Naturalism, Science and Reason

[dakoski]

This is a quote from Nagel on reasoning as the grounds for knowledge and scientific methods. He points out the challenges regarding the validity of our reasoning within a naturalistic worldview:

In ordinary perception, we are like mechanisms governed by a (roughly) truth-preserving algorithm. But when we reason, we are like a mechanism that can see that the algorithm it follows is truth-preserving. Something has happened that has gotten our minds into immediate contact with the rational order of the world, or at least with the basic elements of that order, which can in turn be used to reach a great deal more. That enables us to possess concepts that display the compatibility or incompatibility of particular beliefs with general hypotheses...

Certain things can be assumed, if there is such a thing as reason. First, there are objective, mind-independent truths of different kinds: factual truths about the natural world, including scientific laws; eternal and necessary truths of logic and mathematics….. Second, by starting from the way things initially appear to us, we can use reason collectively to achieve justified beliefs about some of those objective truths—though some of those beliefs will probably be mistaken. (Mind and Cosmos p85-86)

Points for discussion for those who hold a naturalistic worldview (but of course those who don't hold that worldview are also more than welcome to comment):
1) If Naturalism is true,

a) is logic a necessary truth? If so, why?
b) are there objective truths about the world? If so, why?

2) If Naturalism is true, can we achieve justified beliefs about some of these objective truths?

To preempt possible misunderstanding:
1)This isn't a question about the validity of logic per se (I'm assuming we agree that the laws of logic are valid) but the validity of logic conditional on the naturalist worldview being true.

2)This isn't a question about the validity of the scientific method (I'm assuming we agree that the scientific method is valid) but the validity of the scientific method conditional on the naturalist worldview being true

[dakoski]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

My answer to that is simple. Observation is how we know. We observe the actual world and take note of what we have observed. However, you need to also recognize and acknowledge that science does not just consider any \"observation\". Science demands that we are very careful about how we make observations and that only observations that can be dependably repeated by non-biased peers are considered valid. In fact, science has even determined that some humans imagine to see things that they obviously are not seeing, at least not physically.

That’s exactly my point that we do not just consider any observation. As you say:
i)we are careful about how we make observations (i.e. the methods we use to collect the data) ii) we need these observations to be replicated by non-biased peers.

In other words we have developed methods to carefully make observations which attempt to minimise error and bias. And we also have developed methods to draw valid inferences from these data we’ve collected about the world. How do we judge whether our methods sufficiently minimise error and bias? How do we decide whether the inferences we draw from the data are valid? On both accounts this is a process of logic and maths.

I’ll give you an example from my field of medicine. If I want a health system to fund the use of a drug we’ve developed I usually conduct several placebo (or current medication for that condition used by the health system) controlled randomised trials.

Yes the scientific methods of randomised controlled trials are a human invention – probably by Sir Bradford Hill in London. They are based on observation and logic:
i) The people in my trial have to reflect the people who would receive the medication in the health system I want to fund my drug. This is a logical inference – it can further be tested using logic, maths and observation by examining whether the drug differs depending on certain populations or contexts.

ii) There are some factors that make patients more likely to benefit from my drug – e.g. people who don’t smoke, people who aren’t overweight, females. I know this by observation – past pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic research about the drug and epidemiological research about the condition conducted by either my team or others.

Therefore if my trial has more people like that who receive my drug compared to the placebo group – then my drug is more likely to look effective whether it is in fact beneficial or not. So if on the basis of this data I conclude my drug is effective – the inference from my data would be logically invalid.

How do I then ensure that my groups are similar on these factors to avoid this bias? Also, I’ve only investigated some factors that might influence response to my drug, what if there are even more important factors I don’t know about? My solution comes from a combination of logic and maths, if I randomly assign a large enough sample of patients to placebo or my drug they will be similar on known and unknown factors that effect response to my drug. So my inferences from the data are unlikely to be biased by the presence of these factors in my trial as they are balanced out between the groups and therefore cancelled out.

We could go on and on but my point is that I agree the methods we use to collect valid data are human inventions. However, the process by which we develop and judge them to be valid assumes the mind independent validity of logic and the reliability of our cognitive faculties.

If the basis for our logical inferences are not valid or we do not know if they are valid then we would have to be agnostic about the inferences we draw from the scientific method. But even that conclusion itself also derives from the assumption of the validity of logic and the reliability of our cognitive faculties (as does our discussion) so if naturalism is true we are necessarily agnostic about all knowledge.

I don\'t claim to be \"agnostic\" of the laws of logic. To the contrary, I suggest that our laws of logic are created by us because of the the observations we make. So our laws of logic ultimately stem from observing the real world as well, even though it may not always be obvious that this is the case.

After all, think about it. The discovery of time dilation and the fact that time and space are actually malleable, at first seemed to be extremely \"[i:eaac15b5e7]illogical[/i:eaac15b5e7]\" to us. Almost everyone who encounters Relativity for the first time is convinced that there is a logical flaw in the theory. But then after much observation of the situations in which time dilation must take place we eventually come to realize that Relativity is not only \"logical\" but it\'s also the way the world works.

So often times we even need to change our very concept of \"logic\" to fit the real world.

I’m not setting up logic and empirical data as mutually exclusive alternatives. I’m saying science involves both logic and empirical data. Your examples of ‘logic’ changing are simply changes to scientific theories as a response to logically valid inferences from empirical data. How do we know about time dilation? Through experiments designed to test these hypotheses. What is the basis for the design of these experiments and inferences from the data collected in these experiments? Logic and maths.

We are assuming the validity of our cognitive faculties to observe and measure the data needed to test our hypotheses and then to draw valid inferences from these data. Because logic is mind independent I can set out my methods, data and conclusions in a scientific journal. The logic of my methods and conclusions can be checked by peer reviewers to identify if there are logical flaws in the design or conduct of my methods or the conclusions inferred from my data – if they identify sufficient flaws and I cannot refute those comments then it doesn’t get published. Similarly, if logical flaws are identified later after publication then further experiments eliminating these flaws can be carried out in the future or people can write to the journal pointing out my logical flaws.

I disagree. I think what you are doing here is mistaking \"[i:eaac15b5e7]logic[/i:eaac15b5e7]\" with thoroughness. In fact, we even talk about \"chains\" of logic. If A is true, and B is true, and C is true, then it becomes clear that D is true.

Obviously this appears to be a change of \"logical reasoning\". But what it really amount to is a list of checking that each \"observation\" we are making along the way truly is a valid observation.

Yes I think the process of determining if an observation is true and valid is based on the application of logic and maths. The application of logic and maths to determine the validity of an observation requires assumptions regarding the validity of logic, maths and our cognitive faculties.

We can even then go further and recognize that If observation A is true, and observation B is true, and observation C is true, then it must also be true that if we set up experiment D we will indeed observe that D is also true.

This appears to be pure \"logic\", but all it truly amounts to is the recognition that if all our previous observations are known to be true, then we can actually predict something about what must happen when we combine these events.

This actually demonstrates that logic is nothing more than an understanding of how things already work.

Your example simply demonstrates that the application of logic to empirical data is a useful tool for understanding the world. If that’s all you meant then yeah I agree.

There’s two main aspects to genetic fitness – i) being able to attract a mate to reproduce with, ii) avoiding predators long enough to be able to reproduce.
The question then is, firstly whether being good with logic, science and maths is associated with attractiveness to potential mates - I don’t see much evidence for that currently. And at the advent of the development of human societies this would likely even less be the case. Secondly, can we really extrapolate that the abilities needed to escape predators are necessarily synonymous with the abilities of philosophers, physicists etc. to make abstract but valid inferences about the world? This seems far too speculative to warrant the strength of your conclusion. We know far too little about the neuroscience of our reasoning capacities to make that assumption. It seems to me agnosticism about the validity of our cognitive faculties is warranted if naturalism is true, at least until we have better data.

My simple point was that you were arguing a realist view of maths assumes the supernatural. I argued this is unlikely since there are many atheists that take a realist view of maths – they would be according to you be engaging in a logical contradiction. That is possible but unlikely in my opinion.
I personally don’t have a horse in the race – I don’t think either approach to maths has been shown to be conclusively superior. But I am a realist about logic.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by dakoski]

I think the questions are malformed: if naturalism is false, would there be any more or any less reason to accept logic or objective truths, or beliefs about those truths? You've affirmed as much when you clarified that this topic isn't about the validity of logic or the scientific method per se.

I think logic, reason and truths are more fundamental than naturalism. In other words naturalism is built on top on the presumption of logic, reason and truths. Naturalism presume logic, reason and truths.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I think the questions are malformed: if naturalism is false, would there be any more or any less reason to accept logic or objective truths, or beliefs about those truths? You've affirmed as much when you clarified that this topic isn't about the validity of logic or the scientific method per se.

Yeah the point of the question is that we generally accept the objectivity of logic and the scientific method. The question is asking whether the assumptions of the naturalist worldview are consistent with assumptions about the objectivity of logic and the scientific method. A potential incoherence results because it is unclear whether mind independent truths are possible given the assumptions of naturalism. If you disagree would be good to understand why.

I think logic, reason and truths are more fundamental than naturalism. In other words naturalism is built on top on the presumption of logic, reason and truths. Naturalism presume logic, reason and truths.

Naturalism is a worldview about reality something like: 'philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'

Clearly in this context naturalism is fundamental and we then need to assess how logic, reason and truths are coherently derived from this foundation. But I maybe misunderstanding your point.

Or are you arguing that concluding naturalism is true is a consequence of applying logic and reason? If that's the case, could you elaborate on why you think that's the case.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 8 by Kenisaw]

Actually I'd disagree right there. Naturalism is not a set of assumptions. Naturalism is based on empirical data and evidence. I know, technically we have axioms that are a part of the foundation of knowledge, and those are "assumptions" in that they cannot be independently verified although there is no reason to doubt them. But outside of axioms I don't see where naturalism assumes anything. The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it.

What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

Since that wasn't the point I was making, I've left a) and b) alone for the time being. To answer the question in your last paragraph, I don't agree that axioms are not tested. Axioms are self-evidence truths, kind of the basic knowledge that acts as a starting point, right? If the work done via the scientific method, which seems to align itself with naturalism since no evidence can be found for the supernatural (that I am aware of anyway), is accurate and dependable, isn't that an indirect proof of the axiom? I realize it is not a direct proof, yet what reason would there be to "doubt the validity" of axioms if work built on them is verifiable and validated?

Couple of points here:
1) Since a property of the scientific method is that it cannot investigate the supernatural it can hardly be cited to show that the supernatural doesn’t exist.
2) The question as I clarified in the OP isn’t the validity of logic per se but the validity of logic conditional on naturalism being true.

So the success of the scientific method might be evidence for the validity of logic given our experience but that is distinct from the question of the validity of logic given the truth of naturalism. We also can’t just assume that the validity of logic is self evident given naturalism as there are good reasons for questioning that. We need to show that the mind independent validity of logic coheres with the assumptions of the naturalist worldview
3) How would you verify the axiom regarding the validity of logic given the truth of naturalism – since we can only verify the validity of logic given our experience (since we do not know whether the reality we experience is explained by naturalism)

I don't think they are either. I think logic is the process of recognition that animals use to understand the world. They aren't mind independent since it takes a mind to use the logic, and I don't think it is a learned behavior but rather the behavior that is used in order to learn. (I hope I've explained that in an understandable way).

I think the difficulty of denying the mind independent validity of logic – is that you’re arguing a process that is mind-dependent can lead to mind-independent truth. That seems to me very unlikely to be the case – and an argument against the objectivity of scientific findings. I.e. an argument for the incoherence of assuming the objective validity of logic, scientific method etc and the truth of naturalism.

I think we can trust our cognitive abilities because we can (and have) verified the work of others time and again. I can't see how that is possible if the axioms used were fundamentally flawed.

Problem is that the verification of the work of others depends of the trustworthiness of our cognitive faculties. So we can’t verify the validity of our cognitive faculties without circularity.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 8 by Kenisaw]

Actually I'd disagree right there. Naturalism is not a set of assumptions. Naturalism is based on empirical data and evidence. I know, technically we have axioms that are a part of the foundation of knowledge, and those are "assumptions" in that they cannot be independently verified although there is no reason to doubt them. But outside of axioms I don't see where naturalism assumes anything. The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it.

What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

It's verified and validated by many individuals, over multiple generations. It must be pretty close at the very least for that to continually happen, or else I cannot fathom how that verification happens time and again.

Since that wasn't the point I was making, I've left a) and b) alone for the time being. To answer the question in your last paragraph, I don't agree that axioms are not tested. Axioms are self-evidence truths, kind of the basic knowledge that acts as a starting point, right? If the work done via the scientific method, which seems to align itself with naturalism since no evidence can be found for the supernatural (that I am aware of anyway), is accurate and dependable, isn't that an indirect proof of the axiom? I realize it is not a direct proof, yet what reason would there be to "doubt the validity" of axioms if work built on them is verifiable and validated?

Couple of points here:
1) Since a property of the scientific method is that it cannot investigate the supernatural it can hardly be cited to show that the supernatural doesn’t exist.
2) The question as I clarified in the OP isn’t the validity of logic per se but the validity of logic conditional on naturalism being true.

1) Wrong, in two ways. First, why do people always make this erroneous assumption? Science can investigate data and evidence. If there was data and evidence for the supernatural, it could be examined. For example, religions claim that supernatural beings have done all sorts of things on this planet, like changing water to wine and raising the dead and having sex with mortals and creating demi-gods and doing miracles and sending monsters to the surface to fight humans and etc etc etc. That's a LOT of data that should exist all over the place. So where is it? No one has ever found a thing.

Second, science does not say the supernatural does NOT exist. You cannot prove a negative as I'm sure you know, so science cannot and will not ever be able to make that statement. What it can say is that there is no known evidence or data for the supernatural. That lack of evidence means that there is no reason to consider the hypothesis of the supernatural as plausible.

2) I think I may have stated this earlier, perhaps in another way, but isn't it the other way around? Isn't the validity of naturalism based on logic being true?

So the success of the scientific method might be evidence for the validity of logic given our experience but that is distinct from the question of the validity of logic given the truth of naturalism. We also can’t just assume that the validity of logic is self evident given naturalism as there are good reasons for questioning that.

OK. Please state those reasons then. I am not aware of them.

We need to show that the mind independent validity of logic coheres with the assumptions of the naturalist worldview

I don't see logic as being mind-independent. Logic is what living things do as a process of accumulating information and learning. Perhaps you can explain in greater detail why you think logic needs to exist independent of the minds of living things.

As to the "assumptions of the naturalist worldview", what assumptions are you talking about specifically? Axioms?

3)How would you verify the axiom regarding the validity of logic given the truth of naturalism – since we can only verify the validity of logic given our experience (since we do not know whether the reality we experience is explained by naturalism)

If logic and naturalism aren't valid, then I can't explain how we've put robots on Mars, and GPS satellites around the planet whose clocks are adjusted for the relativistic affects of spacetime. Can you?

I look at it this way, and hopefully I explain this in a clear and concise way: I don't know how accurate any one person's experience is as it relates to true reality, but I don't need to know that. What I do know is that everyone'e reality seems to match up pretty darn well with everyone else's reality. I can test and experiment and verify what others have studied and observed when they've tested and experimented stuff, and I can reach the same conclusions as they. The people that used Newtonian physics to send a robot rover to Mars didn't discover the physics, but it worked. That confirms Newton's work (and many others) and also speaks to the accuracy with which we view reality.

Even from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Which group of animals would have a better chance of survival, the one that see reality more accurately, or the one that doesn't see reality very well? Obviously the one that sees reality more accurately has a better chance of survival. I don't think that is a controversial statement to make. There's no reason to expect that we wouldn't be pretty accurate in our perceptions.

I don't think they are either. I think logic is the process of recognition that animals use to understand the world. They aren't mind independent since it takes a mind to use the logic, and I don't think it is a learned behavior but rather the behavior that is used in order to learn. (I hope I've explained that in an understandable way).

I think the difficulty of denying the mind independent validity of logic – is that you’re arguing a process that is mind-dependent can lead to mind-independent truth. That seems to me very unlikely to be the case – and an argument against the objectivity of scientific findings. I.e. an argument for the incoherence of assuming the objective validity of logic, scientific method etc and the truth of naturalism.

As I have no data to suggest mind independent logic, I don't see why it is difficult to deny it. If you have something to offer I would very much like to see it.

As for mind-dependent logic, I don't see why that is a limitation. The minds of animals do not exist outside of reality, the universe, and the laws of said universe. They are a PART of the same universe, following the same laws and rules as the rest of the matter and energy. Why can't those minds get a pretty accurate idea of reality, as I pointed out in my previous paragraphs above.

If scientific findings aren't accurate, then we shouldn't have a rover on Mars...

I think we can trust our cognitive abilities because we can (and have) verified the work of others time and again. I can't see how that is possible if the axioms used were fundamentally flawed.

Problem is that the verification of the work of others depends of the trustworthiness of our cognitive faculties. So we can’t verify the validity of our cognitive faculties without circularity.

We aren't verifying the validity of our cognitive facilities (or I guess I should say just ours). We're verifying the cognitive facilities of others. When a whole lot of people start verifying the same thing, the confidence of the accuracy of those results becomes very high I would say.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

[Naturalism] It\'s verified and validated by many individuals, over multiple generations. It must be pretty close at the very least for that to continually happen, or else I cannot fathom how that verification happens time and again.

Sorry I don’t see any evidence provided here nor an explanation of how you would test the hypothesis that naturalism is true.

1) Wrong, in two ways. First, why do people always make this erroneous assumption? Science can investigate data and evidence. If there was data and evidence for the supernatural, it could be examined. For example, religions claim that supernatural beings have done all sorts of things on this planet, like changing water to wine and raising the dead and having sex with mortals and creating demi-gods and doing miracles and sending monsters to the surface to fight humans and etc etc etc. That\'s a LOT of data that should exist all over the place. So where is it? No one has ever found a thing.

You reject methodological naturalism?

Second, science does not say the supernatural does NOT exist. You cannot prove a negative as I\'m sure you know, so science cannot and will not ever be able to make that statement. What it can say is that there is no known evidence or data for the supernatural. That lack of evidence means that there is no reason to consider the hypothesis of the supernatural as plausible.

The problem is that you’ve argued metaphysical naturalism (which states 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted) has been verified and validated by science. Now you are saying ‘science does not say the supernatural does NOT exist’. Therefore then naturalism hasn’t been verified and validated. Either you are contradicting yourself or you need to clarify your position.

2) I think I may have stated this earlier, perhaps in another way, but isn\'t it the other way around? Isn\'t the validity of naturalism based on logic being true?

You’re welcome to come to that conclusion but could you show me the basis for this?

[dakoski]So the success of the scientific method might be evidence for the validity of logic given our experience but that is distinct from the question of the validity of logic given the truth of naturalism. We also can’t just assume that the validity of logic is self evident given naturalism as there are good reasons for questioning that.

OK. Please state those reasons then. I am not aware of them.

1) As you’ve acknowledged naturalism and the mind-independent validity of logic aren’t compatible. Since logic is not objectively valid nor are the conclusions of the scientific method.

2) Its unclear if naturalism were true if we could conclude our cognitive faculties are reliable

I don\'t see logic as being mind-independent. Logic is what living things do as a process of accumulating information and learning. Perhaps you can explain in greater detail why you think logic needs to exist independent of the minds of living things.

If the validity of logic is mind dependent then the conclusions I reach with it are binding on me alone – my logical inferences are then truth for me and since humans are social beings most likely true for the culture I was raised in but not necessarily truth for others. If that’s the case then all knowledge (including scientific knowledge) is inherently subjective and culturally conditioned.

If logic and naturalism aren\'t valid, then I can\'t explain how we\'ve put robots on Mars, and GPS satellites around the planet whose clocks are adjusted for the relativistic affects of spacetime. Can you?

You’re conflating the scientific method and naturalism. It’s the validity of the scientific method (of which logic is an important component) which explains why we’ve put robots on Mars etc. It tells us nothing about whether naturalism is true or not.

I look at it this way, and hopefully I explain this in a clear and concise way: I don\'t know how accurate any one person\'s experience is as it relates to true reality, but I don\'t need to know that. What I do know is that everyone\'e reality seems to match up pretty darn well with everyone else\'s reality. I can test and experiment and verify what others have studied and observed when they\'ve tested and experimented stuff, and I can reach the same conclusions as they. The people that used Newtonian physics to send a robot rover to Mars didn\'t discover the physics, but it worked. That confirms Newton\'s work (and many others) and also speaks to the accuracy with which we view reality.

Yes this shows our experience is that our logical inferences appear to i) be capable of mind independent truth ii) that our cognitive faculties appear to be valid
However since if naturalism is true, the validity of logic by definition is mind-dependent and it would at least be unclear if our cognitive faculties would be valid. Either naturalism isn’t true or we would have to explain why our mind-dependently valid logic results in mind-independently valid truth.

Even from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Which group of animals would have a better chance of survival, the one that see reality more accurately, or the one that doesn\'t see reality very well? Obviously the one that sees reality more accurately has a better chance of survival. I don\'t think that is a controversial statement to make. There\'s no reason to expect that we wouldn\'t be pretty accurate in our perceptions.

Divine Insight made a similar argument so I’ll paste my response to him here:
There’s two main aspects to genetic fitness – i) being able to attract a mate to reproduce with, ii) avoiding predators long enough to be able to reproduce.
The question then is, firstly whether being good with logic, science and maths is associated with attractiveness to potential mates - I don’t see much evidence for that currently. And at the advent of the development of human societies this would likely even less be the case. Secondly, can we really extrapolate that the abilities needed to escape predators are necessarily synonymous with the abilities of philosophers, physicists etc. to make abstract but valid inferences about the world? This seems far too speculative to warrant the strength of your conclusion. We know far too little about the neuroscience of our reasoning capacities to make that assumption. It seems to me agnosticism about the validity of our cognitive faculties is warranted if naturalism is true, at least until we have better data.

As I have no data to suggest mind independent logic, I don\'t see why it is difficult to deny it. If you have something to offer I would very much like to see it.

As for mind-dependent logic, I don\'t see why that is a limitation. The minds of animals do not exist outside of reality, the universe, and the laws of said universe. They are a PART of the same universe, following the same laws and rules as the rest of the matter and energy. Why can\'t those minds get a pretty accurate idea of reality, as I pointed out in my previous paragraphs above.

If scientific findings aren\'t accurate, then we shouldn\'t have a rover on Mars...

So are you arguing science cannot lead to objectively true conclusions? That’s the consequence of the premise that the validity of logic is mind-dependent.

As I’ve said above, the main problem is that mind-dependent inferences cannot produce mind-independent conclusions. Therefore, our experience that rovers can land on Mars is a strong argument against your argument regarding the mind-dependent validity of logical and scientific inference. I’m not sure how you can hold to both without being incoherent.

We aren\'t verifying the validity of our cognitive facilities (or I guess I should say just ours). We\'re verifying the cognitive facilities of others. When a whole lot of people start verifying the same thing, the confidence of the accuracy of those results becomes very high I would say.

Not really since if the inferences we are making are mind-dependent – then correspondence just reflects that our inferences correspond it doesn’t mean they are valid. Given that humans are social beings their correspondence could just reflect social convention.

[Divine Insight]

I'm afraid I don't understand what your concerns have to do with "religion"? Or how your concerns could have anything to do with science versus religion.

I say this because you posted this topic in "Science and Religion" and not simply in "Philosophy" where you might just look at the validity of scientific methods directly without any implication that religion might play an alternative or "better" role.

So I just wanted to make it clear that I don't understand what your questions have do with "Science and Religion". Where does the religion part come into play?

Let's take your following example:

I’ll give you an example from my field of medicine. If I want a health system to fund the use of a drug we’ve developed I usually conduct several placebo (or current medication for that condition used by the health system) controlled randomised trials.

To begin with I would argue two things here. First, testing the effectiveness of drugs in the field of medicine go far beyond core "science". There are simply far too many factors involved here to make any concrete scientific conclusions. Especially considering the obvious fact that not all humans are the same, some may benefit from using your drug, others may actually be harmed by the drug itself. Humans are not carbon copies of each other.

So what you are talking about here is not "Pure Science", but rather it's an attempt to use proven scientific methods in the fields of technology and engineering (in this case the technology of engineering a new drug), and running it through trials to obtain statistics that can show what the probabilities might be if used in a large population. Surely even you can see that those trails are going to only provide percentages of success.

This is far more complicated than most core physics problems, such as the discovery of Time Dilation, which I would like to use as my next point:

Edited to add: I forgot to include my second thought here:

Secondly, what would this argument have to do with "religion"? (being that this is posted in Science and Religion). In what way would religion offer a better solution to your drug example? Of if not religion, can you offer any other non-scientific method to replace the scientific method? And if not, then what's your point or concern?

I'm just trying to get a feel for what you are actually opposing, or proposing, as a replacement to current scientific methods. In other words, if you reject naturalism then what are you proposing to replace it? Prayer? And how would this help your drug example?

I’m not setting up logic and empirical data as mutually exclusive alternatives. I’m saying science involves both logic and empirical data. Your examples of ‘logic’ changing are simply changes to scientific theories as a response to logically valid inferences from empirical data. How do we know about time dilation? Through experiments designed to test these hypotheses. What is the basis for the design of these experiments and inferences from the data collected in these experiments? Logic and maths.

There are several important points to consider here. Let's first look at the first half of your above statements:

I’m not setting up logic and empirical data as mutually exclusive alternatives. I’m saying science involves both logic and empirical data. Your examples of ‘logic’ changing are simply changes to scientific theories as a response to logically valid inferences from empirical data.

Our logic (in fact all logic) necessarily begins with unprovable assumptions we call "premises". We often don't need to prove a premise, we only need to obtain a majority consensus to have it accepted.

Prior to our discovery of time dilatation we assumed (without proof or evidence) that time and space were both absolutes. They were seen as a constant backdrop of our reality. The "stage" upon which our physical reality is play out.

No one questioned this unproven assumption until Albert Einstein came along. Albert Einstein simply realized that it can't be true that time and space are absolutes AND that light has a finite fixed speed. Something had to give. And so Einstein accepted the experimentally measured and observed fact that the speed of light is constant along with what James Clerk Maxwell's equations had to say about light, and therefore concluded that are previous assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time where necessarily incorrect.

You can't really say that the idea of an absolute space and absolute time are necessarily "Logically impossible" in any mystical absolute sense like in an imaginary Platonic World. Perhaps such an idea could be made logically consistent in an imaginary world. But because of the observed fact that light has a constant fixed speed, this makes the idea of an absolute space and absolute time impossible. So absolute time and absolute space are only "illogical" in our universe precisely because the speed of light is fixed.

In other words, none of this has to do with any "absolute logic". It really has to do with the physical nature of our universe.

So there's not only no need for any imagined "Platonic World of Logic", but even if we were to imagine such a world we could imagine a universe in which time and space are absolute, and perhaps the speed of light simply isn't constant. Then we would once again have a "logically consistent universe" simply different from ours.

So it's probably wrong to think that there can be only "One Logical Truth" that must always be true in an imagined Platonic World. Even if we imagine a Platonic World of Logic, that world could contain an infinite number of different, yet perfectly valid logical truths, each one being "Relative" to the conditions of a specific universe.

In this way we can see why the idea of an "Absolute Ultimate Truth" may ultimately be unobtainable. Of if there is such a thing as an "Absolute Ultimate Truth" that truth may ironically be "Anything goes!"

I think Einstein hit on a very fundamental truth that ultimately everything is "Relative" rather than "Absolute" which has always been one of our unproven premises.

How do we know about time dilation? Through experiments designed to test these hypotheses. What is the basis for the design of these experiments and inferences from the data collected in these experiments? Logic and maths.

To the second part of your statement I would like to argue that it was not logic and math that "led" Einstein and ultimately science to the discovery of Time Dilation.

But instead it was Einstein himself that led that movement, and he did so by simply accepting different "premises" upon which to base his logical reasoning. So it was the premises he changed, not the method of reasoning.

We used to think it was "logical" that space and time where absolutely. Now we no longer think of that as a "logical" idea.

Finally, yes mathematics played a role in being able to demonstrate that time dilation does indeed occur. But once again, you need to understand that while you may still be thinking of mathematics as being associated with some mysterious "Platonic World", I don't. I see our mathematics as being nothing more than a reflection of what we observe. In other words I see our mathematics as being nothing more than a quantitative description of our physical universe.

~~~~~~~

Allow me to explain is as follows:

A painter stands next to a beautiful flower garden with a blank canvas. The flower garden is the universe, the canvas will become our mathematical formalism.

The painter than begins to paint a picture of the flower garden by first sketching in the overall shapes of flowers and other objects, and then filling in the details, and colors, and also adding shading and lighting to give a very close approximation of what the actual flower garden looks like.

The people who favor the "Platonic World" theory then come up and look at what the painter has done and they say, "Wow! Look! That flower garden has grown precisely as this painting shows it should look! How amazing! I can't believe the POWER of that painting to have predicted what this flower garden will look like!".

What? Obviously they aren't thinking very clearly here.

For me, mathematics is nothing more than our "Quantitative Painting" of the universe, it doesn't surprise me in the least that mathematics can then be used to "Predict" how the universe will behave. After all, it is a quantitative calculation system that was modeled after the universe.

So, for me, mathematics is not something to marvel at as being greatly mysterious.

In fact, as Richard Feynman has pointed out, our universe doesn't even truly obey our mathematics in detail, for if it did it would crash and burn!

Our mathematics ultimately fails when we try to apply it to how the real world actually works so it's not even a "Perfect Painting" its more like a kindergarten scribble.

Our universe DOES NOT obey our mathematical formalism, and we should be very grateful that it doesn't.

Because if it did, we wouldn't be here.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Kenisaw]

Actually I'd disagree right there. Naturalism is not a set of assumptions. Naturalism is based on empirical data and evidence. I know, technically we have axioms that are a part of the foundation of knowledge, and those are "assumptions" in that they cannot be independently verified although there is no reason to doubt them. But outside of axioms I don't see where naturalism assumes anything. The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it.

What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

I realize you are responding to Kenisaw here, but I would like to offer my thoughts on your question, specially the last part of it:

and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

I question the meaning of "supernatural or spiritual explanations".

How does "An invisible boogieman did it" explain anything?

In other words, I don't see where spiritual musings "explain" anything at all. To the contrary they already assume the existence of an invisible undetectable entity that itself has no explanation.

So how can something that has no explanation itself be called an "explanation"?

This is why these ideas are discounted. They are not only impossible to test, or confirm, but they also do not offer any "explanations" anyway.

Saying, "God did it", is no different from saying "The Boogieman did it", or "Fairies did it", etc.

Not only can none of these entities be shown to exist, but there isn't even any valid definition for what they are. They most certainly don't serve as an "Explanation" for anything.

So why shouldn't they be discounted?

Of what value are they?

They basically amount to nothing more than tossing our hands up in the air and saying, "I can't figure things out so let's imagine there exists an invisible undetectable entity who can. And that's my explanation for everything".

What?

That's hardly an explanation for anything. All that amounts to is a confession that the person in question has absolutely no explanations to offer at all.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

[Naturalism] It's verified and validated by many individuals, over multiple generations. It must be pretty close at the very least for that to continually happen, or else I cannot fathom how that verification happens time and again.

Sorry I don’t see any evidence provided here nor an explanation of how you would test the hypothesis that naturalism is true.

Let's back up a bit. You asked two questions in post #14. They were:

What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

The first question I addressed in my response in post 15, which you have quoted up above before your "sorry" et al reply in post #16. As my reply in post 15 already answers the first question in your post #14, your statement in post #16 that you don't see any evidence doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps if you review the relevant posts again you will become aware of it.

The second question from post #14, that you got from putting "naturalism" in google and editing the "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted" that shows up on the top of the page, was already answered in post #8 by me that you quoted before asking your question: "The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it."

And let's cut to the chase on that one right now. There is no evidence at this time for god creatures or the supernatural, and we both know it. Goodness knows requests for such evidence and data have been asked for ad nauseum on just this website over the years, without even one ort of proof ever being offered. If such proof existed it would have been all over the news and splattered on billboards coast to coast by cultists by now.

1) Wrong, in two ways. First, why do people always make this erroneous assumption? Science can investigate data and evidence. If there was data and evidence for the supernatural, it could be examined. For example, religions claim that supernatural beings have done all sorts of things on this planet, like changing water to wine and raising the dead and having sex with mortals and creating demi-gods and doing miracles and sending monsters to the surface to fight humans and etc etc etc. That's a LOT of data that should exist all over the place. So where is it? No one has ever found a thing.

You reject methodological naturalism?

I have no idea what led you to ask that question.

Second, science does not say the supernatural does NOT exist. You cannot prove a negative as I'm sure you know, so science cannot and will not ever be able to make that statement. What it can say is that there is no known evidence or data for the supernatural. That lack of evidence means that there is no reason to consider the hypothesis of the supernatural as plausible.

The problem is that you’ve argued metaphysical naturalism (which states 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted) has been verified and validated by science. Now you are saying ‘science does not say the supernatural does NOT exist’. Therefore then naturalism hasn’t been verified and validated. Either you are contradicting yourself or you need to clarify your position.

Or the third option, which is that you didn't understand the answers given. I will assume I was inadequate with my explanation and try again.

Obviously you want to deal in absolutes. You think it is an either/or proposition. I do not see it that way. I go where the data and evidence lead me. To date, the totality of the data and evidence point to natural explanations for everything. There is no supernatural component that can be identified to any of it. Does this mean that it is impossible for the supernatural to exist? No, because we don't know everything. And since we cannot prove a negative (i.e. the supernatural does not exist), we cannot rule it out at this time. As a scientific person I always leave the door open for additional data and evidence to be considered at a future time. But since there is nothing supporting the concept of supernatural, there is no reason to consider that hypothesis as plausible at this time. In the mean time, we continue to validate the natural explanations we do have over and over and over...

2) I think I may have stated this earlier, perhaps in another way, but isn't it the other way around? Isn't the validity of naturalism based on logic being true?

You’re welcome to come to that conclusion but could you show me the basis for this?

If logic wasn't able to find the patterns and cause and effect sequences in the universe, there'd be no way to determine if natural or supernatural ideals were responsible. It takes logic to recognize the cause and effect, and its the cause and effect that displays the laws and rules of the universe.

[dakoski]So the success of the scientific method might be evidence for the validity of logic given our experience but that is distinct from the question of the validity of logic given the truth of naturalism. We also can’t just assume that the validity of logic is self evident given naturalism as there are good reasons for questioning that.

OK. Please state those reasons then. I am not aware of them.

1) As you’ve acknowledged naturalism and the mind-independent validity of logic aren’t compatible. Since logic is not objectively valid nor are the conclusions of the scientific method.

Not exactly. You haven't shown that there is such a thing as mind-independent logic. I have not made a comparison to something that I've already stated does not seem to exist in my opinion. I've also already explained that I don't think necessarily think logic is objective (bad logic I called it). You've not represented my statements at all.

2) Its unclear if naturalism were true if we could conclude our cognitive faculties are reliable

Then please explain how we got a rover on Mars. Perhaps a believer will chime in and claim it is a miracle I suppose...

I don't see logic as being mind-independent. Logic is what living things do as a process of accumulating information and learning. Perhaps you can explain in greater detail why you think logic needs to exist independent of the minds of living things.

If the validity of logic is mind dependent then the conclusions I reach with it are binding on me alone – my logical inferences are then truth for me and since humans are social beings most likely true for the culture I was raised in but not necessarily truth for others. If that’s the case then all knowledge (including scientific knowledge) is inherently subjective and culturally conditioned.

As there is no culture requirement in the scientific method I don't see where culture plays a role. Humans from literally ever corner of the globe, gay and straight, male and female, tall and short, fat and thin, and so forth have validated and verified many theories, and continue to do so today.

As for conclusions being subjective? Absolutely. Which is why the scientific method requires validation and verification over and over and over. That removes the bias, the subjectivity, from the results. When a lot of mind dependent logic from a lot of different minds reach the same result, how subjective can it really be? Or perhaps to put it a different way: Do you really have any realistic doubt in your mind about the theory of gravity?

If logic and naturalism aren't valid, then I can't explain how we've put robots on Mars, and GPS satellites around the planet whose clocks are adjusted for the relativistic affects of spacetime. Can you?

You’re conflating the scientific method and naturalism. It’s the validity of the scientific method (of which logic is an important component) which explains why we’ve put robots on Mars etc. It tells us nothing about whether naturalism is true or not.

I disagree. The scientific method is sourced by the logic of our minds. It is a tool we employ to use our logic. That logic has gone through one hell of a lot of data and evidence, and all of it points to natural answers. Those answers allowed us to figure out how to get that robot there. Did we try to use a supernatural component during that effort? No. The effort was entirely based on naturalism, was it not?

I look at it this way, and hopefully I explain this in a clear and concise way: I don't know how accurate any one person's experience is as it relates to true reality, but I don't need to know that. What I do know is that everyone's reality seems to match up pretty darn well with everyone elses reality. I can test and experiment and verify what others have studied and observed when they've tested and experimented stuff, and I can reach the same conclusions as they. The people that used Newtonian physics to send a robot rover to Mars didn't discover the physics, but it worked. That confirms Newton's work (and many others) and also speaks to the accuracy with which we view reality.

Yes this shows our experience is that our logical inferences appear to i) be capable of mind independent truth ii) that our cognitive faculties appear to be valid
However since if naturalism is true, the validity of logic by definition is mind-dependent and it would at least be unclear if our cognitive faculties would be valid. Either naturalism isn’t true or we would have to explain why our mind-dependently valid logic results in mind-independently valid truth.

You'll have to explain to me why you think the mind can't ascertain mind independent truths. This is an assumption that you've started with and I don't think you've given any support for it yet.

Even from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Which group of animals would have a better chance of survival, the one that see reality more accurately, or the one that doesn\'t see reality very well? Obviously the one that sees reality more accurately has a better chance of survival. I don\'t think that is a controversial statement to make. There\'s no reason to expect that we wouldn\'t be pretty accurate in our perceptions.

Divine Insight made a similar argument so I’ll paste my response to him here:
There’s two main aspects to genetic fitness – i) being able to attract a mate to reproduce with, ii) avoiding predators long enough to be able to reproduce.
The question then is, firstly whether being good with logic, science and maths is associated with attractiveness to potential mates - I don’t see much evidence for that currently. And at the advent of the development of human societies this would likely even less be the case. Secondly, can we really extrapolate that the abilities needed to escape predators are necessarily synonymous with the abilities of philosophers, physicists etc. to make abstract but valid inferences about the world? This seems far too speculative to warrant the strength of your conclusion. We know far too little about the neuroscience of our reasoning capacities to make that assumption. It seems to me agnosticism about the validity of our cognitive faculties is warranted if naturalism is true, at least until we have better data.

Had I known he'd done that, I would have saved you that trouble, but thanks for posting it in here.

Your answer goes way too deep for what I was stating. First off, I'm talking all animals here, not just humans. Second, I'm talking about reality, not something like math specifically. For example, if a group of animals sees a cliff as "not a cliff", and another sees a cliff as a "cliff", which group of animals is going to live longer and reproduce more? Seeing reality accurately is a pretty useful survival tool, and not just at the level of mathematics. That we've been able to use that basic tool to move on from cliffs to math is an unintended consequence of evolution most likely.

As I have no data to suggest mind independent logic, I don't see why it is difficult to deny it. If you have something to offer I would very much like to see it.

As for mind-dependent logic, I don't see why that is a limitation. The minds of animals do not exist outside of reality, the universe, and the laws of said universe. They are a PART of the same universe, following the same laws and rules as the rest of the matter and energy. Why can't those minds get a pretty accurate idea of reality, as I pointed out in my previous paragraphs above.

If scientific findings aren't accurate, then we shouldn't have a rover on Mars...

So are you arguing science cannot lead to objectively true conclusions? That’s the consequence of the premise that the validity of logic is mind-dependent.

No, that's your opinion. I don't see why you assume that (as I already stated earlier in this post)

As I’ve said above, the main problem is that mind-dependent inferences cannot produce mind-independent conclusions.

Great. Prove it.

Therefore, our experience that rovers can land on Mars is a strong argument against your argument regarding the mind-dependent validity of logical and scientific inference. I’m not sure how you can hold to both without being incoherent.

Or, it's a strong argument against your assumption that mind-dependent logic cannot put a rover on Mars....

We aren\'t verifying the validity of our cognitive facilities (or I guess I should say just ours). We\'re verifying the cognitive facilities of others. When a whole lot of people start verifying the same thing, the confidence of the accuracy of those results becomes very high I would say.

Not really since if the inferences we are making are mind-dependent – then correspondence just reflects that our inferences correspond it doesn’t mean they are valid. Given that humans are social beings their correspondence could just reflect social convention.

The social convention stuff is a non-starter, as mentioned earlier.

If they weren't valid my man, we wouldn't have a rover on Mars. I understand that you think there has to be mind independent logic, and that is the only way to ascertain objective truths. But you've yet to present one iota of data or evidence supporting such assertions. We know there are minds, and we know minds logic as a learning tool. So mind dependent logic seems self evident. The stuff you are talking about is not, so let's see the data and evidence please...

[Divine Insight]

For example, if a group of animals sees a cliff as "not a cliff", and another sees a cliff as a "cliff", which group of animals is going to live longer and reproduce more? Seeing reality accurately is a pretty useful survival tool, and not just at the level of mathematics. That we've been able to use that basic tool to move on from cliffs to math is an unintended consequence of evolution most likely.

Exactly.

To say that there isn't any obvious connection between survival and the ability to recognize what is "true" in our world is absurd. So evolution based on genetic improvements that result from being able to distinguish between what is true and what isn't true is actually a strong point of evolution. To suggest that evolution doesn't account for this is to display a total misunderstanding of how evolution works.

And more importantly, the lower animals that merely recognize what is true without even realizing that this is what they are doing show that conscious purposeful "reasoning" isn't even necessarily required. But at the same time conscious purposeful reasoning would be a "benefit" to survival to be sure. So should be no surprise that this would be a natural product of the evolutionary process.

The idea that reasoning had to come from some unseen invisible Platonic World (or the mind of God) simply isn't required. Much less being testable or evident.

It's simply not required. Yet this seems to be the "religious argument" that somehow rational reasoning couldn't have evolved naturally. But that argument fails because rational reasoning evolving naturally fits all known data. To say that it's a "poor theory" or whatever is simply nonsense.

This would be a case where the "spiritualist" is simply in denial that purely secular explanations are indeed more than sufficient.