I realise that some might end up hating me for this, but I want to spell out my thoughts on Science and Materialism. Here goes...take a look, and tell me your thoughts, for or against my argument.
A scientist is somebody who examines the Universe in a particular way - looking for material evidence to back their conclusions. A scientist, if s/he is working properly, has got to be trying to prove that they are wrong. Only when they succeed in doing this are they satisfied. Supposing a scientist looks at a Petri dish and sees that the bugs he was growing were spoiled, because somehow, a fungal spore had got onto the dish - and no bacteria were growing near it.
Someone else might throw the dish away - it should be growing diphtheria or something, not fungal spores. But Fleming (our scientist in this case ) said ' hang on - these ~fungal spores~ might be killing the bacteria - but how do I know that?'
And so he asked himself what the 'something else' might be, and set up ' controlled experiments' maybe it was the sunlight killing the bacteria, not the spores. So , he left one dish in the light, the other in the dark. Same result. Whatever it ws could kill in the dark. so he made it warmer, then colder. Now, bacteria found it hard to grow in the cold anyway, but warmth did not affect the killing power that seemed to be coming from the fungal spores. One by one, Fleming eliminated all chance of ' something else' and settled the question. Pennicilin mould could and did kill bacteria.
And this is how science works. Try to prove you are wrong and if you fail, you must be right. it is not true that Scientists do not have beliefs. Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project, is a Christian - he just didn't bring his beliefs about Jesus into the lab. An Atheist , doing what he did , would get the same results.
The problem is that asking a scientist to look at Ghosts , or ESP, or Reincarnation, is like asking a pastry cook to do a bit of choux pastry without using an oven. A 'good' (honest) scientist will say " This is something non material in nature. I can only work with material evidence". A bad one will tell you that you are either a lunatic or a liar if you say you have seen or experienced anything that is 'paranormal'.
The Burden of Proof, in Science, is always on the person making a claim.
And, even if I do an experiment, it has got to be repeatable. So the fact that we have those casts of people's hands, totally inexplicable by natural means, is not conclusive unless I can do it ' on command'.
Now, this does not mean that it cannot happen - just that it cannot happen under laboratory conditions. We must first of all ask "Can we find things that science cannot explain, or does science control everything ?"
Poetry, art , love - these are things that the material scientist may well agree do have an objective existence. They 'are', but cannot be replicated in a lab. Shakespeare could obviously write sonnets and plays of outstanding quality. he used a pen, some paper and the English alphabet. Well, I have got all that, but could I write a sonnet?
Could I, or any Materialist write a bit of comedy that would make people laugh? See, laughter is definitely a "measurable and observable Physical Phenomenon". So, can a scientist replicate this in the lab ? Or does it take a comic genius like Eric Idle or Ronnie Barker to do something like the famous ' Four Candles' sketch or 'The Galaxy Song '?
I believe that Barker and Idle were 'comic geniuses' . They just are - their work could not be replicated by a machine or computer algorithm, however sophisticated it was. So too, with psychic phenomenon. It seems to flow from some people and leave others untouched. I think that there is a concept called 'magisteria', meaning ' rulership' or 'Authority'. This says that "There are Rules that work in certain fields of endeavour, but not others"
When doing physics or chemistry the lab, all you need is a steady hand, and the right gear, and it will work - whatever you are doing".
In the field of making music, or writing comedy, however, those rules no longer apply.
Andre Previn, the great classical conductor, appeared on the Morecambe and Wise Show once. Eric tried playing the piano, and then Andre showed him how it should be done. The difference was quite clear, even to someone with no musical training whatever.
Previn angrily rebuked Eric, saying " you are not playing the right notes !"
" I am" , insisted Eric, equally straight faced ," but not necessarily in the right order."
This brought gales of laughter from the audience. It is reckoned as a great classic moment of Comedy TV. Morecambe was n't doing great piano playing - but was doing outstanding Comedy. And it brings us to the heart of the question about The Paranormal.
"Can science explain everything - or are there things outside the scope of science that can only be explored and experienced by other means?".
To me it seems that there are indeed, things that we can all agree are ' there' in an objective sense. Some people are great comedians and have real, indisputable talent for making people laugh. when it comes to music and drama though , it is a bit more 'a matter of taste'. Jimmy Hendrix or Johann Sebastian Bach? Brahms or the Beatles? Or were they all great in their own way ?
The point is that Science is not what to drag into that debate. But Scientists would never try to kid us that music and drama were 'just in our heads', because they experience these things themselves, outside the lab. Calling it ' Art' makes more sense.
Now, I would contend that religious, or spiritual experiences may be attributable to us having ' souls' - however, I cannot go and eliminate all causes as much as I would like. Some reincarnation experiences may be down to ' ancestral memory' - but even there, Science does not really have any sort of ' rational explanation ' for this.
BTW, Darwin did not have a 'rational explanation' for Evolution at first. Yes, he knew that animal populations exhibited change over time, but the mechanism was unknown to him. today, we can postulate ' genetic drift', but Darwin himself knew nothing of genes.
I have read the book D+, and agree that there may well be a soul, a Mind that created Matter. I rather hope there is in fact. but Science isn't really being Science if it takes and accepts things without repeatable and measurable physical evidence.
We really have to accept that there are different Magisteria - perhaps Science can shed some light on things, but not ultimately answer yes or no. Science can point to trickery if the trick can be done. But not rule it out (or in) if not. I would contend that some truths may be beyond the reach of Science - and that ESP, reincarnation and similar phenomenon are among these.
It may be wise to inquire about such things, but not leave science or ethics waiting in the hall while we do. For, just as there is Great Art and Music, there is also an awful lot of second rate, banal and indifferent rubbish being presented on screen these days . Likewise, we have the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Epistle of James and the Book of Ecclesiastes on the one hand , and the ravings of the Westboro Baptist Church on the other. It isn't fair to judge Religion by the WBC any more than it is to judge Brit Pop by the Spice Girls.
I'm going to have to somewhat disagree (and will do it in a couple of comments because of length restrictions)...
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't think anyone will deny that the power of artistic human endeavour is purely subjective and a comedian that one person finds ROFL amazing, might leave another unamused. Even so, there are many levels that the scientific process can measure and analyze such things as music, poetry, comedy, etc. One would be statistically based on subjective reported experience, another would be based on purely reductionist principles of the physical components of the art (e.g. use of color in painting, timing of speech and use of pop-culture references in comedy, etc.), yet another would be based on new abilities to measure the activity of the brain in people viewing/hearing/etc. the particular art. I will point out, in passing, that even subjective transcendental/religious experiences have been measured in such fMRI experiments, repeatably. All such analysis, while it might seem that it utterly avoids and even renders meaningless that which makes the art worthy is, nonetheless, truly adhering to the scientific process. It would be repeatable, there would be results obtained that should have predictive power.
Music is, perhaps, the artistic field that has the most done in this regard. Perhaps it's only because I've personally been more involved in music than any other of the arts, but I know there is a lot of basic mechanical knowledge of what makes music pleasing, the structure of Tonal Harmony and chords, etc.
Second, if something exists that manifests itself within our "sight" (i.e. it has effects within our universe that can be measured) then I believe, inherently, that this something can be analyzed by the scientific method. It might take some doing to come up with the ability to measure this something and devise experiments, etc, but it must be possible. The so-called paranormal phenomena fall in this category. If ESP--Telepathy, Telekinesis, or Precognition (or others) exist, they must be amenable to testing. To say there exist phenomena that impact our universe but cannot be measured and analyzed is a contradiction.
ReplyDeleteLastly, it is true that there may be some questions that the scientific method will not be able to address. These tend to be questions of purpose... "Why are we here?" Not "why" in the sense of what events lead to our being born, etc. but "why" in the sense of what is our purpose? Likewise, anything that inherently cannot be seen/measured/analyzed will not be subject to the scientific method. It could well be that whatever existed prior to the start of this universe (be it a Big Bang or just a Big Expansion) is inherently unknowable in that it simply has no effects on our current space and time that could be measured and analyzed.
Questions of the soul, an afterlife, etc. may or may not be amenable to scientific analysis. It all depends on what you define something like a soul to be and whether its presence or absence has a measurable effect. The scientific method has certainly been used to falsify *some* hypotheses about the soul (it is *not*, for example, a measurable quantity of mass/energy that leaves the body upon death).
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line, for me, is that even if you recognize that the scientific method has inherent limitations, that does not mean that it becomes invalid as a process for analyzing and coming up with good explanations for things that can be subject to it. For example a common *bad* argument against the theory of Evolution is that because "science" cannot explain the beginning of life from inorganic matter then "science" must be wrong about Evolution as well.
Although a bit off-topic, I want to address your closing as well. While it is true that the WBC or other extreme versions of Christianity are not the majority, you should be careful to avoid the "No True Scotsman" logical error here... The mere fact that a basic religious system of belief can give rise to groups like the WBC is something of concern and we should look to what it is about that system of belief as it interacts with human psychology that can produce such extremism (e.g. Muslim suicide bombers).
Oh... and let me repeat another issue that someone else had pointed out on Facebook...
ReplyDeleteYou say, "A scientist is somebody who examines the Universe in a particular way - looking for material evidence to back their conclusions."
This is incorrect. A scientist is somebody who gathers all the evidence for or against a given hypothesis and comes to a conclusion about the validity of that hypothesis, modifying it as necessary given the evidence obtained.
In other words, a scientist should not start with a conclusion and then attempt to prove it. In that way lies the hazards of confirmation bias!!