Is science overly influenced by non-theistic metaphysics?

[harvey1]

It seems to me that many within science are overly influenced by their particular metaphysics, which happens to be non-theistic (e.g., atheism, agnosticism, metaphysical naturalism, metaphysical physicalism, etc.). If so, then has science been hijacked to some degree by these folks? My position is that science must be committed to a pure methodological naturalism (i.e., non-metaphysics), and those who try to hijack science to evangelize their own particular metaphysical position must be exposed for doing so. In the longrun, it is harmful, I think, to science for those so inclined to try and disguise their metaphysics for the scientific position.

[ShieldAxe]

It seems to me that many within science are overly influenced by their particular metaphysics, which happens to be non-theistic (e.g., atheism, agnosticism, metaphysical naturalism, metaphysical physicalism, etc.). If so, then has science been hijacked to some degree by these folks? My position is that science must be committed to a pure methodological naturalism (i.e., non-metaphysics), and those who try to hijack science to evangelize their own particular metaphysical position must be exposed for doing so. In the longrun, it is harmful, I think, to science for those so inclined to try and disguise their metaphysics for the scientific position.

Science is influenced by metaphysics. This is why we get creationism touted as science. Not sure what you mean by nontheistic metaphysics.

[juliod]

It seems to me that many within science are overly influenced by their particular metaphysics, which happens to be non-theistic (e.g., atheism, agnosticism, metaphysical naturalism, metaphysical physicalism, etc.).

It's true that everyone has biases. But I think you are wrong in this assessment. In the US, most scientists are christians. Atheists are overrepresented in science compared to the general populous, but we are still a minority.

I would also say that atheists are generally without a metaphysics.

Also, I don't like the concept of "methodological naturalism". I think it an erroneous concept. If there were supernatural things then science could study them. Indeed there is a tiny minority of deluded scientists who think they are. We'd need to explain how someone apparently exercising methodological naturalism was in fact a supernaturalist.

In the longrun, it is harmful, I think, to science for those so inclined to try and disguise their metaphysics for the scientific position.

Yes. As you know, I have a very strong view of my atheism. Yet I have never employed or exposed this view in the conduct of my science.

DanZ


DanZ

[QED]

My position is that science must be committed to a pure methodological naturalism (i.e., non-metaphysics), and those who try to hijack science to evangelize their own particular metaphysical position must be exposed for doing so.

Amen Harvey. So how come you don't show up when we have people distorting the science of Geology and Biology when we have YEC's trying to make the worlds data conform to the myths of the OT?

[harvey1]

Amen Harvey. So how come you don't show up when we have people distorting the science of Geology and Biology when we have YEC's trying to make the worlds data conform to the myths of the OT?

I get too frustrated debating young-earth creationists with regard to science. I learned a longtime ago that their beliefs have little to do with science. I don't know how some of you have the patience.

[harvey1]

Also, I don't like the concept of "methodological naturalism". I think it an erroneous concept. If there were supernatural things then science could study them. Indeed there is a tiny minority of deluded scientists who think they are. We'd need to explain how someone apparently exercising methodological naturalism was in fact a supernaturalist.

Well, as you go up the scale of complexity from particle physics up toward human psychology, for example, patterns and repeatability become much more difficult. For example, it is often easier to discover the mass of the top quark than if someone is lying. You can be methodological in your science and still be a "supernaturalist" about belief in spiritual things if you hold the view that we just don't have the proper tools to study spiritual things.

[juliod]

re: methodological naturalism

You can be methodological in your science and still be a "supernaturalist" about belief in spiritual things if you hold the view that we just don't have the proper tools to study spiritual things.

But what if you were supernaturalist about your science? Some people use the scientific method to study what they believe in a genuine paranormal phenomenon. They are making mistakes, of course. But they are doing what you would call methodological naturalism in a supernatural context.

For example, claims of ESP are supernaturalism. But there is a small group of people (I really hesitate to call them scientists) who study these people and believe they have genuine powers. Experiments are done on and with these people, following the scientific method (as well as those people are able). These people would tell you "Here is a supernatural phenomenon, and we are studying it scientifically." Hence, I think the concept of methodological naturalism isn't really valid.

DanZ

[harvey1]

But what if you were supernaturalist about your science? Some people use the scientific method to study what they believe in a genuine paranormal phenomenon. They are making mistakes, of course. But they are doing what you would call methodological naturalism in a supernatural context.

Why was it a mistake to study paranormal activity? The experiments were conducted, the conclusions have been inconclusive, end of experiment. Why is that a mistake?

For example, claims of ESP are supernaturalism. But there is a small group of people (I really hesitate to call them scientists) who study these people and believe they have genuine powers.

I'm open to hear evidence, but the experiments that were conducted that I am aware of didn't show any conclusive evidence that demonstrated ESP. That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as ESP, it just means that there is no scientific compelling reason to believe that humans have ESP powers.

Hence, I think the concept of methodological naturalism isn't really valid.

I don't see how you arrive at your conclusion. Science is fallibilistic for the sole reason that it cannot test metaphysical propositions/conclusions. Metaphysical naturalism is metaphysics, and as a result is outside the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy.

[juliod]

Why was it a mistake to study paranormal activity? The experiments were conducted, the conclusions have been inconclusive, end of experiment. Why is that a mistake?

I wasn't clear. I meant that they make mistakes in the conduct of their research, not in choosing to carry out the research.

The point I am failing to make is that there are some scientists who believe that they are studying supernatural things, in violation fo the principle of methodological naturalism (which holds that science can only study the natural).

Sometimes these people carry out significant blinded experiments. But they uniformly contain errors, which they do not see and refuse to acknolwedge. James Randi has said that scientific investigations into psychic, telekinetic, ESP, etc, phenomena should always consult a professional magician who is, most likely, more in tune with high-end trickery than the average scientist.

I don't see how you arrive at your conclusion. Science is fallibilistic for the sole reason that it cannot test metaphysical propositions/conclusions.

But what I am saying is that many people don't agree that science cannot test these metaphysical things. There are supernaturalists who, in practise, carry out scientific investigations. The fact that their results are bogus isn't relevant in consideration of their philosophical position.

DanZ

[ST88]

[Well, as you go up the scale of complexity from particle physics up toward human psychology, for example, patterns and repeatability become much more difficult. For example, it is often easier to discover the mass of the top quark than if someone is lying. You can be methodological in your science and still be a "supernaturalist" about belief in spiritual things if you hold the view that we just don't have the proper tools to study spiritual things.

But that's kind of evading the issue, isn't it? Implicit in the idea of supernaturalism is the idea that these things can't be studied by scientific means. I, for example, hold the view that the supernatural can't be measured, yet I don't believe in it. If someone were to hold the opposing view -- that it can't be measured, but there is a belief -- they would have to concede that psychology is a soft science that will never be hard-cracked.

But then you're left with supernaturalism as a concept that can't be measured no matter how hard you try. This is because as things that are purportedly supernatural suddenly become measurable -- for whatever reason -- they cease being supernatural.

I think I'm going to need a better definition of metaphysical naturalism.