How Widely Is Science Abused to Propagate Ideology?

[harvey1]

It seems to me that science is frequently abused by those who should know better in propagating their ideology. My view is that this abuse is more likely to be done by those who are the "free thinkers" among us who often use science to propagate their materialist ideology. I'm curious how others view the abuse of science with respect to ideology, and whether there are any materialists who agree that some materialists in writing to the public are exercising this abuse. How widely is this problem, especially among those who supposedly give their allegiance to scientific thinking?

[palmera]

Good topic harvey. I think that when scientific evidence is used to support a claim in an incorrect way it's most often due to the lack of sufficient investigation and thought, rather than by an intentional use to manipulate data to meet one's (or a group's) ends.

So often, when a cause is found and there are studies which backs up one or more of it's claims, those pieces of information are latched onto at the expense of others which may or may not be more valid in the big picture. It's, I submit to you, because so much is at stake. Be it a religious belief, an environmental concern or what have you- when some one, or a group puts so much into a belief or an agenda, it's easy to ignore evidence contrary to your group's claims or to outright condemn it.

A lot what we're talking about here is rooted in the development of science in the West during the 15th through 18th centuries and the subsequent trials and tribulations faced by both the scientific community and the Roman Catholic power-base which were at odds when biblical claims didn't hold up to scientific observation about the nature of the world- specifically the orientation of the earth in the universe and the subsequent crumbling of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic understanding which not only placed the earth in the center of the universe, but also proved the existence of G-d.

Further, I think that one important example of the misuse of science to propagate an ideology, or rather in this case, an agenda, may be found in the Bush administration and their attempt to drive a wedge into the public's perception of the scientific community regarding global warming. The admin. has (esp. during the first four years in office) done an outstanding job presenting a case that the scientific community is evenly divided on whether or not global warming is an immediate concern even though, in fact, said community has made it abundantly clear that the vast majority of scientists recognize the threat of global warming and its proliferation and increase by humans.

[QED]

OK Harvey, I can guess what's prompted your question here. It's a great challenge for me to argue against your worldview when you can simply call in to question materialism in the way you do. At times like this I can sympathise with those who look at the world around them and simply know that it was created. I know very well that this assumption is not as safe as many people think it is -- but I have what you might say is a similar assumption: I look at the long geological and biological history of this planet and then I see the stories written in recent, human, history about a very special man who could walk on water and defy other laws of physics because he was so special -- and I know that this never happened.

Now you will probably tell me that I am simply using the wrong metaphysics to come by this knowledge. But I think that this would be an abuse of science -- not the other way around.

[harvey1]

I look at the long geological and biological history of this planet and then I see the stories written in recent, human, history about a very special man who could walk on water and defy other laws of physics because he was so special -- and I know that this never happened. Now you will probably tell me that I am simply using the wrong metaphysics to come by this knowledge. But I think that this would be an abuse of science -- not the other way around.

It's not an abuse of science to say that we don't have a scientific theory of what amounts to the metaphysics of the world. You have to be careful because the very assumptions you make of the metaphysics of the world is the conclusions that you want to make of the metaphysics of the world. So it's a vicious cycle. You believe what you assume, and you assume what you believe.

To break out of that vicious cycle (which myself and others are trying to graciously help you with) you need to go back to the very beginning of your assumptions and follow these implications to their source. It's my contention that you always drop off the discussion at those points, and therefore you never come to the point of the necessity to abandon your assumptions. Your assumptions appear to me to be based on your interpretation of the long geological and biological evolution periods that have occurred, and therefore you carelessly assume that this means what your interpretation would have it to mean. The problem is, because you don't go to the source of your assumptions to their breaking point, you never allow for a much more parsimonious interpretation of these long geological and biological evolution periods. This more parsimonious interpretation (i.e., in my opinion it is more parsimonious) would lead you to see why religion has a very good reason for being a valid exploration of the metaphysics behind the world. If and until you have such a metaphysical perspective, your interpretation of science will amount to an abuse each and every time you try to use scientific findings to declare any kind of victory of your materialist (metaphysical) depiction.

[QED]

To break out of that vicious cycle (which myself and others are trying to graciously help you with) you need to go back to the very beginning of your assumptions and follow these implications to their source.

Perhaps this cycle is only vicious in the eyes of those who believe that physics can be suspended to allow men-like things to walk on water. Of course we can think ourselves into territory incognito when contemplating mysterious sounding things like first causes and infinite sets but if we amplify the uncertainties and ambiguities of these matters by basing our entire philosophy upon them we inevitably create an endless parade of imaginary monsters. Hence my preference to work backwards from what I know of the world today.

I know that there are many who believe the world is sustaining a constant bombardment from the supernatural -- staggering numbers of people believe in Angels for example (mostly those living in the US it seems). But despite offers of huge prize money and a world full of hopeful experimenters, nothing of the paranormal has ever been successfully demonstrated. The history of the world that I brought up here attests to the mundane nature of matter. Tireless processes move matter at rates that make Glaciers look like they're travelling at light-speed. There are no supernatural short-cuts, and the same goes for the processes of our own lives. No amount of Catholic prayers could restore the late Pope to health. Holy water is just plain old water.

In my opinion, the fact that you might wish to point to the peculiarities of the entanglement of two hydrogen atoms in Holy waters separated by thousands of miles is nowhere near enough to justify the acceptance of the vast back-catalogue of the human imagination that represents Theology today.

[harvey1]

Perhaps this cycle is only vicious in the eyes of those who believe that physics can be suspended to allow men-like things to walk on water.

Interesting play on words, but this is just a distraction from what is really the issue: what is the most reasonable approach to what makes the universe tick, and from that point of view, how do we consider the enormous historical time lengths and apparent randomness we see in nature? Once we appropriately address this question, we don't have to give ourselves brownie points for advocating the most depressing view of nature (which, btw, I think accounts for the main reason why you think your view is correct).

Of course we can think ourselves into territory incognito when contemplating mysterious sounding things like first causes and infinite sets but if we amplify the uncertainties and ambiguities of these matters by basing our entire philosophy upon them we inevitably create an endless parade of imaginary monsters. Hence my preference to work backwards from what I know of the world today.

It's not the right way, QED. In order to understand the underlying causes of a phenomena, the best way to do so is to provide a theoretical account of that phenomena. That means developing a consistent worldview which doesn't have deep discrepancies in it. Your theoretical worldview (i.e., materialism) is inconsistent in terms of causation, as a brute fact reality, as an overly elaborate structure needed to account for the phenomena, along with inconsistencies with quantum theory and dynamical systems theory (e.g., universality). I just don't see why you would want to assume that this interpretation of nature is correct when it obviously lacks any kind of coherency on a theoretical level.

I know that there are many who believe the world is sustaining a constant bombardment from the supernatural -- staggering numbers of people believe in Angels for example (mostly those living in the US it seems). But despite offers of huge prize money and a world full of hopeful experimenters, nothing of the paranormal has ever been successfully demonstrated. The history of the world that I brought up here attests to the mundane nature of matter. Tireless processes move matter at rates that make Glaciers look like they're travelling at light-speed. There are no supernatural short-cuts, and the same goes for the processes of our own lives. No amount of Catholic prayers could restore the late Pope to health. Holy water is just plain old water. In my opinion, the fact that you might wish to point to the peculiarities of the entanglement of two hydrogen atoms in Holy waters separated by thousands of miles is nowhere near enough to justify the acceptance of the vast back-catalogue of the human imagination that represents Theology today.

Okay, you are confusing the underlying aspect to religious philosophy with religious beliefs. Imagine if we confused the underlying aspect to scientific philosophy with scientific beliefs. There have been many scientists in the history of humanity, and there have been many various scientific beliefs: a fair number being ludicrous. However, the underlying aspect to scientific philosophy that in one way or another that produced those beliefs is a valid and important philosophy. By using religious beliefs, you ask us to reject an underlying religious philosophy which would be like using certain scientific beliefs as reason to reject an underlying scientific philosophy. Such an argument would be absurd.

[QED]

As often happens we're doing the "splits" here -- going over the same basic material in two separate topics. In Atheism - How can one lack belief? I'm trying to suggest that a God who is the Laws of Physics but does not break those laws cannot be the God of theology. The problem I see with your suggested approach of establishing a theoretical account of the basis of all material phenomena is that it is inevitably limited to the realms of philosophy. Sure it can be consistent, but so is Pixar's mathematical world of Toy Story.

You say that working back from the data of everyday experience is the wrong way to go about things, but just as the suspension of one reality in a Sci-Fi novel allows a consistent fantasy to unfold -- so too can your view of the world as a divine creation. Some reality is required to anchor down a philosophy -- such as an unambiguous sign of divine intervention in your case. Without this, it seems to me that we are at the mercy of any amount of arbitrary metaphysical guesswork.

[harvey1]

You say that working back from the data of everyday experience is the wrong way to go about things, but just as the suspension of one reality in a Sci-Fi novel allows a consistent fantasy to unfold -- so too can your view of the world as a divine creation. Some reality is required to anchor down a philosophy -- such as an unambiguous sign of divine intervention in your case. Without this, it seems to me that we are at the mercy of any amount of arbitrary metaphysical guesswork.

I would argue that experience must be, and can only be, interpreted from the perspective of certain consistent and apparent theoretical postulates. Otherwise, the interpretation of experience is subject to whim. For example, I happened across this reported miracle that was the interpretation of Missionary Petroskey's experience with a green mamba snake. Now, it is my contention that Petroskey didn't just get popped onto the other side of the room, rather (assuming there's no exaggeration or lies told in the account) the person mentally blocked out key moments of their experience. How do I know that even though I was not the person having that experience? Well, I don't know it, but my interpretation of that experience is based on my particular set of theoretical postulates on how the world works. Therefore, having a set of theoretical postulates is needed in how we interpret the world.

Where atheists make some of their most fundamental mistakes in their interpretation of the data around them is that they have inconsistent theoretical postulates. As a result, they assume a world based on law, but supposing that laws exist is ultimately inconsistent with their atheism. This inconsistency might lead to less grand statements about the world than this reported miracle, but the result is the same: the interpretation of the experience is skewed. Such is the case of the atheist that looks at the enormous historical geological past, and assumes that this experience confirms their atheist outlook. Their theoretical postulates are skewed, and so is the interpretation of the meaning of the geological past of earth (as well as cosmological history of the universe).

[Bugmaster]

As a result, they assume a world based on law, but supposing that laws exist is ultimately inconsistent with their atheism.

How so ? Note that, while I can't speak for other atheists, I personally assume that the world is most likely based on some set of natural laws, based on what I see around me every day. I don't have faith in these laws, all I have is evidence.

[harvey1]

How so ? Note that, while I can't speak for other atheists, I personally assume that the world is most likely based on some set of natural laws, based on what I see around me every day. I don't have faith in these laws, all I have is evidence.

Because a law is a metaphysical entity that enforces itself onto the material. The material world is conforming to the mathematical equations stated in the law. In order for that to occur, there must be a satisfaction principle such that law F is enforced iff certain conditions are satisfied. Satisfaction is a cognitive term meaning that there exists a correspondence and coherence between the material thing that exists, and the logical pattern that it must conform to. This means that law requires mind.