The Extension of Science Beyond Its Scope

[Debater Slayer]

While reading an essay titled Philosophy-envy, some parts struck me as highly relevant commentary on the trend toward ultracrepidarianism among certain scientists and experts such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Steven Pinker, who have, on many occasions, opined on topics outside their fields of expertise with an unwarranted air of authority. The excerpts also discuss the extension of science beyond its scope, a topic that has come up on RF in many threads.

Post-Galilean science does not tell us what is really real or really important. It has no metaphysical or moral implications. Instead, it enables us to do things that we had not previously been able to do. When it became empirical and experimental, it lost both its metaphysical pretensions and the ability to set new ends for human beings to strive for. It gained the ability to provide new means. Most scientists are content with this trade-off. But every so often a scientist like Pinker tries to have it both ways, and to suggest that science can provide empirical evidence to show that some ends are preferable to others.

Whereas physics-envy is a neurosis found among those whose disciplines are accused of being soft, philosophy-envy is found among those who pride themselves on the hardness of their disciplines. The latter think that their superior rigor qualifies them to take over the roles previously played by philosophers and other sorts of humanists – roles such as critic of culture, moral guide, guardian of rationality, and prophet of the new utopia. Humanists, such scientists argue, only have opinions, but scientists have knowledge. Why not, they ask us, stop your ears against culture-babble (which is all you are going to get from those frivolous postmodernists and irresponsible social constructionists) and get your self-image from the people who know what human beings really, truly, objectively, enduringly, transculturally are?

Those who succumb to such urgings are subjected to bait-and-switch tactics. They think they will learn whether to be more like Antigone than like Ismene, or more like Martha than like Mary, or more like Spinoza than like Baudelaire, or more like Lenin than like FDR, or more like Ivan Karamazov than like Alyosha. They want to know whether they should throw themselves into campaigns for world government, or against gay marriage, or for a global minimum wage, or against the inheritance tax. They hope for the sort of guidance that idealistic freshmen still think their teachers may be able to provide. When they take courses in cognitive science, however, this is not what they get. They get a better understanding of how their brains work, but no help in figuring out what sort of people to be or what causes to fight for.

I found the essay overall thought-provoking. Here it is:

Philosophy-envy

www.amacad.org

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

ultracrepidarianism...had to look that one up...

Interesting...

I think there are also 'humanists' who try to stray into science, as well...

 

[Heyo]

While reading an essay titled Philosophy-envy, some parts struck me as highly relevant commentary on the trend toward ultracrepidarianism among certain scientists and experts such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Steven Pinker, who have, on many occasions, opined on topics outside their fields of expertise with an unwarranted air of authority. The excerpts also discuss the extension of science beyond its scope, a topic that has come up on RF in many threads.







I found the essay overall thought-provoking. Here it is:

Philosophy-envy

www.amacad.org

If it's not published in a peer reviewed paper, it's their opinion, not an extension of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it's not published in a peer reviewed paper, it's their opinion, not an extension of science.

Well, I have linked this before and no, it is not me writing it.
And forget that is also about a variant of atheism, because that is not the point.

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

The point is the belief in that experince/reason and science can do more than the limit of science as describtive, but not prescriptive.

 

[Altfish]

I'm not sure what the problem is ...

I have opinions on sport (Hint I'm unfit, overweight and not skilled)
I have opinions on music (Hint I can't play an instrument and am tone deaf)

My opinions on science and religion are based on some knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what the problem is ...

I have opinions on sport (Hint I'm unfit, overweight and not skilled)
I have opinions on music (Hint I can't play an instrument and am tone deaf)

My opinions on science and religion are based on some knowledge.

The problem is that some people have learned to be objective in regards to hard science and they then think they can be that when they are not doing hard science. That is the problem in effect.

 

[Heyo]

Well, I have linked this before and no, it is not me writing it.
And forget that is also about a variant of atheism, because that is not the point.

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

The point is the belief in that experince/reason and science can do more than the limit of science as describtive, but not prescriptive.

Well, that's just ... your opinion, man.

Or their opinion, and as it's written it may even be a creed.

But note that they want to promote reason (philosophy) and science. Science itself can only contribute facts about the universe, you have to use philosophy (and some additional axioms) to get an ought from the is. I think they recognize that by not only using science.
Science is important to have as correct a picture of the world as possible. But science is amoral.
Philosophy is important to formulate the best policies for "a good life". But philosophy without data is blind.

 

[Altfish]

The problem is that some people have learned to be objective in regards to hard science and they then think they can be that when they are not doing hard science. That is the problem in effect.

Again, it is only people who believe everything the speaker says who are fooled.
Actors comment on politics, scientists comment on politics.
It is down to who is an expert.
An expert in one field does not mean you are an expert in another.
BUT critical thinking is a transferable skill.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, that's just ... your opinion, man.

Or their opinion, and as it's written it may even be a creed.

But note that they want to promote reason (philosophy) and science. Science itself can only contribute facts about the universe, you have to use philosophy (and some additional axioms) to get an ought from the is. I think they recognize that by not only using science.
Science is important to have as correct a picture of the world as possible. But science is amoral.
Philosophy is important to formulate the best policies for "a good life". But philosophy without data is blind.

Well, they wrote experince. That could be a way to express empiricism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, it is only people who believe everything the speaker says who are fooled.
Actors comment on politics, scientists comment on politics.
It is down to who is an expert.
An expert in one field does not mean you are an expert in another.
BUT critical thinking is a transferable skill.

There are no experts in ethics and morality in a sense, because it is subjective and relative. You should know that if you can do critical thinking.

 

[Madsaac]

There are no experts in ethics and morality in a sense, because it is subjective and relative. You should know that if you can do critical thinking.

What about a priest?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What about a priest?

Not given. In general people who claim objective moral authority can be dangerous.

 

[Madsaac]

Yeah all that sounds interesting and makes some good points but at the end of the day, what do western governments look at to help make the best society possible?

Social and scientific studies.

After they get the FACTS, then they can have an opinion and you can't get the FACTS without objective studies.

Isn't that why with live in secular societies. Imagine making decisions on morality in society without FACTS. "God said to do this" or "I think women can't be in management" or "Poor people deserve to be poor because they are lazy" etc

Maybe these articles come up because certain people can't value how important these studies are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, but at the end of the day, what do western governments look at to help make the best society possible?

Social and scientific studies.

After they get the FACTS, then they can have an opinion but you can't get the FACTS without an objective studies.

Isn't that why with live in secular societies. Imagine making decisions on morality in society without FACTS. "God said to do this" or "I think women can't be in management" or "Poor people deserve to be poor because they are lazy" etc

Maybe these articles come up because certain people can't value how important these studies are.

There are no facts about good and bad.

 

[Madsaac]

There are no facts about good and bad.

No but facts helps you decide what is good and bad

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No but facts helps you decide what is good and bad

No, facts can help to do things. But whether you consider donig something good or bad is for considering it good or bad not sceince or a fact.

 

[PureX]

So, people that don't understand science think they do. Those same people also don't understand philosophy but think they do. Then they pass all kinds of judgements on politics and religion, two more categories of human engagement that they know nothing about, using their ignorance of science and philosophy.

I'm detecting a pattern, here. And it's ignorance being perpetrated by yet more ignorance. People that know little to nothing about science, philosophy, religion, or politics presuming to be the "critics" of all they encounter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are no limits to scientific inquiry. If there are questions, science is perfectly fine in going there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are no limits to scientific inquiry. If there are questions, science is perfectly fine in going there.

So how do you observe good and bad?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So how do you observe good and bad?

Rules of the nation, rules of the society.