... Bryan elaborates on something I have long thought and frequently mentioned here, namely, that experience trumps all theories: Art and Atheism 2. (Hat tip, Dave Lull, who also reminded me of the connection - speaking of great minds.)
In other words, merely to restate something in terms of an approved theoretical construct in not really to explain it. It would be nice if more journalists understood this.
Certain of Bryan's commenters may want to consider this bit of "scientific" folderol: Science: Hot Women More Likely to Feel They Can Do Better, Cheat on Their Partners. Good thing they have science to help them figure stuff like this out.
It is commonplace for scientists to argue the superority of scientifc knowledge because it is based on testable evidence. But in fact, in many cases what they really mean is testable experience. One of their favourite examples of science trumphant is germ theory, which everyone now accepts. However, when you reflect on why it is so universally accepted, it isn't so much because of peer reviews and endlessly repeated experiments in labs, but because over generations our ancestors saw that their vaccinations and antibiotics worked dependably and they told us about it. Until then, there was considerable scepticism about its efficacy and extent, and for some pretty good reasons.
ReplyDeleteThis is a huge stumbling block in the climate change debate/war. Many climatologists are near splenetic about "deniers" and they rely on the authority of complex computer programmes and tomes and tomes of cutting edge research to bolster their convictions, but the hard truth is that, except for perhaps in the Arctic, nobody is experiencing or witnessing a significant progression of climate change, or consequent changes to flora, fauna, growing seasons, etc. Nonetheless, it seems to be highly insulting to the experts to ask for evidence we can all see, hear and feel.
One shouldn't perhaps be too dogmatic about this, but the implications for freedom and democracy are profound if the general public lets go of their wallets and accepts every argument from authority the scientific establishment advances, something that is already happening to a degree that would make a 18th century Jesuit envious. We should all have inner alarms that sound when a scientist says his/her evidence is counter-intuitive.
A few years ago, Peter, when there was a prolonged winter mild spell in these parts, much was made by some of the trees that began to blossom early. But I spent the greater part of my childhood in a house in the middle of a woods, and I noticed - and had the temerity to point out - that the only trees that were blossoming were not native to the region and that none of the trees that were native to the region were blossoming. Naturally, I was regarded as a kneejerk contrarian. I have written elsewhere about the tendency many people have nowadays to let their experiences be mediated for them (e.g., the earphones at art museums - for God's sake, folks, it's a visual art). You bring up the question authority - and what the critics of religion fail to note is that their objections to religion are not grounded in their objection to authority per se, but to the particular authority represented by some ecclesiastical institution they disapprove of. One reason they disapprove is that they think they've found a better authority. Thomas Aquinas, of course, was well aware that, when it comes to formal logic, the argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy.
ReplyDeleteFrank, this may be apocryphal, but I once read that, during the heyday of medieval scholasticism, Roger Bacon was listening to a group of young theologians argue how to use theology to prove how many teeth are in the mouth of a horse. He scandalized the poor dears by suggesting they just go out to the stables and count them, thus earning his place in the pantheon of heroic scientific pathfinders. By skipping over the question of whether there is a scientific explanation for a mystery and jumping directly to the question of what it is, it seems to me some of the more doctrinaire proponents of scientism make a complementary error.
ReplyDeleteOn a lighter note, whenever I encounter a dogmatic materialist who argues that love is nothing more than a psycho-physiological response to the evolutionary imperative that we procreate in the name of genetic survival, I think: "I'd love to see the aniversary cards you send your wife."