Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[FerrumIntellectus]

So during my time away, I came across this fascinating paper written by an Islamist scholar who wanted to show how the Philosophy of Science can be valuable to the practice of Science. I was absolutely enthralled by the piece and I encourage everyone to read it below

academia.edu/7382984/Has_Evolution_Been ... _Certainty

Now in this paper he is not trying to refute the theory of Evolution but rather, he applies the Philosophy of Science to it to show that it has not achieved a level of certainty and as a consequence, revelation supersedes science. Here were some of his arguments:

The epistemic approach that we will use can be summarised in the following way; Since this whole discussion rests on the premise that evolution is a fact and has reached the level of certainty, then the easiest way to provide an intellectual response is to readdress the hidden premise. Is evolution a fact? What epistemic status does revelation have? By answering these two questions, the problem is solved. This approach follows the subsequent logical structure: I. Evolution is an intellectual product of science. II. Science is made up of a process and a philosophy (the logic through which we build scientific knowledge, also known as the philosophy of science). III. The scientific process is limited. IV. The philosophy of science - most of the time – does not produce certain knowledge

V. When the philosophy of science is understood and applied to evolution, the conclusion is that it is not a fact and has not reached the level of certainty. VI Divine revelation is certain knowledge which can be proven using deductive arguments. Conclusions: A. Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphere. B. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology). C. The philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty. D. Revelation is a source of certain knowledge. E. In situations where science and Divine revelation are irreconcilable, revelation supersedes science.

His argument then shifts to the limitations of the scientific method. These limitations are:

A. Sensory Perception-

This means that what cannot be observed is outside the scope of science. For example, questions such as does God exist? and is there a soul? are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions.

B. Time-

Science cannot explain the past or the origins of things. For instance questions such as, what was before the Big Bang? and how did the first living cell emerge? are technically outside the realm of the scientific method.

C. Morality

In other words science is amoral. It cannot provide detailed answers to the following questions, how must we act? and what should we do? Science also removes any true meaning to our sense of objective moral obligation. If science were to be relied upon concerning this, the conclusions would lead to absurdities.

His argument then shifts to the philosophical problems posed in the Philosophy of Science that further illuminate the boundaries of the scientific method.

A. The problem of Induction-

Induction is a thinking process where one makes conclusions by moving from the particular to the general. Arguments based on induction can range in probability from very low to very high, but always less than 100%. Here is an example of induction: I have observed that punching a boxing bag properly with protective gloves never causes injury. Therefore no one will be injured using a boxing bag.

The author invokes this argument to show that using inductive reasoning can never attain certainty.

B. Strong Empiricism-

Empiricism suffers from limitations and logical problems. One form of empiricism - which we will call strong empiricism is limited to things that can only be observed. This form of empiricism faces a whole host of logical problems. The main problem with strong empiricism is that it can only base its conclusions on observed realities and cannot make conclusions on unobserved realities.

C. A Priori and Causality-

Empiricism is exposed as an incoherent metaphysical assumption because it claims that knowledge must be dependent on experience, known as a posteriori in the language of philosophy. If it can be shown that there are truths that are independent from experience, known as a priori then the empiricist's thesis breaks down. There are many truths that are known independent of experience and are necessarily true and not merely products of empirical generalisations. These include,

Mathematics and logical truths

Moral and ethical truths

Causality (deductive logic)

The innate knowledge of causality is an interesting way of exposing the empiricist's worldview. Many empiricists in the field of quantum physics have rejected the idea of causality, known as determinism for an indeterministic view. This contention has arisen due to the apparent observations in the quantum vacuum, that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. From a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these empiricists to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. As mentioned above, causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience or observations. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experiences, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses; everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration

imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. You can also reverse the order of your perceptions. Contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on, as well as the ability to reverse the order of your perceptions. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

That's all I am going to share of the paper because otherwise this post will be ridiculous in length. I encourage all of you to give feedback to what I did share and to read the whole thing and offer your thoughts on the essay in general.

[enegue]

An excellent treatise, FI. Thanks for drawing our attention to it.

For me the saying, "You cannot get an ought from an is.", sums up the issue very succinctly. Empirical Science is a tool for helping us understand what IS, and has some value in speculating about what WAS, but has nothing whatsoever to offer in regard to what OUGHT TO BE. What ought to be is the preserve of philosophy because it involves such risky notions as faith, trust and hope.

Cheers,
enegue

[Radar]

I haven't read all of it yet, but I certainly will. Thanks.

[Wooden shoe]

If the author subjected "Devine revelation" to the same scrutiny as he he does "evolution", I might give his writings more thought, but as it is it seems to be just another theist on a mission.

Regards, John.

[Atreyu]

Now in this paper he is not trying to refute the theory of Evolution but rather, he applies the Philosophy of Science to it to show that it has not achieved a level of certainty and as a consequence, revelation supersedes science.

To me, it would be absurd to even question the idea that the theory of evolution is not a certainty. No complex arguments are really needed here. By definition, a 'theory' is not a 'fact'. A fact is something directly observed in corroboration with the vast majority of other people. A 'theory' is a testable idea backed up by good reason and experience. When any theory becomes a 'certainty', then it has become dogma for the person possessing it.

The epistemic approach that we will use can be summarised in the following way; Since this whole discussion rests on the premise that evolution is a fact and has reached the level of certainty, then the easiest way to provide an intellectual response is to readdress the hidden premise. Is evolution a fact? What epistemic status does revelation have? By answering these two questions, the problem is solved. This approach follows the subsequent logical structure: I. Evolution is an intellectual product of science. II. Science is made up of a process and a philosophy (the logic through which we build scientific knowledge, also known as the philosophy of science). III. The scientific process is limited. IV. The philosophy of science - most of the time – does not produce certain knowledge

V. When the philosophy of science is understood and applied to evolution, the conclusion is that it is not a fact and has not reached the level of certainty. VI Divine revelation is certain knowledge which can be proven using deductive arguments. Conclusions: A. Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphere. B. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology). C. The philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty. D. Revelation is a source of certain knowledge. E. In situations where science and Divine revelation are irreconcilable, revelation supersedes science.

I disagree with 'D' and 'E'. This is religion, and I am not religious. 'Revelation' is only knowledge for the person having it, not for someone hearing about or reading about any 'revelation' of another. And having it 'supersede science' is a position only a religious person would take. It does not supersede direct observation and experience.

A. Sensory Perception-

This means that what cannot be observed is outside the scope of science. For example, questions such as does God exist? and is there a soul? are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions.

B. Time-

Science cannot explain the past or the origins of things. For instance questions such as, what was before the Big Bang? and how did the first living cell emerge? are technically outside the realm of the scientific method.

C. Morality

In other words science is amoral. It cannot provide detailed answers to the following questions, how must we act? and what should we do? Science also removes any true meaning to our sense of objective moral obligation. If science were to be relied upon concerning this, the conclusions would lead to absurdities.

I have no problem with any of this. This part is right on.

His argument then shifts to the philosophical problems posed in the Philosophy of Science that further illuminate the boundaries of the scientific method.

A. The problem of Induction- Induction is a thinking process where one makes conclusions by moving from the particular to the general. Arguments based on induction can range in probability from very low to very high, but always less than 100%. Here is an example of induction: I have observed that punching a boxing bag properly with protective gloves never causes injury. Therefore no one will be injured using a boxing bag. The author invokes this argument to show that using inductive reasoning can never attain certainty.

B. Strong Empiricism- Empiricism suffers from limitations and logical problems. One form of empiricism - which we will call strong empiricism is limited to things that can only be observed. This form of empiricism faces a whole host of logical problems. The main problem with strong empiricism is that it can only base its conclusions on observed realities and cannot make conclusions on unobserved realities.


C. A Priori and Causality- Empiricism is exposed as an incoherent metaphysical assumption because it claims that knowledge must be dependent on experience, known as a posteriori in the language of philosophy. If it can be shown that there are truths that are independent from experience, known as a priori then the empiricist's thesis breaks down. There are many truths that are known independent of experience and are necessarily true and not merely products of empirical generalisations. These include,

Mathematics and logical truths

Moral and ethical truths

Causality (deductive logic)

The innate knowledge of causality is an interesting way of exposing the empiricist's worldview. Many empiricists in the field of quantum physics have rejected the idea of causality, known as determinism for an indeterministic view. This contention has arisen due to the apparent observations in the quantum vacuum, that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. From a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these empiricists to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. As mentioned above, causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience or observations. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experiences, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses; everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration

imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. You can also reverse the order of your perceptions. Contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on, as well as the ability to reverse the order of your perceptions. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

I agree that denying causality is absurd because I consider that one of the chief functions of science --- to explain causality. To deny it is to admit that science cannot answer the ultimate question of causality but then, strangely enough, continuing to act within the boundaries of that science. It reduces science to mere practical endeavors, like building a better mousetrap.

However, the rest is merely pointing out the obvious limitations of science, which are the limitations of the human psychic apparatus. Of course science is very limited, because the people themselves practicing it are very limited. But that is not an indictment against the institution of science itself, merely a recognition of our great limitations. And it is precisely that awareness which helps one not to misunderstand the theory of evolution. To understand that it is merely a theory, not a fact, because we don't have the power to observe it directly (at least not entirely at the 'macro' level).

If the theory has been 'misunderstood', it is only because some men have erroneously taken it to be an established fact, thereby turning a scientific theory into something more like religious dogma, and this is indeed because they are unable to come to grips with all your Islamic author has pointed out about the inherent limitations of science (man).

[FerrumIntellectus]

Great responses from everybody all around.

If the author subjected "Devine revelation" to the same scrutiny as he he does "evolution", I might give his writings more thought, but as it is it seems to be just another theist on a mission.

Regards, John.

This I will completely concede to Wooden. I too am an Atheist and the Theistic portions of this paper are precisely what I take up issue with. Mainly the idea that any theological claims that I have personally heard don't allow themselves to be vulnerable to falsification so we cannot even take any such assertions produced to be legitimate. In that sense even if Evolution does have limitations, it still supersedes religious texts because it makes itself falsifiable. The author's clear bias was my only real criticism while reading the piece and it would have been perfect if the whole thing was devoted to applying the Philosophy of Science to Evolution.

An excellent treatise, FI. Thanks for drawing our attention to it.

For me the saying, "You cannot get an ought from an is.", sums up the issue very succinctly. Empirical Science is a tool for helping us understand what IS, and has some value in speculating about what WAS, but has nothing whatsoever to offer in regard to what OUGHT TO BE. What ought to be is the preserve of philosophy because it involves such risky notions as faith, trust and hope.

Well said and completely concur. For me personally I would fear any answers science would produce in the face of those questions. Perhaps that day will come and perhaps it will not.

Lastly excellent contribution by you Atreyu about the nature of science and your critique againt revelation. I once pointed out similar arguments to Spiral Out and Philosophy Explorer. Human beings are fallible and have cognitive limitations. Any science that is produced by man is a very mirror of these limitations. This is by no means a discredit for these limitations should be obvious to everyone and should not be a reason to forgo the practice in favor of revelation. Excellent job.

[Raymond]

Maybe it's informative to note the dogmatic character of the modern notion of evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centr ... biology