Ethan 2005-03-30

From Summa Bergania

From: Ethan Englund

To: David Bergan

Date: Mar 30, 2005 2:34 PM

Subject: Science: Philosophy's Bastard Son

---

Well Ethan you again renewed my vigor for this discussion.

I am certain I have disturbed a slumbering giant. However, this expansive and often troubling harangue needs much attention, and I will try to answer at some length.

The "problem" is precisely in the definition of "good science." Defining science is a philosophical task. Most scientists never look up from their microscopes and ask themselves the question what science really is.

Already, slight invective is setting in. I agree with you: defining science IS a philosophical task. Does that imply that that the current definition of science is lacking or scientists have got it fundamentally wrong? Because I assure you, I do not know where you get your generalizations, but there are many scientists who take the discussion of the philosophy of the scientific method very seriously (my former advisor comes to mind instantly) but not least of all myself. I will go into more detail about my feeling when we get to your pop psychology.

And the reason for that is because this fundamental question is never asked in any science class. Science is presented as a vocab term that is learned once and never questioned.

Again we seem to have a fundamental difference in our definitions of the scientific pursuit of knowledge versus the philosophical pursuit of knowledge. Without getting into the particulars just yet, I have told you repeatedly, I believe that science, despite developing by philosophy and being an “applied” philosophical entity itself, speaks a different language than abstract philosophy or what we commonly refer to as philosophy. Based on this criterion, you can imagine why I feel this question should not be asked in a science class: because it is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Where it should get asked is in a philosophy of science class, something I would wholly endorse all scientists taking. (I have expressed to you over the phone my inclination to teach philosophy in high school, for instance.)

And it's very easy to understand this process, because most personalities bent toward science prefer rote memorization of facts to the critical process of philosophy.

Dave, I love you like a brother, but this might be the dumbest thing you have ever written. Ever. For example, if I (being bent towards science myself) preferred rote memorization, I would not be such an atrocious speller. Yes, science has become so specialized that there is a veritable mountain of information in each area that, in order to become a decent scientist, one must internalize. (I used to tease biology majors (mostly premeds) because they had to learn the parts of bugs, for example.) But learning the background knowledge and past research is a means, not an end. The utterly laughable notion that scientists do not (cannot?) tend to think critically is so gratuitously absurd, its keeps the idea from being downright offensive. Research science requires critical thinking every single day on the job. Every conclusion I have ever reached from every experiment I have or ever will do must be parsed over a thousand different ways critically and logically. Results? Confirmations? Follow-ups? Controls? Variables? Does this support what we know or what we predicted from the system? If not, why? I am totally at a loss here.

They can hardly stand 10 minutes in a class that tries to understand the Trinity in light of the Arian controversy (Was Jesus consubstantial, coequal, and coeternal with the Father?).

Again, this is just an unwarranted cheap shot. Could I handle the Trinity in light of the Arian controversy? Could Nathan Metzger or Tom Jacobson handle physical chemistry? Physical chemistry certainly takes a sharp logical mind and critical thinking. What a ridiculous argument.

No, they want facts. They want to know which facts science has discovered so far and which facts they need to go to the lab and investigate.

And they will find that they are terrible if they cannot handle critical thinking. What the hell kind of investigation does not use critical thinking? I need to move on.

So the defintion of science is presented to them as a fact (just as Keplar's laws of plantetary motion), and it remains unquestioned as a fact (just as Keplar's laws of planetary motion).

Let me impress upon you here that scientists do not just accept facts (such as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion). Were Newton’s laws of gravity just taken as fact? For a time. This is because they were not falsified for many years. (Science works with what it has.) But that sure did not save them from tougher questions (and better equations). Science is the empirical philosophy of skepticism. It is nothing else if not constant questioning of precedent. Speaking as a graduate student, I do not know were you get this sense that scientists have this religiosity towards their forbearers but, to the contrary, many scientists would sell their first born to overturn better established theories and outdo the research of their advisors. (It is the quickest way to fame and fortune.)

Studying physical nature is not generally considered a philosophical endeavor. However, defining science as the study of physical nature IS a philosophical endeavor. The scientific method was formed by enlightenment philosophers, and its modern structure was refined bylater philosophers (such as philosopher Karl Popper's famous essay showing that for a claim to be scientific it must be falsifiable). Scientists certainly earn the credit for progress within science, but philosophers deserve the credit for the progress OF science as a tool for gaining real knowledge.

You had me (or I agreed with you) until the last sentence. What do you mean by “real” knowledge? I have never insinuated science does not have philosophical underpinnings (a shout out to Popper!) but your point is lost on me. If your point is simply that we should pay attention to the philosophy of science, I cannot agree more. You say that studying physical nature is not generally considered a philosophical endeavor. Should it be? Is philosophy, the logically sound yet abstract art we seam to be describing, well equipped to handle scientific questions? Once again, this appears to me as different tools to different tasks. Just because science is an offshoot of philosophy or philosophy was instrumental in shaping scientific method, the purpose of your last sentence is lost on me, wholly dependant on the definition of “real”. Unfortunately, you quickly wander back into oblivious ridiculousness in your next paragraph…..

But scientists look down their snooty noses at philosophers.

Again, I am not sure where you are talking about, but scientists look down their snooty noses as politicians, masters in business administration, and pretty much all of the service industry. However, the notion that scientists have some inherent dislike for philosophy is just weird. Are other areas of our society more receptive to philosophy? Quite frankly, you could take out the word scientists in this sentence and substitute almost any profession in America and it would be a more persuasive argument.

If Socrates walked into a lab, interrupted the good scientist's research and began questioning him as to what science really is, the scientist would reply with a textbook definition and condescending attitude. Scientists think of themselves as some sort of intelligent elite because they are pursuing real truth, not vaporous questions about God or substance or metaphysics or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how we should define what a human is or how we should define what science is.

What do you mean by real? Observable? Testable? Tangible? Empirical? If these are what you mean by “real”, I might agree with you. Is philosophy capable of generating answers to problems faced in a chemistry lab? Would the scientific method be useful in determining the validity of the unmoved mover argument? They have always seemed to be different but non-contradictory truth seeking methods. I will deal with this more by the time I reach the “Best of Ethan Quotes” section.

Philosophers deal with the abstract and that is virtually meaningless. Scientists deal with real world truth and THAT builds bridges, takes us to the moon, protects our skin from UV rays, and cooks our hot dog in under a minute.

Philosophers deal with the abstract. Scientists deal with the tangible. Wow, that just about sums up how I feel. Science is nothing but applied philosophy or applied logic. You make a powerful (yet undeniably sardonic) case for their differences. Name me one bridge philosophy built. Name me one philosophical truth that was proved via experiment. Why you believe scientists think the abstract is meaningless is beyond me.

So get out of the laboratory Socrates and let me continue my research on genetic engineering. Your questions on whether or not genetic engineering will damn human nature as a whole [read The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis] are silly and meaningless.

Apparently you have never heard of bio-ethicists. Once again, the idea that scientists doe not consider moral, ethical, and yes, philosophical considerations, seems completely foreign to me. Yes, some do not care about the consequences of their progress. Most do. (I will save you the details till the “Ask Ethan” portion of the program.) But you are brushing with very broad strokes by this point indeed.

This is progress. This is finding real answers to real questions. Your questions are no more answerable now than they were back in Athens. So be gone and apologize for your interruption.

A summary to this point:

The definition of science is wrong, not that scientists care. They accept everything from science at face value because they do not like the critical thinking skills. Philosophy developed science so philosophy should get the credit overall. Furthermore, scientists are materialistic pricks who care nothing for the consequences of their progress within science. Also, they hate being interrupted, even by very famous (dead?) people.

You will forgive me if I am less than impressed with your “analysis”.

I know that's how scientists think, because that's how you think.

God help us all. Dave, having moved on from science and philosophy, now goes to psychology. I am sure Dr. DeVita would be proud.

Throughout this discussion you have maintained that there is a very specific line between science and philosophy. And although you tend to agree with me, and Anthony Flew, and Denton, and maybe even Behe, on the philosophical side of things... it's all bad science or not even science at all. And as such you attack all this philosophy with ad hominem.

I do love ad hominem name calling, but I only use it when I am confident in my position (e.g. every argument I have ever had with Dave Baker). Yes, by my understanding of the relationship/differences between philosophy and science do require a certain amount of separation of powers, so to speak. But if you are trying to prove they are not the same thing, you have not addressed it yet. I will try to hit on this thoroughly during the grand finale.

Witness the quotes:

"The point I differ on is strictly whether my crazy notions about order in the universe can ever be considered proof, especially in the scientific method sence."

Analysis: Science brings real proof. Philosophy only gives us crazy notions (beliefs) that have no place in >science.

I think you might have made this quote up. Just kidding, of course. I remember it. Try not to take my self-effacement as an affront to lady philosophy. I call them crazy because I (the humble scientist) was dabbling with philosophy. They were crazy ONLY because they were mine (and developed in junior high, no less). A simple look at the context when I made that remark would reveal the importance in my life (besides the fact I am now defending my “crazy” philosophy against your callous assaults). So where should belief fit into the scientific method? Many a scientist would argue it does not belong at all.

"As for Tony Flew, I am glad he found God and I am glad he liked the Behe book. Where did you say he got his degree in biochemistry?"

Analysis: Who cares if Anthony Flew was one of the most respected philosophers alive. He doesn't have a degree in biochemistry, so he isn't part of the scientific elite that is capable of legitimately judging Behe's book.

Again, you could not be farther from reality with this psychoanalysis. First of all, this was just a short blurb in response to your notion that Flew’s agreement with the book might be due to religious bias, a joke not lost on me. So I replied with one in kind. However, you reminded me of the point I was going to make and I think this nicely illustrates the expertise factor that has grown into science and philosophical disciplines. This is also part of the problem I have with Behe.

Flew is a famous philosopher and I am sure many a very intelligent scientist would have trouble arguing abstract philosophy with him. However, Behe’s philosophy or logical arguments are all set upon a biochemical precondition, one which you, I, or even the abnormally bright Flew would not be best suited to refute (remember all the rote memorization you thought was the point of science). This is the reason (a more cynical observer might opine) that Behe released his book to the public rather in the form of scientific publication, a genre he is well aware of having published dozens of (by all appearances) reputable paper detailing fine science. The most important part of scientific publication is the peer review (what the paper I just wrote is going through now). You can say that they keep rejecting his intelligent design papers because of their philosophical content (which they should be), but some are rejected due to the scientific argument. Most people are not knowledgeable enough in this area of science to counter the biological argument (irreducible complexity). The biochemistry is complex and hard to follow; the logical conclusions from his discussion of the science are easy to follow (they all rely heavily on mousetraps). However, the scientists who did respond to his publication (mostly pissed off at being misquoted or misrepresented in it) did respond in kind to the biological arguments and they did not think much of them. I tried to look up their thoughts after I thought through my model for the natural generation of irreducible complexity (as characterized by the flawed mousetrap game analogy).

This is not the difference in the language between science and philosophy I have touted earlier or will go into later. It is simply a difference in the expertise of the readers. It is just a practical fact. Why do scientists not consider the philosophy behind their findings more often? Because science is already very hard and time consuming. Why add to the trouble of bridging several very complex areas? Let the philosophers handle what they handle best. When was the last time a philosopher developed mathimatical proofs behind big bang cosmology? (Hans Arneson?) I would be ill equipped to argue against a philosophy based on evidence brought forth from computer programming, just as you would be ill equipped to counter abstract conclusions based on protein synthesis.

"The second point I need to make is that although I have sardonically cast my eyes down on this evolution/creation mutant Behe touts, it is a belief and can never be proven or disproven in a logical way. On that particular point, two people might as well be arguing the virtues of faries versus the virtues of pixies."

Analysis: "Cannot be proven or disproven in a logical way" means it cannot be proven or disproven by science... which reaffirms your bias that science is what is really logical. Philosophical questions are like arguing the virtues of faries against those of pixies.

Strike Three. If I am guilty of anything (besides misspelling “fairies”) it is not separating theological arguments from philosophical arguments. I think of creationism as a theological concept so the hybrid with evolution seems like one that trivializes or forces the theology to exist only where the science has not yet observed. I will go into this more in your “Ask Ethan” section. No, Dave, I do not think philosophy does not follow logical arguments or that they are “less true” than science’s logical conclusions, but I used the fairies/pixies example (besides to irk the philosophy/theology major) because it fit two criteria: they are abstract (as opposed to science’s more tangible “reality”) and they are dependant on some amount of faith (a precondition of any theology, I thought).

Ok, I'll get to the point. What is passed off as a definition of science and bought into by everyone who takes a science class past the 6th grade is not only the study of nature, but the propogation of a materialist philosophy that denies God, miracles, and everything supernatual. And that science is touted as the real truth.

Wait, are scientists oblivious to philosophy (like your earlier screed suggested) or are they pushing materialism (a philosophy)? I realize I am no philosopher, but this seems like a contradiction in your logic of the highest order. It took you this long to get to this? So this is the heart of your troubles. Listen, you are throwing spears over me at the likes of Richard Dawkins (I assume, the quintessential materialist) while science and I wait in the middle watching the two of you squabble. I would love to know why you think materialism goes hand in hand with science’s separation from abstract philosophy, but I have my theories (to be addressed in the first of your questions, I believe). But personally, let me say this assertion is lame. The latest survey I found (Nature, 1997) had the percentage of scientists who believed in a god (not just deism, mind you, but a personal god they could actively pray to and expect answers) at about 40%. This was virtually unchanged from 80 years prior when the survey was taken. If science is breeding rampant materialism, it is not characterized from its scientists. Maybe they suspect miracles, God and everything supernatural are fundamentally outside the scope of what science (developed by philosophy) is capable of determining. Since God, for example, has never been observed in a physical sense, is it not logical to employ the powerful tool we have for parsing over the abstract (philosophy)?

This has the effect, then, of marginalizing the questions that ought to be the central thoughts of every mind, every day. The question of whether or not God exists is not a question of real truth now, because science uncovers real truth and God cannot, by this definition, be studied by science.

The assertion of importance of various knowledge is opinion, pure and simple. This does not really prove your argument; it just shows your bias towards the subject. However, as I said before, I agree that philosophy (the WHY to science’s HOW, if you will) should be considered more than it is. Pushing the blame to science because of its incredible success (which does have a certain practical applicability that is undeniably alluring to many) for the depreciation of abstract, high minded concepts of meaning in our society is like blaming Pokemon for kids not wanting to go to church. Kids can play pokemon and still want to go to church; one just has better marketing than the other right now. But you still have not made a case at all about why I should consider changing the philosophy behind scientific method. As you are quick to point out, science was developed by philosophers; why are you so sure their definitions of what scientific method is or how it should be incorporated are wrong or need refining? When did the philosophy of scientific method go astray from its true goals, in you assessment?

Therefore, the question of whether or not God exists is now only an issue of faith or belief... or as a friend of mine said, "my crazy notions."

If by crazy notions you mean philosophy, fine. But let me play the psychologist now. I have to stop here because of the vigor I usually devote this topic. What scares you about knowing God only as a matter of faith or belief? If it cannot be inferred from thorough examination of evidence in the physical world or established firmly through the hardened logic of abstract philosophy, is being a Christian a pointless endeavor, undeserving of your time and energy? Your crusade against faith not withstanding, you know how I feel on the issue (“proof of God” being an oxymoron in my mind). There are some questions that just do not have answers (I assume you would agree with this statement) and no amount of abstract philosophy, scientific reasoning, or even the bastardized definition of science driven towards theological ends could provide proper elucidation into the deepest problems.

And this definition (ed. driven by philosophy) is bullet-proofed by a condescending attitude toward any philosopher who would attempt to change it (ed. Behe?). People that try work under a different understanding of science, which investigates evidence that points toward a supernatural design are regarded as disingenuous hacks, psuedo-scientists, or theists with an axe to grind (ed. some are). We should burn their books lest they pollute the minds of our young with a different concept of science.

Despite the fact you descend into childish hyperbole (yes, Dave, let us burn their books), let me try to address your concerns. Is it a different understanding or is there something undeniably different about these new definitions? Many scientists, I imagine like I do, see not a different interpretation of science in general but something that is lacking in so many qualities associated with science (e.g. falsifiable, observable, etc.) that it has ceased to be science at all. So what is science, in your opinion? I cannot help but think it is somewhat pointless to rail against the scientific community that has been working within this paradigm of scientific method (and doing pretty well) because they will not accept a new (old?) interpretation, definition, or “understanding” as you put it. Why would you read the Koran at a bible study (which was built off of judeo/Christian theology)? Is it just a different understanding of judeo/Christian theology or is there something entirely unchristian about it?

This is the way I see it. Most scientists have ruled out all studies on intelligent design because they feel that it is unscientific by definition. No scientist should ever raise the hypothesis that they have found evidence that points toward God, because the establishment's unchallengable definition of science discriminates against all such efforts.

I really need to know how you would change the philosophy of science before I counter this assault. However, opining that experiment points towards God is abstract. Scientists like to philosophize about the deeper meaning of science all the time, not just Behe. Many a serious scientist has published books trying to conceptually coordinate their results and current scientific understanding with broader abstract concepts. Some are more interested in the science with a little homage to philosophy (Stephen Hawking comes to mind) and some try to inundate readers with science to try to sneak across a philosophical point (Dawkins, for example). But they also realize that it is not science take it directly to the public (or philisophical journals, if they exist).

As I was saying about Old Earth creationism (at least the type that you, the "philosopher king" and Behe, the "disingenuous hack" advocate that makes use of micro but denies macro evolution) where exactly do you draw the line between macro and micro evolution?

Take the fruit flies...

I have heard a lot about fruit flies but I am unfazed. I once opined to you over the phone that organisms could have some sort of mechanism for correcting or reverting back to more familiar forms of their genome. This was based on the simple logic that it eventually becomes advantageous to screen out changes in the genome (since, as you well know, many more are destructive rather than advantageous). Generations could pass with a gene mutation before the gene was recovered, like a backup copy. If it seemed unlikely to you, do not worry, because I was equally skeptical about it. However, with timing that can only be described a providence, one week later, an article was published in Nature that showed just such a mechanism in a species of plant. This was absolutely huge news (the Washington Post ran an story about the article the day before it came out). By a totally unknown mechanism, plants that had generations of specific genes weeded out (bad play on words) saw a recovery of these genes that could not be explained by random mutation. Besides lending much credence to “Evolutionary Endgame” I described on the phone (which the number of generations you then mutate the flies would be almost meaningless), it proves a larger point I was trying to make. When I said, “we need more time”, I was not referring to just another couple years to grow more flies or something. What I tried, and failed, to impress upon you was the fact that these systems, even the simple and modest fruit fly, have more ins and outs than we can anticipate. Until you can determine all the variables that go into a system (and, in some cases, control them) any data generated is suspect. It is easy for me to say that since I do synthetic organic chemistry (i.e. variables of how much chemical, temperature, time reacting, etc. are all easily controlled, for the most part) but we lack a detailed understanding of even the simplest of biological life. The Fruit Fly: Creationism’s Black Box.

Behe offers persuasive analysis against macroevolution by natural selection, if indeed biological organs and systems are irreducibly complex. Natural selection states that any mutation that gives its possesor an advantage will be propogated throughout the species. But if an organ is irreducibly complex, then adding just one spare, useless, component isn't going to be propogated throughout the species, because useless parts don't equate to an advantage... and nature must have an advantage to work with (according to natural selection). I find this reasoning to be valid. The big if is whether or not the systems are irreducibly complex. (a)

Again, I am not convinced these systems could not result from natural processes, but I am still reading. The thing I cannot get over in natural selection is the idea that only an advantageous change can be preserved. Humans have all sorts of unnecessary crap. We have so many genes that are just turned off (i.e. not used). Hell, there are organs that we just as well be without. But I will be the first to admit, I do not know enough about natural selection to comment definitively. I am studying up. (I am also looking into the time restraints of evolution that you mentioned earlier.)

Behe's claim is that you can't take a part away from an eye, or else it stops working... thus it is irreducibly complex. But this also means that when you do add something to the eye, either that new part mucks it up, or else the new part is useless and the eye operates exactly the same... because the next better eye is itself a different irreducibly complex organ.

But the claim that you cannot take a part away from an eye or else it stops working is false. Plainly. An eye that has a pupil that cannot dilate still works. But the bigger question is (and I believe what Behe is getting at) is: if you distill an eye down to its simplest parts, do they have inherent uses? I would argue yes. If you have a cell that can detect light (trans to cis photo chemistry) even without all the other frick and frack (pupils, proteins, cones, etc.), does that constitute a evolutionary “advantage”. Most biologists would argue it is. Even if this cell cannot “see”, the basic parts can have value related to the job they now perform. As for the worthless additions, as I said before, I do need more information on natural selection.

Now here's a good question: Is the logic of natural selection science or philosophy? Natural selection isn't anything that applies to the scientific method, it is just the principle that Darwin laid out for how evolution could make one species into another. He saw finch populations die with their corresponding food supply, but never saw a new kind of finch emerge... merely speculated that if a good mutuation came about, it would change the entire species.

You have finally calmed down and asked a good question. I agree (initially). I have no reason to believe natural selection, as I currently understand it, is more than a rational as opposed to a theory; it is a mechanism Darwin used to explain how to get from A to B. Much of “evolutionary psychology”, my honest opinion, is crap of the highest order. That is literally “psychology for any occasion”, made to fit whatever legitimate facts science finds.

The logic of irreducible complexity is only a rebuttal to natual selection. There is nothing supernatual there. It is in no way more philosophical than natural selection. It's just saying that to get an advantage it takes more than one mutation... that it would usually take, say, five mutations to get a noticable advantage in sight where each mutation is useless on its own.

Ah, but that is not where Behe leaves it. He takes it one step further to lead to the conclusion of intelligent design, which is as loaded a term as there is (although it does not explicitly require the supernatural either). It is not as simple a refuting of natural selection. It attempts to show a flaw in natural selection. Fine. But then the assessment that this irreducible complexity could not occur through a natural mechanism is not science. (It would be conjecture at this point.) He injects philosophy into the scientific argument. I also debate the usefulness of the term “noticeable” advantage, by the way. How noticeable does an advantage have to be to be spared getting weeded out of the gene pool?

Now that I think of it, maybe another way to clarify the difference between micro and macroevolution is that microevolution includes the changes of a species where one mutuation on its own does secure an advantage. Macroevolution is the speculation that significant changes could come about... but they are the ones that Behe would say require numerous useless mutations in the meantime... which natural selection states it will not give prefered treatment to.

I do not know. If by this definition, if a breed of boar eyes developed into the more advanced dog like eye (for the sake of argument) that would mean the boar with good eye site is a different species despite no other changes. I am a little skeptical of this definition. But on to the main event and grand finales: “Ask Ethan”.

Ok after reading all this mess (ed. it was not all messy), here's what I want answers to:

1) What is science?

Science is the bastard child of philosophy. Philosophy lacked the language, it seams to me, for questioning and understanding physical reality. Hence, science was developed as a sort of applied philosophy. The same logic and reason philosophy used to ponder the meaning of things (abstract concepts like justice or purpose to life) were applied to observation and analysis of the real world (real in the loosest sense of the word). Because science is an abstract concept itself, it makes perfect sense that the best available tool available for such a task should develop the method. Science should be reproducible. Theories should be falsifiable, observable, make predictions about future observations, etc. But by its very nature, the language of science developed autonomous and independent to that of philosophy. It was the HOW to philosophy’s WHY, if you will.

The reason I reject your notion that philosophy should be injected into science is that it undoes progress philosophy has made on the scientific method. They handle different, but non-compatible, problems and find different species of solutions. The fact that philosophy developed science does not warrant its use in science. Just because I could use a hammer to build a birdhouse does not imply that I could use the hammer itself to house birds. (The inverse is also true, as I could not use the birdhouse to build, say, other birdhouses.) In fact, I would reason that when science was in its infancy, philosophy was probably combined with it was as a sort of amalgam or hybrid. Science only existed to give philosophers more to talk about (Behe or Dawkins type philosophy as compared to the wholly abstract). This assumption is due only to the very limited nature of science for most of human history. But as philosophy refined the scientific method, it intentionally removed itself (the abstract) from the equation focusing rather on the principles aforementioned. So your proposal that the injection of the abstract or philosophical represents a different interpretation of science or progress in the development of science itself, seems to me as a regression from what philosophy has led us to now.

What is materialism?

Materialism is the idolatry of science. I would say it champions scientific method as the only path to knowledge and it leaves no room for the unobservable (i.e. the supernatural). Championed by the likes of Richard Dawkins, it is wholly a philosophy based loosely on scientific results (not unlike intelligent design).

Does science necessitate materialism?

No. Materialism is a philosophy. Its goals, methods and overall approach to the pursuit of knowledge are completely different. As I mentioned earlier, science is the neutral observer, using its philosophically refined methods to unravel the inner workings of reality. Materialism and Deism squabble over the abstract meaning of the results. (Both can make persuasive arguments based on scientific knowledge, but I tend to be persuaded by the deistic arguments, as you well know.)

I believe this the core of our problem. Feel free to prove me unambiguously wrong, but I will try my hand at parsing your thoughts:

You believe that the current philosophy behind the scientific method, by not concerning itself with the abstract of the philosophical world, favors materialism by default. You also believe that the question of God’s existence and the nature of His being should be at the forefront of everybody’s priorities (a theological bias, but an obviously forgivable one). At the heart of the beast is the definition of science and the scientific method, which you would somehow alter (or interpret differently) to allow the incorporation of these more abstract concepts, especially concerning the existence of God.

However, I believe your reasoning (if this is the case) is askew. First, the science does not lend itself to materialism by default if philosophy is not incorporated into scientific method. The same scientific journals and peer review process that reject Dr. Behe’s papers that opine about intelligent design would (have?) reject Dr. Dawkins’ papers touting materialism. (Both Dawkins and Behe have published a good deal in reputable scientific journals, but all their papers do not make ANY mention of philosophy.) Science is left as the impartial observer of the physical world, oblivious to the philosophical arguments that rage about it. The reason that there might be a perceived promotion or propagation of materialism is not the fault of science. One reason it can be perceived as the only true path to knowledge is not because science suggests this, but because the alternative (philosophy) is not embraced (in high school for example) and not respected in or society at large. (Do philosophers make six figure incomes anywhere in America?) The second reason science can be perceived as touting materialism is the same reason philosophy is not as well embraced in society: science has been extremely successful at improving peoples’ lives in very tangible ways. (The first thing that popped into my head during your Socrates paragraph was synthetic lung surfactant allowing extremely prematurely born infants to breath, but cooking hot dogs fast also works.) There is a certain allure to what science has accomplished and is evident from all corners of the globe. So teaching kids a chemistry class in high school automatically becomes more important than requiring an introduction to philosophy and logic. Although your goal that all people should consider the philosophical (whether that be deism or materialism) as well as the scientific is noble, but misplaced if you think sneaking philosophy into the current definition of the scientific method will solve the problem. It cheapens the philosophy (philosophy in the gaps?) and dilutes science. If, for instance, intelligent design was a scientific theory, it would be the only one I can think of that would have no way of being falsifiable, untestable (not to mention unreproducible), could not be observed, no predictions could come of it, and could not be supported from other disciplines within science. It would be like saying I was a Christian who denied the existence of Jesus, ignored the New Testament, and followed Old Testament rabbinic law. If there is not at least a slightly fuzzy line between science and philosophy, you have not convinced me it should be blurred. This, of course, is wholly on your interpretation or definition of scientific method.

I do not want to trivialize the importance of philosophy or the daunting challenge it has of challenging science in the hearts and minds (and wallets) of civilization. But as a great philosopher once said, “Do not pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” (That was either Thomas Aquinas or Judge Judy, but right now I cannot remember.) Science/Philosophy: Different tools to achieve different goals.

2) Are the truths of philosophy more or less reliable than science?

This might surprise you, but philosophical truths are far more reliable than scientific truths. The abstract can deal with absolutes. Our reality cannot (or has shown no evidence that it can). As you have may have noticed, I am fond of reminding you that any scientific theory should be falsifiable. But is philosophy governed by the same restraint? Watch:

• David is a Bergan.
• All Bergans are blond.
• Therefore, David is blond.

Try and refute that! There you have it. The assertion that David is blond is more reliable than the theories of evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang, and any other scientific theory combined.

Now, yes, not also philosophical or logical concepts are so cut and dried (like any philosophy based on scientific findings) but philosophy (like math) used a concrete system of logic that is irrefutable.

3) Is natural selection a scientific principle or a philosophical one?

How about irreducible complexity?

My first impression (of natural selection) would be a scientific one. I know I said earlier is sounded like a rationalization to me but let me put my science cap on again. It is a model for explaining for getting from A to B. It is testable (although the number of variables to consider in such an experiment is mind boggling). Is it illogical? No, it seems to follow very basic logical principles. Do other areas of science support it? Tougher to find confirmation from, say, chemistry or geology or something like that but this is not my strong suit. Is it falsifiable? Well, if I make the assumption that irreducible complexity does indeed disprove it then sure, why not, it seems like a scientific theory, just one already proven false. Is irreducible complexity a scientific theory? I would argue yes (disregarding my own premonitions about it being proven false already). I guess it seems to me that he starts to cross the Rubicon towards philosophy when he argues that nature cannot account for irreducible complexity. This drifts into absolutism based only on current understanding (there is no way nature can account for this). But, I will grant you, unless his science is terrible, irreducible complexity does seem in and of itself a scientific theory. But who knows. I am tired now. I could change my mind tomorrow (with the revelation of more information, of course).

4) Is there, or could there be, a science to recognizing intelligent design? Apart from just knowing what's man-made because we are men... If a meteor brought a gizmo on it that wasn't man-made, could we scientifically say at some point that because the gizmo shows signs of X, Y, and Z, therefore there are intelligent aliens that made this gizmo?

For the sake of argument I am going to say no. But this is based on my philosophy of analogies argument. Are there any logical criteria that can be taken from intelligently deigned creations that truly identify them as such, that are common to all designed objects? Is there criteria that accurately encomase everything that is not intelligently designed? I am not sure.

Perhaps it is possible on our physical scale. But the other point I want to bring up is that things on the molecular level follow different rules of engagement than objects in our “super” molecular level. Lets take the beloved mousetrap example. If you had all the parts of the mousetrap laying next to each other (board, spring, hammer, etc.) the chances they could ever come together to form anything useful is utterly bad. They are all inanimate objects that would require some sort of extra force or work upon them. However, molecules are dynamic by nature. They constantly interact, driven by kinetics and thermodynamics and the energy they need to react or “interact” with each other is nigh infinitely more accessible. (Photons, pressure, and any temperature above absolute zero can cause molecules to react, all of which are readily more available than that gust of wind I was hoping would knock the box of mousetrap parts over assembling them into something useful.) I do not think anything we have ever invented can accurately be compared to systems at the molecular level.

5) You detest the "God of the Gaps" mentality. Name 3 instances where science filled a gap that was widely thought to be God by intelligent people.

“Intelligent people.” I love it. What a loaded question. I do not detest the “God in the Gaps” mentality because it is false or because people are clearly wrong. I detest it because it trivializes theology. What does it say when somebody only believes in the theology because it cannot be directly contradicted by science. Think of Nathan Metzger in the reverse. He had a “Science in the Gaps” mentality. He loved science, as long as his theology based worldview was not threatened. What if the human genome studies cure cancer? “Yay!” What if the human genome reveals evidence towards evolution? “Grrr.” Nathan had no problem with geology as long as it did not prove the earth was older than seven thousand years old. The fossil record is only pertinent if it shows there was a worldwide flood. It just seems like a pathetic shell for science. (We can debate next time on whether or not Nathan Metzger can count as one or your "intelligent" people.) The same can be said for theology existing at the edges of what science can explain. Is microevolution explainable? Yes, so God must not play a role in that. Is macroevolution explainable? No, so God can have a role in that.

That reminds me, let me note that when I originally posed my questions about earlier people believing (I believe the divinity of lighting was the phone conversation) natural phenomena to be supernatural in nature, I did not question weather they were right in their belief or not. (For all I know, all lighting could be sent directly by God, most of it with a purpose I could not predict.) I asked if it was REASONABLE. If it started raining flaming sulfur from the sky and we could not initially determine the cause, is it REASONABLE to believe that it is Armageddon? I think so. So why then, if you are a primitive life form (say Erin Bonjour) and you see lightning, would it be unreasonable to believe it is supernatural based on your complete lack of understanding of electromagnetic theory (the Bonjour model still applies)? I would argue yes. And if science does not (yet?) adequately explain the incredible complexity of biochemical systems, would not the same logic from the above examples apply? This was the point I was trying to get at with that. (But this is just some of my “crazy” philosophizing.)

In summation, I do not have any explicit questions (besides the ones sprinkled throughout the text), but there is enough questionable material in between my musing, philosophizing and vitriol that I am sure you are eager to respond to. Although there is a place for philosophy based directly on scientific results, you have not convinced me that it should be considered part of the scientific method. (A class where Dawkins and Behe fought to the philosophical death would certainly be fun, but it would not be science.) Again, let me stress that the problems with people considering abstract philosophical matters is not the fault of science or a world wide cabal of scientists who are unwilling to consider other “interpretations” of science. The fault lies in people’s attitudes towards philosophy in general and the feeling that only tangible production is truly useful.

It occurs to me, based on your on your various mythology (scientists like rote memorization to critical analysis, science without philosophy promotes materialism), your understanding of science seems to be mostly (entirely?) based on science education. When first learning about science, there is an insurmountable number of theories that (although not true, in the absolutely irrefutable sense of the word) have been rigorously examined using the scientific method and students should be made aware of these. Also, I could imagine the impression young minds (translation: stupid high school students) might assume (incorrectly) that science is the only game in town (i.e. materialism) because science, in and of itself, does not promote other means of knowledge pursuit. I would advocate the philosophy of the scientific method taught to students, but it is very difficult incorporate into a class that has so little background in science (all those mesmerizing facts, as it were). Learning about the true process of science is difficult without this background knowledge. I would also advocate a separate class for general philosophy in high school (although I would not like to be on the line with an angry parent that just found out their child wants to a philosopher when they grow up!).

Well that should just about be it. If I forgot anything I am sure I can hit next time. I will try to call you one of these nights. I hope you laid the smack down on some agnostics Monday. And I did get your text message Sunday night but I was asleep. I will tell you about my Easter weekend another time. (Hint: I got really drunk on Good Friday and did something stupid.)

Yours,

Ethan

P.S. Calling home for Easter, I found that my little sister had contracted mono, and was pretty depressed. However, after I told her the story of your fiasco she did not feel nearly as sorry for herself.

P.P.S. You also opined that scientists were a snooty, intellectual elite but I have read enough philosophy to know that philosophers could give scientists a run for the gold in the “Condescending Self-Importance Olympics”.