posted
With apologies to whomever I've absorbed some of these concepts from, and those whose examples I've run with. Special apologies to those who read both hatrack and ornery.
Consider the following sentiment:
“While science is a useful tool in understanding the world, the notion that it should be the only tool or that it should always be the authoritative one is bizarre and unreasoned. Yes, history has valuable lessons to teach us, many of which aren't scientifically measurable. “
Science is an epistemological method. More specifically, it is an epistemological method that checks the real world against our beliefs about the world by creating tests that would falsify our ideas. That concept of falsification is important, because it is what allows us to have a strong idea that what we believe is probably true. If we never attempt to falsify a wrong belief, we never have reason to discard that wrong belief.
Imagine, for a moment, that you read a few books by American and British authors. You discover that these books have a lot of references to female beauty, but very few to male beauty. You make a claim: English cultures are sexist because they place more value on female beauty then male beauty. There are several ways to determine whether this claim has truth value, even staying within the field of literature. Lets look at several.
First, I could read more books from British and American authors, and see if the trend I noticed continues. I read 10 more books by Twain, Dickens, Asimov, and Pratchett. I note that female beauty seems to be more prominent then male beauty. I confirm my hypothesis, and move on to studying something else.
More comprehensively, I read 100 books by a wide variety of English speaking authors. I note that female beauty seems to be more prominent then male beauty. I confirm my hypothesis, and move on to studying something else.
Better yet, I read 1000 books by a wider variety of English speaking authors, and count the mentions of male beauty vs female beauty, and note a ratio of 3 female to 1 male mentions. I confirm my hypothesis and move on.
I assume we've all noticed a major problem here. I haven't yet checked my hypothesis against other cultures, and the claim is one about a specific culture. How can I know if a specific culture demonstrates a particular trait unless I've checked other cultures? So, I read 1000 books by East Asian authors, and discover the same tendency to mention female beauty more then male beauty I found in books by English speaking authors. Interesting! I revise the claim! English speaking and East Asian cultures are BOTH sexist because they place more value on female beauty and male beauty.
Note that of these four tests, the two that provide useful information is the step where I check my hypothesis numerically, and the step where I compare my hypothesis to something outside of itself. In fact, there are many more steps I'd have to go through in order to know that my hypothesis has any truth value, and if so, how much. I'd have to develop ratios of mentions of female beauty to male beauty for a wide variety of cultures, compare those ratios to see if there are differences between cultures. Then I'd have to check context to see if each mention of beauty is placing value, or not, on beauty as a trait. Then I'd have to check to see what type of value is placed on beauty, assuming value is placed. Is the value moral worthiness? Sexual worthiness? Or something else? I'd also have to check context for judgment, because my hypothesis is claiming sexism...the notion that one sex is superior to another. Maybe female beauty is mentioned because it is believed men value beauty when choosing a mate, but male beauty is not because it is believed women do not value male beauty when choosing a mate. The sex and sexuality of the author would have to be determined for each mention of beauty. Multiple people have to check each source to make sure the reader isn't injecting his own biases.
The more we use the scientific method in this study of literature, the more we can be certain that our hypothesis is correct, or falsified. Without applying the scientific method, all we are doing is falling prey to confirmation bias, as we study texts and note “Yes! Indeed! Western authors are sexist! They keep mentioning female beauty more then male beauty!”
The same is true of history. “Appeasement is a bad policy. Look at Hitler.” OK. Thats one example. What does appeasement mean? What policies does it include? How many situations can we find where those policies were enacted? Why is appeasement bad? What does that mean? OK, lets see if the outcomes in appeasement situations match that understanding of “bad.” Now lets compare that to other situations which are similar to the situations where appeasement was used. What policies were enacted in those situations? What were the outcomes? How do the ratios between the situations compare?
Historical claims of this nature, or of the nature “X causes Y,” can't be evaluated for truth unless they've been subjected to at least some scientific evaluation. How do we know X caused Y? Only by checking all the circumstances where X occurred to see if Y followed, and the situations where Y occurred to see if X preceded Y. The less of this sort of evaluation, the less weight should be attached to historical claims, because without scientific evaluation, there's no way of falsifying the statement.
Take two competing claims, made by two competing parties. Without some way of demonstrating that one claim is wrong, neither party has a reason to alter its view point, and yet both claims can't both be true statements. If the claims are about the world, and how the world works, then the best way of demonstrating that a claim is wrong is to test the claims against the real world by making predictions about what should happen if each claim is true, and then seeing if those predictions indeed come true. If one prediction does not match up against the real world, then people supporting the relevant claim have strong reason to change their beliefs.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: How do we know X caused Y? Only by checking all the circumstances where X occurred to see if Y followed, and the situations where Y occurred to see if X preceded Y.
(emphasis mine) I don't believe checking that occurrences where Y was preceded by X would support or invalidate the statment "X causes Y", unless the statement implies "only X causes Y".
I also found your opening quote interesting:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: “While science is a useful tool in understanding the world, the notion that it should be the only tool or that it should always be the authoritative one is bizarre and unreasoned.“
I don't know who authored this statement, but to use the word "unreasoned" seems to imply to me that the author thinks that the statment "science is the authoritative tool" is itself subject to epistemological scrutiny. Yet he does not believe the process is authoritative. If the author doesn't believe that epistomelogical processes are authoritative, how can one "reason" that science is or isn't authoritative?
It's almost like saying, "Science is not authoritative, because science has not authoritatively stated that science is authoritative."
EDIT: I just realized that perhaps no one authored this statement; you may have just invented it for your premise.
posted
My problem with your thesis is that you don't offer an alternative.
If science is not the only measuring stick to view the world, is there something you want to replace science with? If not, there are a lot of people who would.
In many places, the following would be considered heretical.
“While the bible is a useful tool in understanding the world, the notion that it should be the only tool or that it should always be the authoritative one is bizarre and unreasoned. Yes, history has valuable lessons to teach us, many of which aren't found in the Bible.“
In many places the following would mark the reader for death.
“While the Koran is a useful tool in understanding the world, the notion that it should be the only tool or that it should always be the authoritative one is bizarre and unreasoned. Yes, history has valuable lessons to teach us, many of which aren't found in the Koran.“
See there is only one science, but there are many faiths. When two people differ on their ideas about the world, science offers a safe, rational way to decide which is truer. When two people differ on their ideas about the world, based on faith, all to often---well, there can be only one.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: Interesting post, but one minor quibble: I also found your opening quote interesting:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: “While science is a useful tool in understanding the world, the notion that it should be the only tool or that it should always be the authoritative one is bizarre and unreasoned.“
I don't know who authored this statement, but to use the word "unreasoned" seems to imply to me that the author thinks that the statement "science is the authoritative tool" is itself subject to epistemological scrutiny. Yet he does not believe the process is authoritative. If the author doesn't believe that epistomelogical processes are authoritative, how can one "reason" that science is or isn't authoritative?
It's almost like saying, "Science is not authoritative, because science has not authoritatively stated that science is authoritative."
EDIT: I just realized that perhaps no one authored this statement; you may have just invented it for your premise.
Why in the word do you think science is the only valid epistomelogical processes?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For example, 'deduction' is another epistemological process that most don't have a problem with.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If science is not the only measuring stick to view the world, is there something you want to replace science with?
He didn't say science was the WRONG tool, and that it should be replaced. He said it was a LIMITED tool, and should be supplemented. Nobody said anything about replacing science, which does a good job of what it's meant to do.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - I was clearly tired while posting that. But now my spelling errors have been replicated for posterity...
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
