a bias?

I 'm not sure I agree with the claim that scientists rule out supernatural phenomena, a priori. Rather, this is a view that has been built and supported by many centuries of observation. There was a time when pretty much everything was "supernatural": lightening, eclipses, seasons. But over time, naturalistic explanations were developed for these phenomena. Any anti-supernatural bias in the scientific community would seem justified in that light.

But then I wonder: can we make a justifiable extrapolation of attributing purely naturalistic mechanisms to all future discoveries? Is there a point at which science has to bite the bullet and say "there is no naturalistic explanation for what we are observing, this must be supernatural!"? What would that point be?

Just some questions and some ramblings to ponder. I'd be interested in hearing other views.

Regards,
AbbyNormal

Jesse

I think he was actually referring to a quote by Richard Lewontin which he wrote in a review of Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World", and which is often mentioned by creationists. Here is the full quote and the review:

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm

And here's another discussion where he clarified what he meant a bit:

http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/Booth-Lewontin.html

I guess he's just saying that the methods of science are such that they must always try to explain things in terms of regular laws rather than whimsical supernatural forces, but I think some of his rhetoric is a little overblown. For example, his emphasis on the a priori commitment of science to lawlike explanations makes it sound like scientists would grasp at lawlike explanations for anything, no matter how far-fetched, like trying to find a "lawlike" explanation for a UFO on Mars or for the text of genesis written in the DNA code, but that seems unlikely. Along with the comment about "unsubstantiated just-so stories" his quote plays into the hands of creationists who say the evidence for evolution is weak and scientists just endorse the theory for metaphysical reasons, but he ignores the other side of the coin, which is that when scientists achieve great success in explaining a particular phenomenon in a lawlike fashion, and compile large amounts of supporting evidence for a particular lawlike theory, then that in turn reinforces the original hunch that searching for lawlike explanations was the right strategy to use. The enormous success of scientific methodology in so many fields (including evolutionary biology) is probably a better explanation for its continued popularity than some sort of unyielding metaphysical commitment, IMO.

But perhaps Lewontin wouldn't totally disagree with me, and he was just making a point about the limited domain "science" is capable of investigating. For example, even if every scientist in the world agreed that a UFO on Mars was obviously engineered by some sort of intelligent beings, this belief would be attributed more to intuition and analogy to other known products of engineering rather than through the hypothesis-test method of science (unless there were specific hypotheses about it that could be tested, such as a hypothesis about what methods were used to manufacture it). The problem with a general wishy-washy idea of "intelligent design" is that none of its proponents have succeeded in using it to make any clear, testable predictions which differ from those of mainstream biologists; if they are more specific about how and when the "designing" was actually done they can generate more predictions, but then they face the problem of creationists, which is that their predictions never fit the evidence.

trillian

I agree that there is , among scientists, a naturalistic bias. This doesnt mean that they all dismiss the supernatural, but it is their job to find the best theories to things not currently explained. They do this through the scientific method.

With any scientist there is a bias to find out what they set out to find out. This is part of human nature and the desire for one's own theory to be the correct one. This is where peer reviews are important to flesh out any inconsistencies. Good science needs to be tested and the outcomes repeatable. New ideas in science are bashed about regularly, sometimes for decades before they are accepted (look at Einstein).

Science looks for the reasons and causes that are "evident" through reasoning supported by data. Facts, observations, experiments, repeatable results.

It would be scary if scientists simply said, "we haven't figured this one out yet so we hypothesize that a supernatural force is at work". That is NOT science.

It doesnt necessarily mean that its wrong, but its not science.

Celsus

Hi AbbyNormal,

I recently had a similar discussion which can be found here. It's important to distinguish between methodological and metaphysical (or sometimes ontological or philosophical) naturalism. Once the lines are clear, then the debate is clear too. Phillip Johnson and Alvin Plantinga are perhaps the most responsible for the conflation of methodological and metaphysical naturalism (Plantinga calls methodological naturalism "provisional atheism").

Methodological naturalism is not a claim, or a philosophy, but rather the method of science. It's only real claim is to the nature of scientific inquiry--that there are specific steps in setting up scientific theories and testing them. The methodological naturalist must always be open to evidence, and if it is "supernatural" then he must take that into account. Unfortunately for the theists, just about everything that was once seen as supernatural (think gods creating lightning and earthquakes) have since come well into the purviews of naturalism. By these definitions, a naturalistic or scientific worldview are equivalent.

Metaphysical naturalism, on the other hand, may make substantive claims towards the nature of the universe--that the material universe is "all there is," for example. This is not a scientific but a philosophical postulate. This necessarily excludes the supernatural, but then again, we do not yet have a coherent term as to what "supernatural" really means. As you have already pointed out, to primitive tribespeople, the supernatural could include anything from earthquakes to constellations--their understanding of the natural world could not formulate the existence of such things, within their limited knowledge. As knowledge expanded, so the supernatural retreated.

Knowing this, then, it's hardly surprising that science has a naturalistic bias, and I would say, in either sense of the term (although most people distance themselves from the latter, since in making a positive claim, the burden of proof immediately shifts to the metaphysical naturalist). If we define the supernatural as against the laws of nature, then we will need very good evidence to show how and why the laws of nature have failed. This is the basis for the addage: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Theists want to attack naturalism because they are unable to show any extraordinary evidence, and need to change the rules of the game in order to have any chance of winning. Too bad for them--this game is called science--it works, and it's not up for grabs.
The answer to the first question is yes, to the second, not likely. One example I gave in the thread I mentioned was that of Thomson's calculations of the age of the sun:

• There are too many examples to list here, but perhaps a good example might be the discoveries of nuclear fusion processes going on in the sun overturned its 20-200 million-year maximum lifespan (and vindicated other finds across the sciences that pointed to evidence of the earth being much older than the then-estimates of the sun's lifespan--especially given how William Thomson's estimates apparently damaged Darwin's theory at the time).

I didn't get a chance to elaborate there, so indulge me here. Basically, in the 19th century, all the earth sciences were providing ever increasing evidence of an old earth--billions of years old. However, from what we then knew of physics, the sun's lifespan was exceedingly young by comparison. This threatened to throw plenty of sciences down the tube, since physical laws are the basis of everything else. Of course, no one knew anything about nuclear reactions in the sun that could provide for a much older solar system and hence earth. If we had stopped and announced, "God (or the supernatural) is working this out somewhere," we would have chosen ignorance over the pursuit of knowledge. As it turns out, science was vindicated, and the verification of the age of the earth and the sun were eventually harmonised.

That said, there are thinks that science may never be able to observe--anything before the Planck time, for example, is beyond our reach, because the laws of our universe as we know them were not in existence prior to that point. That does not mean that we should insert God or any other supernatural thing in there. God-of-the-gaps is always a bad idea, and even the theists know this.

In short, is there a bias towards naturalism? Yes. And it's a good thing. All of the achievements in improving human living standards and understanding ourselves are due to doggedly clinging to methodological naturalism in the last few centuries. A really good reference on this, which I recommended in that thread as well, is Robert T. Pennock (ed.), 2001, Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, MIT Press.

Joel

Majestyk

We all approach a new idea with our own set of preconceptions. It is the method that we use in our attempt at understanding that separates theology from science, as Celsus, very eloquently stated.

The key is the willingness to alter our preconceptions, in the face of new evidence. Maintaining a strict dogma of inviolate concepts impedes the acquisition of new understanding. Without adhering to the scientific method, even "Science" becomes a religion.

AbbyNormal

Jesse:
Thank you for that Lewontin quote. I've looked around for a quote from Dawkins but have been unable to find one. I haven't followed your links yet, but I will this afternoon.

Celsus:
Thanks for an insightful and eloquent post. I agree that the defining what is "supernatural" is a tricky business. I would argue that if something violates our perceptions of what nature should be doing, that is not evidence of something supernatural but rather evidence that we do not yet fully understand nature. Your recounting of the discovery of fusion reactions in the sun is an excellent example of that.

theyeti

I tend not to take such ravings seriously for the simple reason that it's an obvious double standard. Creationists / IDists are unapologetic about their blatant religious and ideological bias. Even if there really is bias in the scientific community, who do creationists think they are to chastize them about it? It's a classic case of psychlogical projection. They need to remove the plank from their own eye first, then maybe I'll take such accusations seriously.

Of course it's really not true. Scientists are concerned primarily with hard data. Everyone makes interpretations of course, and everyone's worldview is going to interpret things differently, but science has a method for determining the facts regardless of philosophical outlook -- just so long as that philosophical outlook doesn't preculde the scientific method in the first place. Here's a paraphrase that I really like from charlie d at ARN:

"It seems that biologists have no trouble getting along regarless of their philosophical beliefs just so long as the scientific details are thoroughly discussed. With IDists it's the exact opposite. They have no trouble getting along only as long as the scientific details are not discussed."

Evolution is accepted by scientists the world over who come from a wide variety of cultural, ethinic, religious, and ideological backgrouds. ID / creationism is primarily an American phenomenon which is advocated almost exclusively by religious conservatives with a cultural agenda. While scientists have widely differing interpretations of evolution based upon their religious and philosophical beliefs (e.g., some think it shows the universe is purposeless, while others think it demonstrates that the universe has intrinsic purpose) they all agree on the basic facts of evolutionary theory. And when a dispute about those facts comes up, as it always does, they have a method for objectively determining who's right and who's wrong. The creationist / IDists on the other hand do not agree upon any established facts -- many of their claims are in direct contradiction -- and they have no method for adjucating between them. The only thing they share in common is a philosophical dislike for evolutionary theory. So unlike real scientists, who either shape or reconcile their philosophical outlooks according to the facts of nature, the ID types shape the facts of nature according to their philosophical outlook.

And that's what it really comes down to. Complaints about "naturalism", which is notoriously hard to define, are really complaints about people relying on the scientific method to answer the hard questions to begin with. The most useful application of the term "natural" in this case just means observable, regular, and law-like. If it turns out that this isn't the case with the genesis of living things, then science will not be able to solve the puzzle. It will never be able to determine that any given "non-naturalistic" theory is correct, because once you've opened the door to the supernatural, quite literally everything is equally likely. That's why the term "intelligent design" is so deceptive. It should simply be renamed "supernaturalism" or "unscientism", because even if all of the ID arugments are correct, it no more implies "intelligence" than it implies supernatural spontaneous generation.

theyeti

MortalWombat

Would that be the same filter that is employed when discussing rainbows without mentioning pots or gold, or when discussing mental illness without mentioning demons?

Jesse

theyeti:
I tend not to take such ravings seriously for the simple reason that it's an obvious double standard. Creationists / IDists are unapologetic about their blatant religious and ideological bias. Even if there really is bias in the scientific community, who do creationists think they are to chastize them about it?

I think they often do admit their biases, but their strategy is to try to encourage relativism and a sort of view that "oh, everyone is equally biased so you shouldn't complain about creationism." For reasons that have already been discussed on this thread (science's methods only suited to regular hypotheses that yield testable predictions, the enormously successful track record of investigations using this methodology, the fact that scientists come from all sorts of different philosophical worldviews while creationists/IDists never convince people of differing philosophical views on the basis of evidence, etc.), this is a pretty poor argument.

theyeti

Yes, but even that's a double standard. Creationists rant endlessly about the evils of relativism. (They blame evolutionism, whatever that is, for its apparent spread.) They make use of post-modernist arguments when they think they will convince people, but they're fundamentally opposed to post-modernism. You're supposed to believe in creationism because it's The Truth™, not because it's an equally justified interpretation from a relativistic view.

And most of the time they do not admit straight-up that they're biased. They try to give the impression that they're just "following the data wherever it leads" in the words of Philip Johnson. The argument that scientists are all biased is how they get around the inconvienient fact that the overwhelming majority of experts on the subject thoroughly reject their claims. In other words, it's a way to defeat the argument from authority, which is a dubious argument yet very appealing (and rightly so IMO) to most lay persons.

Johnson makes the bias claim a centerpiece of his arguments. He uses it not only to explain away the fact that the experts disagree with him, but in a more general fashion to discredit their integrity. The problem as I see it is that if someone's going to bandy about accusations of hardcore bias (or a massive conspiracy as it sometimes devolves into) then they shouldn't be comitting the very crime that they're accusing others of. Of course everyone's going to carry around some bias or at least some preconceptions, but it's rather blatant with Johnson et alia, who are quick to pull out religous apologetics as the reason to support their movement (in front of the right audience that is). Afterall, why would a philosophical bias matter if you're not biased toward an opposing philosophy? (To say nothing about why it would matter to a relativist.)

An honest person in his position would mention that there's bias coming from both sides (questionable though it may be) and then say that because of this, attacks against the other side's integrity won't resolve anything. But then he'd have to stick only to the evidence, and he'd lose his edge. Complaints about "naturalistic bias" are extremely hypocritical. They don't have to be, but in practice, coming from creationists, they most certainly are.

theyeti