Practicing Science sans Philosophy of Science balance is a dangerous game.
Why?
Because science is a method. No more. No less. It's a (potentially beautiful) method with a good track record for uncovering some of the dynamics that drive the universe. This method involves observing, hypothesizing, testing, measuring, analyzing, concluding, and questioning. But while these processes are certainly valuable for human beings to engage in regularly, they say nothing about how to apply the knowledge derived from science nor how to assess the quality of the knowledge gleaned from science.
Thus, if Science is a method, Philosophy of Science is perspective.
Because we've been burned before. Many times. Many ways. Our track records relative to understanding the dynamics that drive the world around us are not that great in many domains. Philosophy of Science reminds us of that (epistemic humility), minimally, and reorients us to question and reflect about our methods, tools, assumptions, and approaches when it comes to epistemology.
Because it's wisdom we seek, ultimately.
Interestingly, Scott Adams, the author of the famous Dilbert comic strip, presents some intriguing Philosophy of Science material in his thought-experiment book, God's Debris. Here are a few notable quotes from this book (hat tip to Navanit) that I think provide some philosophical balance, some Yang:
1. “The best any human can do is to pick a delusion that
helps him/her get through the day."
2. “Because everything you perceive is a metaphor for
something your brain is not equipped to fully understand.
God is as real as the clothes you are wearing and the chair
you are sitting in. They are all metaphors for something you
will never understand.”
3. “Skeptics,” he said, “suffer from the skeptics’ disease—
the problem of being right too often.”
4. "Remember that all scientific
experiments are performed by human beings and the results
are subject to human interpretation. The human mind is a
delusion generator, not a window to truth. Everyone, includ-
ing skeptics, will generate delusions that match their views.
That is how a normal and healthy brain works. Skeptics are
not exempt from self-delusion.”
5. “People think they follow advice but they don’t. Humans
are only capable of receiving information. They create their
own advice. If you seek to influence someone, don’t waste
time giving advice. You can change only what people know,
not what they do.”
6. "If, as you say, our minds are delusion
generators, then we’re all like blind and deaf sea captains
shouting orders into the universe and hoping it makes a dif-
ference. We have no way of knowing what really works and
what merely seems to work. So doesn’t it make sense to try
all the things that appear to work even if we can’t be sure?”
7. “Awareness is about unlearning. It is the recognition
that you don’t know as much as you thought you knew.”
8. “Ideas are the only things that can change the world.
The rest is details.”
As you can see, Adams' book is a must read for anyone who is searching for epistemocracy.
I've been burned so many times epistemologically that I've learned to heed Dave Lull's philosophy of science grace nudges that challenge me to think more critically about how to live in a world that we don't understand--how to operationalize Nassim Taleb's central thesis, essentially.
The answer is easy: it's not easy.
Deleveraging, thinkering, and forming Meta-Rules are several freeing possibilities.
Because we hope to set people's minds and hearts (and bodies) free.
To good health,
Brent
You learn #5 from:
ReplyDelete- Futile Internet arguments
- Trying and failing to steer friends from disaster.
Hard lesson. This one probably came closer than any other to seriously breaking my idealism.
#1 I would always have to offer with clarifications and warnings. But that's trying to head off folly and appeal to a deep principle behind epistemic humility; it doesn't reflect on the verity of the statement itself.
Really good list!
Thanks, G!
ReplyDeleteFor #5, I thought about that notion when distinguishing between Meta-Rules and Meta-Rule formation. All we can do is help each other engage in processes that just might allow us to connect the dots on our own terms, in our own ways. Hence, I'd much rather see folks forming their own Meta-Rules based on their own n=1 experiences rather than taking some list and trying to follow it as "advice".
I think #1 is specifically worded in response to Richard Dawkins' book, 'The God Delusion', but I can't say for sure. What do you think?
Cheers,
Brent
Re. #5:
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree. Everyone digests stuff into basic components and reconstitutes it into the 'stuff of life' - as with food, so with learning. Only oppressively disciplined people can take on board a whole maxim for life and effectively introject it, and the results are third-rate and costly.
Re. #1:
Heh, I think that Dawkins would smell blood if a theist used that as a defense.
I haven't read his book so I can't guess whether it was written to counter it specifically.
I aspire to the truth, always, not a mere 'coping mechanism'. So it's like, 'coping with reality by attentive absorption of the essence of reality'. Cognitively, this is bound to be 'through a glass darkly', so it's fragmentary aspects of reality. Spiritually, it is unity with reality - seeing though egotism. Hard.
G