theopoesis wrote:
I think you are partly on target. I am asking one more thing, though... I'm not only wondering about the way that human nature relates to theories (are theories what you call "a meaningful part of our nature"), I am wondering about the content of the theories as well. If theories develop in history, and history is random or contingent, can we trust the content of these theories to be anything other than random or arbitrary or contingent?
ChaosBorders wrote:This is a very good point and something statistical methodologies have developed to try and adequately answer. Firstly, yes they are contingent. They are contingent upon history having happened the way it happened. For instance, if we had evolved differently then obviously human nature would be different. I think Goat's frustration might be that on a practical level it doesn't really matter though if they are contingent because history happened how it did and it's not going to change.
The content of well developed theories though are not, for the most part, random or arbitrary. At least not entirely. Statistical methodologies work hard to ensure that confounding variables and the like are controlled for as much as possible so that true trends can be distinguished from chance. Studies are replicated (or should be) repeatedly to further guarantee the results that lead to the theories are not the result of chance or arbitrary mistakes.
I suppose if one's world view is that the accumulated differences that these things try to describe were the result of purely arbitrary processes, then the end result itself is, in effect, also in a sense arbitrary. But as far as whether people are randomly and arbitrarily making theories, I would say not really.
I grant that people who are making theories are not doing so randomly. I do think there is a divide here between the hard sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) and other fields on this though. I consider areas like ethics, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and some aspects of political science and economics to be the ones particularly subject to this criticism.
theopoesis wrote:
I think theology, given its assumptions, can answer "yes" to that question concerning a theistic set of theories. I am wondering whether the secularist can answer yes.
ChaosBorders wrote:That depends on how you're approaching it. From a methodological viewpoint then a secularist can definitely answer that it is non-arbitrary or at least should be if done well. From a content perspective the content developed as a result of accumulated (somewhat arbitrary) randomness, which in a sense makes the result itself random and arbitrary. However, the accumulation of the randomness seems to occur due to 'rules' as it were that are not entirely arbitrary and bias the randomness in favor of certain results over time. I think what is of greater interest to many secularists is discovering these 'rules' and as such the content resulting from them often more so serve a purpose only as to whether they confirm or dis-confirm a certain hypothesized rule.
I said a few times early in the thread (which I know you've said you hadn't read) that this criticism is not directed towards science, and I think that your explanation here is the reason why science escapes the criticism of arbitrary history. Other fields, though, I think are not protected by this defense. In many cases "fixed laws" in fields such as anthropology, sociology, and ethics seem to be culturally (and thus historically) determined. Other fields are determined, but less clearly so (I'm thinking of recent explorations of performative and behavioral economics, for example). Some fields might have a fixed scientific/biological component with an additional cultural component. Psychology is one such example, where certain psychological phenomena are the result of genes, hormones, etc but others are more influenced by individual past and cultural factors. I am simply wondering whether these cultural or historical elements, if history is in fact as contingent as I argued, can lead to either meaningful conclusions or methodologies that focus on "laws" that are in any sense something more than arbitrary patterns. I have not seen a sufficient secular methodology in many of the non-scientific fields to convince me of the rigor of secular methodology in these areas. I could be wrong.
ChaosBorders wrote:Which could also be why Goat thinks this conversation is meaningless. You may well be prioritizing two very different things so he has no idea what point you're trying to make.
Perhaps.
theopoesis wrote:
As for the 8th grade language level, you do have a point. I'm not doing the best at that, but I am trying. I've got two problems: (1) I just came from grad school, so this is how I've been writing for three years, and habits die hard.
ChaosBorders wrote:What school did you go to and what major did you do there? For all of us business majors at UT, they made it quite clear we need to break any habits regarding wordiness and such developed during high school. I still have not managed to entirely do so.
My undergrad at UNC was a bit more practically oriented. It was a mix of economics and religious studies with heavy coursework in philosophy and political science. Economics tended toward clarity, political science was on the fence, and philosophy and religious studies were much more complex. Grad school was at Duke where I got an M.div. The reading was typically complex. It's a habit I've learned to break in preaching/teaching but not so much in writing. Business majors certainly have a head up there on many of the humanities.
