…and this is a 
David Sloan Wilson certainly got a warm and appropriate welcome here. His first post was titled Science as a Religion that Worships Truth as its God, a phrase that purées together both "religion" and "science" with "truth" as a wickedly wielded whisk, and immediately set a number of people on edge. Eric Michael Johnson jumped on it, as did Henry Gee (I know he irritated many of the regulars here last time he dropped by, but trust me, sometimes he does say smart things). Gee, in particular, succinctly corrected the title to be "Science as a Religion that Worships Doubt as its God", which is much better. It's still a bit confused.
Science isn't a religion, period. It doesn't worship anything. Science is a toolbox, and if you must stretch the metaphor even further, doubt is the crowbar we use to get at useful answers…but again, we don't worship the crowbar. We admire it, can ooh and aaah over a particularly well-tricked-out crowbar, and we can relish opportunities to swing it, but it never, ever assumes the role of religion in our our lives.
David Sloan Wilson is going to fit right in. He's giving everyone an excuse to swing their crowbars.
Comments
Posted by: Valdyr | October 23, 2009 10:41 AM
This post is useless without a picture of Gordon Freeman to follow the crowbar talk.
Posted by: vanharris
|
October 23, 2009 10:44 AM
The essential feature of religion is faith-based belief in a supernatural entity that controls life. How can anyone equate that with science? Especially someone involved professionally in science!
I guess the only answer is that their mind has been addled by religion.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 23, 2009 10:46 AM
First!
The whole science-is-a-religion argument appears to me to be kind of self-defeating, especially when used by theists to argue against the validity of rationalism. It says that science is religion, therefore it is invalid, therefore religion is valid. When one's opponents insult one's position by claiming it is similar to their own, it would seem that they do not have much left to say.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 23, 2009 10:49 AM
I can't speak for you, PZ, but I worship science. I bow to the elegant efficacy of the scientific method, its in-built powers of self-correction, its merciless assault on cognitive biases. Hail the Hypothesis, Procedure, Evidence and Conclusion!
Posted by: noel | October 23, 2009 10:53 AM
Wilson is a dyed in the wool atheist, guys. He's being provocative. He wants you to clarify your beliefs and reasons in the name of promoting science and atheism. I'm not saying I agree with him, but you should read his blog (at least) before making a judgment.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 23, 2009 10:57 AM
I haven't seen Gee say anything intelligent, though I've seen him be an ass several times. But maybe he does.
As for "truth" and "doubt," well, as Nietzsche asked, why do we prefer the true? And should we?
It seems very human to do so, of course, and I'm not about to say that the untrue might be just as good. I'm saying that Nietzsche does well to ask why we prefer the true, and he may be right in saying that it's a hold-over from Xianity (but he should have noted that it's sort of an "instinct" of sorts as well).
In any case, "doubt" as a thing of worship or some such thing is a nice fiction, nothing more. We don't want to end up with doubt, but with practical certainty.
"Rationalists" and "skeptics" might often be thought of as valuing truth in a manner at least reminiscent of religious valuation. Science is, however, the toolbox, as PZ states, something that works for truth when we choose to use it. To be fair to Wilson and his sort, though, clearly truth (small "t" to be sure) is held as certainly a ruling value in science as practiced, although it wouldn't actually have to be that way.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: James Sweet | October 23, 2009 10:59 AM
As some have commented on D.S. Wilson's blog entry, if you define "religion" very broadly, then his statement is reasonable (though I agree with Gee that "doubt" is a better word than "truth"). But if you define religion that broadly, then most hobbies are also religions... being a sports fan is a religion.... it essentially makes the word useless.
Yes, and since atheism is not a religion, I can say he is completely full of shit, regardless of whether he hits all the right points of dogma (because, you know, there isn't any dogma) :)
I am indeed somewhat interested in what he has to say, though.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 23, 2009 11:08 AM
-As for "truth" and "doubt," well, as Nietzsche asked, why do we prefer the true? And should we?-
Yes, if you want anything done.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 23, 2009 11:17 AM
Blast it, too slow. Ah, well.
Posted by: Standard curve
|
October 23, 2009 11:24 AM
Valdyr beat me to the punch.
The crowbar of doubt is particularly useful when a scientist has misgivings about the intentions of headcrabs.
"Science is a toolbox"
This should be on the wall in classrooms up through high school.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 23, 2009 11:24 AM
I try to refrain from wielding my favourite tool unless I'm in the privacy of my own home, but hey, I'm easy.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 23, 2009 11:27 AM
[Emphasis mine]Color me very unimpressed.
Yes, because Darwin was so unaware, as of course, are most scientists in general. All incapable of seeing the bigger picture. . . .
Yes, and if you look for your lost wallet underneath a street light you can see better—even though that’s not where you lost it.
Yes, it is rather wonderful. Scientists and rationalists have a well-honed sense of irony — assuming that they are actually the ones who came up with that metaphor.
Is this a joke? Is this guy for real?
I don't even feel like responding on his own blog, and I feel no inclination to visit it in the future.
Posted by: Raynfala
|
October 23, 2009 11:38 AM
Gah, beaten to the obligatory Gordon Freeman reference not once, but twice.
Posted by: Stephanie W. | October 23, 2009 11:43 AM
This is a little poorly-put, because I've never really tried to articulate this idea before, but I'm starting to wonder if the reason the religious are so likely to confuse a methodology for questioning with their dogma is because their dogma isn't actually what outsiders/ex-religious who never quite "got it" think it is (three in one, forty virgins, etcetera), rather, their actual loyalty/intellectual commitment is to the methodology of not-questioning.
For one thing, it would explain interfaith councils.
It would sort of make sense to me as an explanation for why, say, Oprah wants people to be "spiritual" whether or not their spirituality leads them to share any similar beliefs about the way the world actually works (you can believe in spirits, she can believe in the Secret, and the both of you will, improbably enough, have plenty to talk about at dinner parties), and why religious people with wildly divergent viewpoints are, though still frightening, apparently less threatening to other religious people than the nonreligious. Who secretly worship faith/money/technology/themselves because not using the faith methodology is impossible.
So I'm wondering if we're a little off base when we point out that science is a methodology. I'm pretty sure most realize that, even if they aren't clearly saying that. The fact that it's not a methodology they want to apply, or at least not one they want to apply consistently, is why they have a problem.
Posted by: Adrian G.
|
October 23, 2009 11:55 AM
Religion is, I think, characterized by faith. The word "faith" has its roots in the concept of loyalty, and I think is particularly telling. As it is used by religion, faith is, I think, the act of belief as a show of loyalty.
In science, one gains stature by publishing ones work, and any expectation that others will show their loyalty by believing what is published will be sorely disappointed. Published works, in science, are ruthlessly criticized, and that is behind science's strengths. We we express our thoughts with the expectation that our audience will be loyal and encouraging, we become lazy, and our thoughts and ideas become far less insightful. When we express our thoughts with the expectation that they will be criticized ruthlessly, we have a chance to learn to be more careful and more thoughtful. We may filter our thoughts more, before we let them out into the world. We can anticipate criticisms, and we can prepare the answers to those criticisms ahead of time.
Leaders of religion have little incentive to be courageous in the face of criticism. Leaders in science have little room to voice their theories in the absence of this kind of courage. This doesn't mean that all religious leaders lack courage or that all science leaders have it; But, the culture of science cultivates intellectual courage in ways that the culture of religion does not.
When religion tells science that science is just another religion, it does so in a jealous and desperate attempt to bring science down to its level. The lack of intellectual courage that characterizes most religion is a ball and chain that plagues all who hold faith in belief to be a virture. All too often, those so plagued desperately grab our ankles, to make sure we are held back by their balls and chains as firmly as they are.
Adrian
Posted by: Will E. | October 23, 2009 11:56 AM
I hate that Wilson says, "Isn't it wonderful how scientists and rationalists reflexively adopt religious imagery?" Religion has, since time immemorial, co-opted questions of morality, ethics, the cosmos, and "what it all means" that anyone who tries to address those questions in the scientific era will be accused of "sounding religious" or whatnot. Wilson completely misses that for centuries, the only way to frame those kinds of inquiries about the nature of reality was with gods and religions and rituals. We need to turn this idea on its head; indeed, as PZ pointed out the other day, witness how creationists and New Agers both try to make their "discoveries" sound scientific. Just because Carl Sagan waxes so poetic about reality doesn't make him a preacher; indeed, it simply reveals a preacher is someone with pretensions to be Carl Sagan--whether he knows it or not.
Posted by: Prometheus
|
October 23, 2009 12:00 PM
Science sure is not a religion, but if it was a religion it would be the religion that is better than all other religions. Science predicts the future and creates miracles that no other religion can match and does so even if you choose not to believe it works. When you want to talk to a friend do you contact them with telepathy, send a prayer message through God, or give them a call on your naturalistic telephone. When you want to go somewhere, do you use astral projection, perform the miracle of bilocation, fly, or take a plane? Unlike most clergymen, scientists are indeed irreplaceable. Unlike most religions, everyone recognizes the utility of government investment in science (although people should realize more).
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 23, 2009 12:01 PM
Good perspective from the Island of Doubt. Currently also in "Now on ScienceBlogs" at the top of the page.
Posted by: sorceror171
|
October 23, 2009 12:09 PM
Glenn@6, you write: As for "truth" and "doubt," well, as Nietzsche asked, why do we prefer the true? And should we?
"We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful." - David Gerrold
Posted by: marcus
|
October 23, 2009 12:21 PM
@19 My thoughts also. A good crowbaw is bent in the right places but it works better if it is "true" as well.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 23, 2009 12:25 PM
It depends.
Are there blasphemy laws in place? If yes, then yes, it is a religion. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander)
If not, it's a methodology.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 23, 2009 12:53 PM
I see nothing objectionable in Gee's post. Johnson's is spot on. His background in the philosophy and history of science serves him well. All too few people appreciate the difference between science as an abstract search for understanding and science as a human process. He clearly does. All three sites are bookmark worthy but I think I shall be dropping around The Primate Diaries from time to time.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | October 23, 2009 12:58 PM
I have to admit that every science journal entry that I've ever read or written, the conclusion is always - always - followed by, "...and that's the truth." And the lead author, oddly enough, was always someone named Edith Ann.
No. Wait a minute. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm thinking of an old Lily Tomlin bit rather than any science papers I've read.
Now it's all clear, none of the science papers ever claimed "The Truth" - just that the work supported the conclusion.
I smell a rat.....that looks like a red herring.
Posted by: Jeremy C. | October 23, 2009 1:11 PM
After reading his blog entries on the topic, I think he makes a fair point. I'm not sure he said it as well as he could have, though. He studies religions as cultural phenomena. In that broad sense, new atheism could be considered a religion. What I think he wants us to acknowledge is that, we are ideologically opposed to belief in something that's not actually true. I think what he says is that we should first study religion scientifically, and then and only then decide whether or not it is a net detrimental force in the world.
I think that seems reasonable, and I think that moderate religion seems like something I would be willing to leave alone. I will not, however, stop mocking radical fundamentalists, because they *clearly* do more harm than good.
Posted by: Jeremy C. | October 23, 2009 1:13 PM
After reading his blog entries on the topic, I think he makes a fair point. I'm not sure he said it as well as he could have, though. He studies religions as cultural phenomena. In that broad sense, new atheism could be considered a religion. What I think he wants us to acknowledge is that, we are ideologically opposed to belief in something that's not actually true. I think what he says is that we should first study religion scientifically, and then and only then decide whether or not it is a net detrimental force in the world.
I think that seems reasonable, and I think that moderate religion seems like something I would be willing to leave alone. I will not, however, stop mocking radical fundamentalists, because they *clearly* do more harm than good.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 23, 2009 1:22 PM
Yet science,at least as a human endeavor, shares some of the features of organized religions. It has its' orthodoxies and its' hierarchies and its' heresies. What I love about science is that it ultimately embraces those heresies when doubts are answered by evidence.
Posted by: Jeremy C. | October 23, 2009 1:29 PM
Sorry about the double post...
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 23, 2009 2:04 PM
I forgot what I was going to say this registration system is broken.
Posted by: Tulse
|
October 23, 2009 2:11 PM
In that broad sense, so could being a Yankees fan. That approach to defining religion defines away its essential features, and leaves it as nothing more than a social club. It is profoundly sloppy thinking.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 23, 2009 2:14 PM
2+2 is a Religion That Worships 4 as its God.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 23, 2009 2:20 PM
"Archeology is the search for FACT. [writes "FACT" on the blackboard] If you want truth, try the philosophy class down the hall." – Indiana Jones
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 23, 2009 2:32 PM
let me try again I have no idea what is up with this I do not know when or if I signed on or how! tried to sign up and it would not let me so here I am ????
I think for myself that it seems that religion grew out of the "shaman" who used what has been called the "dream time" to place man in relation with the natural world and "the supernatural world" the interior of the mind and its processes as aided by drugs, visions, (schizophrenia) stories and dreams to connect man with himself, the other members of the group and the world and mortality emotionally and psychologically.
Science grew out of the hunter who while he may have used things rituals and "magic" to aid in the pursuit of game needed skill in real time observation and real world skill to identify the signs and habits of the game. It also grew out of the gathers search for food and water, ways of knowing that were tested by results and not argument or belief.
you found food and water and lived or you did not and died.
science does not so much answer the question of why as what, when and how.
why is a circular question as any one who has ever been questions by a child to end up with ....why ..because...why.......
because....would understand
before you can even ask why "X" you would need to know what at least is meant by "X"
Posted by: SEF
|
October 23, 2009 2:41 PM
@ David Marjanović #31:
It's a bit foolish to rely on a fictional character as an authority ...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 23, 2009 2:44 PM
sigh
Posted by: JackC
|
October 23, 2009 2:48 PM
I really have no problems with his thoughts concerning "Science as Religion". WF Buckley once said something like "I will not insult your intelligence by implying that you actually BELIEVE what you said..." and I believe this may be the way he leans.
As a ham, I also enjoy the taking of a pejorative term and using it as a badge of honour. No, I am NOT saying "religion" is a badge of honour, but when those original Radio operators were called "Ham-Fisted" by the professionals, they simply stole it for themselves - pissing the pros off to no end.
Wouldn't it be amusing if the godbots had no ground to accuse of us being "just as religious" as they are - not to mention the tax benefits.
Still in all - with the actual history of the word, I don't think I will be using it any time soon.
JC
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 23, 2009 2:49 PM
-D. S. WilsonI find this notion to be troubling for the simple reason that I view the ability or talent to actually do science to be a natural human quality. The chief use of science is to find answers to questions, to solve puzzles and to learn how to predict the future behavior of some thing or process. This is exactly what a child does while growing.
A child of two discovers how balance and bipedalism are accomplished. At three the child finds out how to manipulate spoons and crayons. Later are the difficult manipulations needed to tie shoes, write legibly, pronounce big words and manipulate locks and latches.
In all of this there are observations, experiments, failures, second efforts, constant refining of approach and technique. The reward is the mastery of simple skills and a developing store of knowledge and relationships sufficient to not only accomplish the goal of, say, shoe tying but also the ability to learn to tie a new knot with a bit less time and effort. Now, that sounds like a good thumb nail sketch of how science is actually done.
I am not talking about the philosophy of science or science as it might be defined by an economist, a priest or a legislator. It simply seems to follow from my own experience and what I have observed of science through my life. I'm not a scientist but I have been informed by them. In my work I do science when I am facing a novel task or one that is accompanied by novel complications. I find that it comes quite naturally.
Science has always seemed to me to be something that can be understood, appreciated and practiced by anyone with a functioning brain. The same might be said of chimps and crows and other tool making/using animals.
At any rate, I see nothing at all that suggests that being a scientist is unnatural. After all, the rascals are everywhere, dissecting, titrating, poking about in the most intimate parts of everthing and hypothesizing! Always hypothesizing!
Posted by: Tulse
|
October 23, 2009 2:53 PM
"All models are wrong, but some are useful." -- George E. P. Box
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
October 23, 2009 2:59 PM
Religions may be a cultural phenomenon, but it does not follow that the reverse is true; that atheism as a cultural phenomenon is religion.
I do think it is important to understand religion in a scientific way, as well as understanding the cultural importance of religion.
From Merriam-Webster:
I suppose atheism could conform to either the archaic #3 or to the first part of #4. But is atheism a "system of beliefs held to with ardor AND faith"? Maybe for some, but not for me.
Posted by: ereador
|
October 23, 2009 3:01 PM
Excellent point, Tulse @#29. We can frame things any way we want for purposes of inquiry, but when the frame is (in this case clearly) designed to obscure the important considerations, it becomes, at best, irrelevant.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 23, 2009 3:14 PM
If only we could get all "cultural phenomena" to be tax exempt.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 23, 2009 3:20 PM
In all of this there are observations, experiments, failures, second efforts, constant refining of approach and technique.
Science shouldn't be confused with the entirely natural practice of good old fashioned trial and error. Sure, it's a kind of naive empiricism (GOFTAE, that is) and hypothesis testing relies on it to some degree. But the unnatural habits of mind science demands could be summed up with the question: "How would I know if I was wrong?" as opposed to "How can I prove that I'm right?" For millennia, beginning more or less with the Classical Greek philosophers, the second question was the salient one, and so inquiry tended to stall out where competing explanations ran up against the limits of the search for confirmation. In pre-modern systems of epistemological thought, cherry-picking data wasn't just allowed, it was demanded by an essentially rhetorical, discursive kind of intersubjectivity.
Confirmation bias is a cognitive defect --it's a natural feature of our nervous systems. Methodological empiricism, a bunch of practitioners trained as professional doubters, is a modern invention without a doubt, a new way to harness intersubjectivity, an institution invented to overcome the cognitive biases to which we are all naturally subject as individuals.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 23, 2009 3:47 PM
An interesting point Crudely Wrott but I must disagree somewhat. What we have evolved to do is learn. You are right that humans behave to a degree like explorers from infancy but all too often our observations lead us to confuse correlation with causation. That and the ability to imagine is all it takes to create religion.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 23, 2009 3:51 PM
Thank you, CJO. I'm a bit wiser now and can see the distinction you draw between "How would I know if I was wrong?" and "How can I prove that I'm right?" I was thinking along the lines of the "starter toolkit" that humans are born with that can allow some of them to become scientists or at least understand some of science.
Without doubt the process of mastering scientific methodology and earning a degree is a difficult and sometimes harrowing experience. After all, discovering serious faults in one's reasoning can be stressful and alarming and so only a few of us will commit to and complete such intense and prolonged study. Too, there are many temptations to simply accept things on authority and place assurance in ill-defined but comforting concepts.
I appreciate your point and thanks again.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 23, 2009 3:53 PM
Science: "this theory could be completely wrong, and here are some cool ways to test if it is wrong."
Religion: "this theory is true and all others are wrong just because."
Hard to find many similarities in the two approaches.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 23, 2009 3:58 PM
Peter G.,
See forty three.
I suppose I'm also thinking of innate potential, that thing they used to tell me I had so much of back in High School Daze. Might it not be said that any person could develop habits of rigorous thinking given a supportive environment? I think so, but there are so many distractions . . .
*record short rhyme?*
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 23, 2009 4:05 PM
Methodological empiricism, a bunch of practitioners trained as professional doubters, is a modern invention without a doubt ...
Not really. These are probably some of the oldest mental skills of humans. If you fish or hunt you have to constantly be applying deductive and inductive reasoning, process of elimination, skepticism, etc. Hunting and fishing is based on pattern recognition, not just "seeing" the animal, but collecting individual impressions over time, and attempting to make pattern-based hypotheses from them, and then testing them and making adjustments or deriving entirely new hypotheses because the old ones failed. As just one example, the use of tree stands to hunt deer is due to the fact that deer do not have predators (except people) in trees and they tend not to look up or consider "up" to be a potential place where predators might be.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 23, 2009 4:20 PM
The tendency to be too credulous and believe based on faith rather than on actual information is, unfortunately, a common human trait that's built-in. (It's a useful trait for a child - you learn faster when you just believe what you're told right away and stop being stubborn - unfortunately this useful feature is ripe for hijacking by scam artists like the ones who start religions.)
And also, unfortunately, we're capable of sinking into doing it too. Rational people aren't immune to doing it also. But here's the big difference between the rational versus the religious: If they are accused of using evidence-free faith thinking, and this is pointed out to them, they react VERY differently. The religious won't see anything wrong with it, and in many cases be PROUD of it. The rational ones will be embarrassed by it - they may deny it, and refuse to believe that they have been using faith - but even if they do that, notice the important thing this reveals about them. It reveals that at least they recognize that faith a bad thing one should not be proud of.
Now, regardless of whether or not an accusation of "you're using faith!" is true or false isn't the point of what I'm trying to get at here in this post. What I'm trying to highlight is that at least the rational non-religious people recognize that such an accusation is something that would make them look bad. If they accept that the accusation is true, then they show embarassment over it. Or, they deny that the accusation is true, either because it really is a false accusation and they aren't using faith, or because they did use faith but are embarassed to admit it's true that they used faith. But what they absolutely do NOT do, and this sets them a step above the religious, is that they do NOT act like they're proud of using faith.
Imagine a scenario where you accuse several people of lying in court - of bearing false witness that gets somebody in prison. The accusation is that they just made up bogus claims out of thin air, and these bogus claims made of thin air got some innocent person convicted. Now imagine that you get the following scenarios with different people when you accuse them of having done this:
1 - The person really didn't bear false witness, and denies it.
2 - The person really did bear false witness, admits it, and is now ashamed of it.
3 - The person really did bear false witness, but is embarrassed to admit it and denies it.
4 - The person really did lie in court, and is unashamedly proud of it, and has no idea why you're getting so upset over this.
Of those four example people, I would guess most people would agree that #4 is probably the worst of them. I ordered them in order from best to worst, as I see it. Not only did person #4 tell a lie that caused another person harm by just making up accusations from thin air, but worse still this person's sense of ethics is so twisted and broken that he doesn't even realize why that's bad.
You see where the analogy is going, of course.
Rational people tend to give responses like #1,#2, or #3 when accused of using faith. Religious people tend to give the response like #4.
And THIS is the key difference between the rational and the religious. It's not their ABILITY to think rationally and honestly in which they differ. It's in their DESIRE to that they differ. A particularly stupid person who's not very good at thinking rationally, but at least recognizes that it would be a problem if they were to fail to think rationally, is in some ways more admirable than a smarter person who chooses deliberately to think irrationally - a person who would be capable of ditching faith if they wanted to, but they don't want to.
Or, to put it more bluntly, honest but stupid is better than dishonest but smart. And I think this is why I sometimes find that I am less argumentative with some fundamentalist creationists than with the more moderately wishy-washy fuzzy creationists. Someone who bends over backward to convince themselves that there's evidence for creationism is at least admitting that there's a need for such evidence. The people who think there's no point in bothering with the evidence scare me more. They're basically saying "Yah, I know the stuff I'm spreading is made up bullshit, but why is that such a bad thing?".
In other words, they're the #4's - the ones dishonest enough to pretend that reality is just a matter of opinion because pretending that allows them the convenience of not having to back up their claims. In other words, they're trying to set it up so they can get away with what at some level of their brain they have to know is a form of lying.
And that's why I view the schism between the rational and the religious as NOT a matter of how smart they are, but of how ethical they are.
Posted by: abb3w
|
October 23, 2009 5:11 PM
So, is the Crowbar of Doubt as wise and terrible as the Chair Leg of Truth?
Posted by: CJO
|
October 23, 2009 5:14 PM
Not really. These are probably some of the oldest mental skills of humans. If you fish or hunt you have to constantly be applying deductive and inductive reasoning, process of elimination, skepticism, etc. Hunting and fishing is based on pattern recognition, not just "seeing" the animal, but collecting individual impressions over time, and attempting to make pattern-based hypotheses from them, and then testing them and making adjustments or deriving entirely new hypotheses because the old ones failed. As just one example, the use of tree stands to hunt deer is due to the fact that deer do not have predators (except people) in trees and they tend not to look up or consider "up" to be a potential place where predators might be.
Okay, of course, empiricism is a natural way for us to approach problems, and I didn't say it wasn't. I just cautioned against conflating all trial-and-error utilizing naive empiricism with methodologically rigorous empiricism. It would be quite odd if the kind of expertise humans have acquired for navigating and manipulating the natural world arose without reference to and a deep familiarity with that world. The problem, however, is that pre-modern hunters are as likely to attribute success to a properly performed pre-hunt ritual as they are to their tribe's accumulated and hard won data about the local fauna, and to attempt to remedy failure by similar interventions with the supernatural.
Recall Skinner's "superstitious" pigeons. Without methodological rigor, confirmation bias readily leads people to put their trust in ritual and superstition, because, well, "it worked before." Without science, professional doubt, nobody's going to buck the trend and say, no, it's just our empirical knowledge of the habits of the animal; let's work on improving that to the exclusion of propitiating the spirit of the forest. Without science, it's too easy to cherry-pick, and discount or explain away all the times it didn't work.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 23, 2009 5:32 PM
I am with PZ on this one. Claiming that science is a form of religion is a flawed argument because science concerns itself with identifying objective facts about the physical universe and then seeks to create the best possible explanitory framework with which to interpret the significance of those facts.
Religion, on the other hand, seeks to impose a non-parsimonious, supernatural filter over our perception of reality. Religion is predicated upon the idea that the believer is already in possession of the correct interpretation of reality, already has all the answers, as a matter of 'revealed truth'. It is assumed that the facts of the corporeal world must conform to this 'truth', and if they do not then it is not the dogma that is called into question but the facts themselves, however well supported by investigation and evidence they may be.
I consider it fair to say that science and religion approach the idea of knowlege from opposite directions. This leads to the old theist claim that there are 'other ways of knowing' than science. I submit that this also is in error. Only science allows one to discover the reality of the universe, and it is prepared to adapt to the discovery of new knowlege and the formulation of new theories of greater explanitory power. Conversely, religion seeks to obscure that reality to prevent itself from fading into the irrelevency reserved for outmoded superstition. It seeks to remain unchanged in the face of new knowlege and superior explanations of reality so far as possible. Religion and science are diametric opposites in this regard.
Science is not the worship of anything including 'truth'. Science is the pursuit of a sophisticated factual understanding of the Universe. While total knowlege will likely never be accomplished, the partial knowlege offered by science is infinitely superior to the rank, wilful, self-imposed ignorance of religion. Atheism is also not a religion. It is simply a choice to abandon superstition and instead employ science in a bid to understand that which actually exists, rather than the drug fuelled fantasies of ancient shamans. Atheism has no articles of faith, no (un)holy texts, no dogma. No gods or god-substitutes (tastes just like god, but with less than half the pointless death and suffering! Try 'I can't believe it's not a deity' today!) required.
Posted by: JPS, FCD | October 23, 2009 7:49 PM
Registration system broken? Hot damn! :-)
Posted by: truth machine
|
October 23, 2009 9:57 PM
I can't speak for you, PZ, but I worship science.
You're like those gorillas who can string words together but have no grasp at grammar. Imagine if PZ were criticizing "Economics is a religion that worships money as a god" and you responded "Well, I worship economics."
Posted by: truth machine
|
October 23, 2009 10:05 PM
Methodological empiricism, a bunch of practitioners trained as professional doubters, is a modern invention without a doubt, ...
Sigh.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 23, 2009 11:08 PM
Reading Wilson’s post this morning put me in a grumpy mood. It seemed a weirdly arrogant and combative first post. Having read some more of his blog, though, I’m more impressed with his thought processes than I was originally, and I think I was more dismissive of him than I should have been. I realize he was stirring the pot with his comparison of science and religion, and was being more conjectural than simply assertive . . . but still.
As an observer, and not a scientist, I find this talk about the “new atheism” being unable to accept facts, and being a stealth religion, simply out of place. Yes, we must always be on guard that our sincere, truth-driven endeavors don’t degenerate into authority-driven ritual and dogma, but for me, at least, that is not at all what the new atheism is about (currently, at least). It is exactly the opposite of this. It’s not even so much a positive assertion about the state of reality as it is a boisterous repudiation of blatant falsehoods and provably wrong beliefs. The world is not six thousand years old, the bible is not inerrant, and the ancient Hebrews did not have the world figured out better than scientists from multiple disciplines in the year 2009. These beliefs are “bad, bad, bad.”
If you stand up and loudly proclaim that the Daily Show Monkey Worshipper’s religion is silly, and that believing that there are invisible monkeys flying out of Jon Stewart’s butt that will grant your prayers if you drink your own urine between 2:00 and 5:00 O’clock on Tuesdays is stupid—that does not make you a competing stealth religion that doesn’t face facts, and comparable to Ayn Rand.
Sheesh.
Again, these are my impressions as a non-scientist, and I readily admit that I may not be fully appreciative of the nuances of his arguments.
But still.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | October 24, 2009 12:03 AM
I made a comment about science vs. trial-and-error back here on the 'isn't pleiotropy handy' thread. As usual for me it's right near the end and I presume hardly anybody read it, so... oh, nobody's still here either. Damn.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 24, 2009 1:03 AM
The problem, however, is that pre-modern hunters are as likely to attribute success to a properly performed pre-hunt ritual as they are to their tribe's accumulated and hard won data about the local fauna, and to attempt to remedy failure by similar interventions with the supernatural.
Wrong. "Pre-modern" hunter gatherer societies were all as technologically and scientifically driven (or more so) than today. Think of the amount of thought and analysis and craft just to identify the correct stone from a riverbed suitable for making a spearpoint, making the spear point, making a properly weighted shaft and then stalking an animal and getting to within 50 feet of the animal and successfully killing it. This had nothing to do with "pre-hunt rituals." If you were on a river bank today, you could not identify which stone out of the tens of thousands are the exact type of stone that can be used to make a spear point (in Maine the key variety is glacial cobbles of Mt. Kineo rhyolite). A "pre-modern" person could spot this exact type of stone in about 5 seconds and mentally discard all the rest and then make the spear head. It's all about pattern recognition. "Rituals" has nothing to do with it whatsover. It's all about technology.
Posted by: Rey Fox
|
October 24, 2009 3:06 AM
They sure like to throw that "worship" word around. Apparently anything we hold any amount of reverence for is an object of "worship". Frankly, the whole concept of "worship" is alien to me. I don't think I ever did it even before I went agnostic/atheist. I don't even know how to get into that mindset. (I can't even type it without putting it in quotation marks) So knock it off with the "worship" stuff already. If nothing else, accusing us of worshipping something is just the usual double-edged sword that you theists hack yourselves to ribbons with.
Posted by: titmouse
|
October 24, 2009 12:37 PM
Steven Mading:
I think you've zeroed in on an essential distiction. In contrast to the faith-based, rationalists generally agree on basic rules of evidence. Though some rationalists may inappropriately lower the evidential bar for their pet notions while unfairly raising the bar for ideas they don't like, they generally do agree on the rules. They don't argue for "other ways of knowing." They don't insist that personal revelation trumps the laws of physics. They recognize that a consensus of independent scientists is nothing to sneeze at.
However...
The number of pro-altie, anti-vax, anti-BigPharma atheists that I've encountered in the wake of the Maher fiasco has left me shaken. People capable of spanking creationists for arguments from ignorance, "teach the controversy", appeals to consequences, etc., unselfconsciously assert these same arguments in support of vaccine refusal and alternative medicine. Outrage over the Discovery Institute's pro-faith anti-science agenda doesn't translate into outrage over the Bravewell Collaborative's New Age anti-science agenda, though the latter poses a far more serious and immediate threat to good science in this country.
I'm wondering if it's proper to refer to any group of humans as "rationalists." Maybe humans are 99% tribal monkeys who only flatter themselves with words like "reason" when impressed by the beauty of their post-hoc rationalizations.
We are all non-experts in most areas and so must depend upon hearsay and the appearance of credibility rather than reason for our opinions. There simply aren't enough hours in the day for sorting out the basis of most of the assertions we hear. So we find like-minded groups and receive their opinions as our own.
Many religious beliefs are low-cost. For example, believers pay no real price for betting on a mistaken age of the universe. I would say that in such cases, truth is beside the point.
So what is the point? Why bother being a young-earther or old-earther or Big Banger?
Tribal identity.
A mother tells her son, "We believe Jesus came to America. Other Christians don't believe that." She might have said, "We root for the Steelers. Those people root for the Giants."
For all but a small portion of the prefrontal and left temporal lobe , "religion" may be like the Yankees and "science" like the Red Sox.
Posted by: mas528
|
October 24, 2009 6:53 PM
Wait...
I don't read that much of SB besides PZ, Bredon, ERV, etc, but is this the general caliber that passes for thought on SB?
I mean, is Wilson really that stupid?
He reads like Dinesh D'Sousa.
Breezy definitions? Check.
Non-comprension? Check.
Over wordy? Check.
Establishing a new woo? Check.
He is a heavyweight? Are you kidding me?
Wilson is, his Atheism writings as evidence, a complete and total idiot. I would not trust him to be responsible for distributing cookies to a kindergarten class, let alone to be a scientist.
I will not read much more of his garbage, and I will not pay for one of his books. I did that with Wilbur, and he really sucked.
I am sure that soon he will collaborate with Karen Armstrong on a book. The Title: "Blame New Atheism (or Blame Dawkins), the History of Religious Violence Through the Ages".
The reason I call his science woo is from a statement he made. "...emerging field of evolutionary religious studies, whose members are more serious about holding each other accountable for what they say about religion." Well if you don't hold yourself to the same standard, and he is the head of it, then I call that into question.
He sounds a lot like Ken Wilbur too, almost erudite, but not really.
Posted by: Jeffrey Goldberg | October 25, 2009 10:24 PM
Science isn't a religion, of course, but talking to some people, I get the impression that group selection is. Maybe that's why he's confused.