The Extension of Science Beyond Its Scope

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rules of the nation, rules of the society.

Yeah, that is not objective as per science.

 

[PureX]

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

Good example!

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

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.

I could be wrong in my interpretation of the author's points, but I don't think the essay is saying that a scientist or expert in one field shouldn't have opinions on subjects related to other fields. Rather, I understand it to be criticizing attempts to imbue those opinions with authority or credibility on the basis that the people expressing them are experts in unrelated fields.

Dawkins seems to me a prime example of this: he's an excellent evolutionary biologist, but he has frequently made blanket statements about religion without having in-depth knowledge (e.g., asserting that religion and science are at odds, even though scientific pursuits are intertwined with religious belief for many people).

I think Pinker's dabbling in history to make value judgments about "progress" is another example: he's not a historian, nor are all of his claims about history watertight, but he extends his expertise in cognitive science to assert that "progress" has definitely been occuring among humanity—even though what constitutes "progress" in the first place is indeed a subjective and philosophical question that simply doesn't have an objective answer. A case in point is that he refers to a period of "long peace" after World War II as part of making his case despite the fact that said period has included some of the bloodiest events in the last two centuries, such as Mao's Great Leap Forward, the Vietnam War, the Iran-Iraq War, and the 2003 Iraq War, among others. Ultimately, focusing on certain kinds of violence (e.g., that between the world's great powers) and not others is a subjective call, not an objective or scientific assessment.

Granted, I don't think it's always or entirely the fault of certain experts or scientists when laypeople regard them as authorities in fields outside theirs, but they don't exactly steer clear of that quagmire when they make categorical assertions about value judgments and invoke their respective scientific domains as supposed leverage for their positions on subjects related to other fields, like Dawkins and Pinker have done.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I wouldn't say that Western or any other governments make their decisions solely based on social and scientific studies. I know this is not what you're saying, so I'm just highlighting that even when such studies are taken into account by a government, how they are used and which goals to pursue still seem to me to be value judgments or questions of which philosophies and values a state pursues, not questions that have objective or scientific answers.

There's no scientific rule that a government must maximize individual liberty, for instance, nor one that state law must be secular. There's no fact from sociology dictating to a state that it must provide free health care to its citizens, but if a state has already adopted that goal based on its values and philosophy, then science, including social science, can indeed provide insight for determining optimal ways to pursue that goal, such as, say, how to most efficiently fund universal health care or how to provide the most effective medical care.

 

[sayak83]

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

Actually Pinker etc write such books because they sell and they get a nice royalty out of the books and talks thereof. People want to hear what scientists think about regular stuff, so they write and talk about it. Its a lucrative side hustle. Doing actual science does not pay much actually...

 

[sayak83]

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

Just to bolster my point. This is Pinker's actual claim to fame in science. How many copies has been sold of this, you think....
Language Learnability and Language Development

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That is disputed at best. There is quite a lot of ethical research.

 

[LuisDantas]

To an extent this OP is a bit misguided. People will opine outside their fields of expertise.

What we should ask is why people are so frequently uninsterested in questioning their credentials and so willing to find pretexts to justify inconsequential and destructive stances.

Also, I am appalled to find Jordan Peterson mixed with Pinker and others well above his level of ethics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is disputed at best. There is quite a lot of ethical research.

Well, then give evidence for morality in an actual objective sense as doing objective morality.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To an extent this OP is a bit misguided. People will opine outside their fields of expertise.

What we should ask is why people are so frequently uninsterested in questioning their credentials and so willing to find pretexts to justify inconsequential and destructive stances.

As I said in post #23, I don't think the essay is arguing that the opining per se is the issue; it's more how specifically it is formulated and which fields of science are or aren't cited as supposed leverage for the opinions, from what I understand the essay to be saying.

Also, I am appalled to find Jordan Peterson mixed with Pinker and others well above his level of ethics.

We disagree on this part, then, since I find some of Dawkins', Harris', and Pinker's positions no less morally bankrupt and harmful than many of Peterson's—although the common factor on the list is the extension of one field of science to opinions about other fields, so the question of how sound their ethics are seems to me a separate topic.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

Actually morality can be investigate in an objective way, if you understand what this tool was designed to do. Morality was designed to optimize a group of people, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts. The Atheist belief in relative morality is more connected to individual choices, thereby making morality appear more subjective and personal. Optimizing a team needs precise targeting of rules to merge the group. Individual choices are important, but they will not optimize a group. Individual choices will lead to division and inefficiencies.

We can run science based experiments and data collection to prove this; team versus individual. For example, the classic nuclear family and extended family, is still the most efficient social construct; team, requiring the least taxes and Big Government prosthesis, to compensate for the inefficiencies inherent in all the individual choices; alternate lifestyles. I would assume an objective Atheist would be pushing this science fact, and not preaching social inefficiencies caused by all the individuals doing their own thing. Atheism is not exactly pure reason, but is projecting its own subjectivity, which does not lead to objective results. This science view of morality is not from an expert in morality. Morality is not based on dice and cards but a determinist set.

If you look at the 10 Commandments, each commandment offers a way to neutralize common tensions in a group, so the group can stay together. The first commandment is about one God. This was needed, since religion and/or non religion can become a sore spot, that can divide a group. Wars have started over religion. If we agree to disagree and not get too angry or stressed, there is one less problem in paradise. If we all are on the same page, we can read together.

Thou shall not steal; If we all maintain this rule, we would not need to waste time, resources and emotional currency anticipating and defending against the relative morality of the thieves and political crooks, who think stealing is fine. Animals, like hyenas, do that in nature, so to the untrained eye stealing has a natural basis. However, it is not good for team building. Relative morality opens the door to darkness and compulsive behavior, justified as being relative to one's ego desires and personal morality. But if the goal is a team, we all will need to make some sacrifices for the team, and by doing so the team improves and evolves. This pulls everyone upward.

The Celtics won the NBA championship in the USA. Now even a second string player on that winning team is part of history; he rises up with pride. Add relative morality; ball hogs, then even that good team would get worse and may divide into smaller teams; trading players.

Science going beyond its current scope, would require it learn more about human nature, which is not as easy to do as pinning down a bacteria. This internal science project can begin by looking at yourself, the person behind the social mask. However, the philosophy of science does not permit it, as science, since you need to be objective to the experiment source, but inside you will be called subjective even if it is objective to you. Your favorite food is objective to you, but it would be considered subjective in a group, as just one of many individually objective choices of favorite foods. To science objective only applies to all or the team seeing the same. Relative morality, although object to each person, for their own needs, is subjective in terms of science, since the entire team of science cannot agree.

Relative morality can be objective to the individual; more tailored to you in a personal objective way. But in terms of team building, which is not about you, there are certain coaches who have the skills and platform to build strong teams; God and 10 Commandments. The results can be seen when compared to others on terms social costs, with $$$ an objective metric.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually morality can be investigate in an objective way, if you understand what this tool was designed to do. Morality was designed to optimize a group of people, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts. ...

Yeah, I stopped reading beyound that. Because what you claim is without objective evidence.
But please stop wasting your time answering my posts. We have no common ground on anything as far as I can understand it.

 

[LuisDantas]

We disagree on this part, then, since I find some of Dawkins', Harris', and Pinker's positions no less morally bankrupt and harmful than many of Peterson's—although the common factor on the list is the extension of one field of science to opinions about other fields, so the question of how sound their ethics are seems to me a separate topic.

We do then. Peterson is a hack that goes out of his way to be as dangerous and as irresponsible as he can.

None of the others is. Heck, most people would not.

 

[LadyJane]

Relative morality can be objective to the individual; more tailored to you in a personal objective way.

Which is, by definition, subjective.

 

[Heyo]

I could be wrong in my interpretation of the author's points, but I don't think the essay is saying that a scientist or expert in one field shouldn't have opinions on subjects related to other fields. Rather, I understand it to be criticizing attempts to imbue those opinions with authority or credibility on the basis that the people expressing them are experts in unrelated fields.

So, the fault is more with the reporting and the perception by the audience, and science as a field or scientists as an aggregate?

Granted, I don't think it's always or entirely the fault of certain experts or scientists when laypeople regard them as authorities in fields outside theirs, but they don't exactly steer clear of that quagmire when they make categorical assertions about value judgments and invoke their respective scientific domains as supposed leverage for their positions on subjects related to other fields, like Dawkins and Pinker have done.

I agree. Some scientists don't make an effort to clarify when they are speaking with authority and when they are just stating opinion. But more often it is the audience who has forgotten the disclaimer at the beginning, when the voice and demeanour still sound like an authoritative lecture.

 

[Ostronomos]

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.

Atheism blindly asserts that the world is exclusively material without regard to Metaphysical logic.

It disregards the logic of metaphysics and then sneakily tries to persuade the masses to join in on this fallacious reasoning. As if religion, even the logical kind, has no merit.

It is ultimately a belief that is based on the epistemological limitations of the masses due to the matrix reality.

 

[Heyo]

religion, even the logical kind

Do you really believe there is such a thing?

 

[Quintessence]

Actually Pinker etc write such books because they sell and they get a nice royalty out of the books and talks thereof. People want to hear what scientists think about regular stuff, so they write and talk about it. Its a lucrative side hustle. Doing actual science does not pay much actually...

And this is a sad truth. The salaries of public university employees are a matter of public record. If you pick a university in the state you live in you can compare the salaries of professors to all the useless... I mean... apparently very essential upper level administrators who do... stuff? It's genuinely depressing and borderline infuriating. I made the mistake of doing that for my own institution once. Can't speak for how it is in other countries, granted, but... it's... yeah.

 

[Quintessence]

A bit I found interesting was this one:

The question “Is our humanity a biological or a cultural matter?” is as sterile as “Are our actions determined or do we have free will?” No concrete result in genetics, or physics, or any other empirical discipline will help us answer either bad question. We will go right on deliberating about what to do, and holding each other responsible for actions, even if we become convinced that every thought we have, and every move we make, will have been predicted by an omniscient neurologist. We will go right on experimenting with new lifestyles, new ideas, and new social institutions, even if we become convinced that, deep down, everything somehow depends on our genetic makeup. Discussion of the nature- nurture question, like discussion of the problem of free will, has no pragmatic import.

One of the things I've sometimes criticized about the reductionist extremism of metaphysical materialists - the types who want to reduce everything down to physical matter and that which can be directly addressed and studied by the sciences - is that even if this sort of model is somehow determined to be "objectively true" it doesn't change the way in which humans actually behave and interact in day-to-day life. We don't experience our emotional states or hunger pangs as "brain chemistry," we experience it as something far more visceral, intimate, and immediate. So of what use is it to reduce human experience or human nature down to mere physical processes? As far as I'm concerned, it isn't useful. Worse, it risks - as the writer of the article comments on a few times - the pushing aside of the disciplines that do actually study human natures from a broader perspective.

 

[Twilight Hue]

---

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.

Sometimes expertise isn't required when stating something that is obvious and self explanatory.