Kirk Pt IV: Scientism!

Kirk's back in his series on how bad science is and why we should just trust in God and forget all this thinking.  I mean where does thinking really lead you?  I guess curing disease, flying, the Internet would have all happened anyway if we had only given up on science and stayed on our knees, right?

Today's topic has the usual philosophical bent, and one he tries to broadly brush all of science in the worst possible way, "The Corrupting Influence of Scientism" is his latest and I think the most entertaining of his posts to date.

First of all what is 'Scientism', and the truth is no one really knows.  Here is a copy from Wikipedia on the many dictionary definitions of Scientism [I numbered them for easier reference]:

1. The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
2. Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
3. An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
4. The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.
5. The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.
6. "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences."
7. "1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

When Kirk uses the term, he is using the 6th definition.  When he says 'Scientism' he is certainly using it in the most derogatory way possible.  This is another post that supports the DI tactic of "Teaching People to Mistrust Science".  The real question is Kirk's definition of 'Scientism' a significant problem?

Wait a minute, Kirk seems to change his definition of 'Scientism'?  In his very first post of this series of his "Should We Have Faith in Science?" he defined scientism as  . . . here, let me quote him:

"As a scientist, I am increasingly appalled and even shocked at what passes for science. It has become a mix of good science, bad science, creative story-telling, science fiction, scientism (atheism dressed up as science), citation-bias, huge media announcements followed by quiet retractions, massaging the data, exaggeration for funding purposes, and outright fraud all rolled up together. In some disciplines, the problem has become so rampant that the "good science" part is drowning in a mess of everything else."

I added the bolding and underlining so you can more easily pick out his comment.  So, in his first in the series, he defines 'scientism' as 'atheism', yet in this post, he changes to definition a bit. . . here, let me quote this definition from his current post:

"Scientism is the belief that science is the best and only trustworthy method to discover truth. Supernatural explanations are a priori ruled out. The result is atheism dressed up as science."

Oh, so now Kirk's problem of 'scientism' is not allowing supernatural explanations in science.  Things are taking a very different turn, isn't it?  Instead of addressing a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge, refusing to allow supernatural explanations is the key to Kirk's complaint, no matter how he tries to dress it up.  Not sure I have things right, here's another quote from Kirk:

"Scientism lobotomizes the quest for knowledge by turning a blind eye to God and the supernatural."

So this whole discussion of 'Scientism' is nothing but a smokescreen Kirk used to hide his religious motivation, let's examine the root of his prejudice.  Don't worry, I'll return to the smokescreen later, but first a few words about why allowing supernatural explanations might be a problem.  While I could get into all sorts of things like philosophical and methodological naturalism, I want to focus on something much simpler and state categorically:  "I will support the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science when  supernatural explanations work!"  I know, if Kirk or his friends at the DI read this, they might quote-mine part of this line and use it to paint me as a theist who wants my science to include the supernatural, wouldn't that be fun!

But seriously, think about it, do supernatural explanations work?  While people like to claim the power of prayer, is it reliable?  Is it repeatable?  Is it even predictable?  Is any supernatural explanation, whether it is ghosts, parapsychology, or Creationism/Intelligent Design useful or even usable?  In a word, No!  If you cannot use it, what good is it in explaining the world around you?  Other than a warm feeling when you think the world aligns with some personal philosophy, it doesn't seem to produce any tangible results!

Look at how successful science is, and has been! Would science be as successful with the inclusion of the supernatural?  Hmmm, let's not forget how long did the supernatural did dominate our explanations of the world around us?  How successful were those explanations?  Not very!  Would expanding the definition of science to include the supernatural actually offer any realistic benefit, other than a warm feeling to people who believe in the supernatural?  That's exactly what Kirk is talking about.  Just like Michael Behe testified about during the Dover Trial.  While he [Behe] tap-danced around it in a variety of ways, in a nutshell he testified that to include Intelligent Design in science, the very definition of a scientific theory would have to be widened to the point where Astrology also being admitted.  That's pretty much what Kirk is asking for here, isn't he?  Scientism = Atheism, so let's add in religion and make science better!  But will it?  Sure doesn't have as good a track record as actual science!

I've asked this question before, but now I would to direct it to Kirk.  Kirk, do you actually put fuel in the fuel tank of your car?  Why do you do that?  You know why, and I know why, it's because of the science -- real usable, predictable, and repeatable science minus any supernatural explanations.  While you might pray when the needle gets close to 'E', it's the activity of putting more fuel in your tank that allows you to continue driving.  If you want to prove to supernatural explanations are just as reliable as natural ones, hop in your car and see how far you get on prayer!

Now, for fun, let's look at Kirk's smokescreen.  But not as defined by Kirk, but let's use definition #3:  "An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities."  Can this be a problem?


It certainly can be!  I'm the first to admit, and I have said it time and time again, scientists are human beings and they are subject to all the perils and foibles that come with being human.  In other words, sometimes they screw up.  The over-application of any philosophy or prejudice can certainly impact any endeavor, even science.  But as I have also said time and time again, science has methodologies that help deal with the possibility to such prejudices affecting outcomes.  In fact now that I think about it, didn't I already discuss this in addressing one of Kirk's earlier posts?  Yes, here it is:

"What's interesting about Science is that is a self-correcting activity.  Think about it, science works, the explanations match the available evidence and when they can no longer do that, they get discarded.  That's the concept of being self-correcting.  When it doesn't work it gets kicked to the curb.  The road to an accepted scientific theory is littered with ideas and explanations that failed at some point.  Some of the possible reasons include Kirk's little diatribe.  When scientists are guilty of anything Kirk doesn't seem to like, their ideas end up among the discarded.  There is a level of actual scientific support required before ideas move forward, something ID proponents can't seem to reach."

So, another question for Kirk.  If we allow supernatural explanations in science, what are the methodologies to determine the success or failure of a supernatural explanation?   I didn't see anything in your post addressing this?  Did I miss something?  While you are a little entertaining, I have seen a common thread in your posts.  You like to whine, but have you offered one suggestion to improve science and scientific methodology?  Letting in the supernatural might give you a warm feeling, but will it improve science?

One last point, and one of my pet peeves, as you probably know.  Why is Kirk trying to throw religion into science and yet the DI, who are posting Kirk's mental meanderings, still insisting there is nothing religious about it?  I know, it should be glue by now, but until the DI comes clean about their motivations, I'll keep beating that dead horse!

Kirk Pt III: Fantasy and Science

Kirk Durston has yet another post and this one is much less interesting.  Before getting into it, I wanted to comment on the title "Confusing Fantasy with Science".  I don't think real scientists have a problem with confusing the two, after all at one point all science started out as fantasy, didn't it?  Someone had an incredible idea and did the work to not only prove their idea was reality, but take it to a point so that architects and engineers could take the idea and turn it into useful and practical stuff, stuff that actually works.  Sometimes the idea didn't even originate with the scientists, they just happened to be the ones who turned an idea into reality.  Jules Vernes' works are excellent examples.  We've been to the moon, although not using a giant cannon.  We have submarines that travel considerably longer distances than 20,000 leagues, don't we?  Many of the things we see as ubiquitous today were once solely within the realm of science fiction and fantasy.  Cell phones, computers and doesn't the Apple Watch remind anyone else of the Dick Tracy two-way wrist unit?  If real scientists got confused between the science and fantasy, I doubt their success rate would be very high.  They might imagine, but they would never be able to put their imaginations to such practical applications, would they? 

OK, on the Kirk's article.  He starts off with a lie, at least in my opinion it's a lie:

"In order for atheism to survive the advance of science, it must come up with a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the incredible fine-tuning required for the universe to support life, and the origin of life itself."

The first part of his comment seems pretty ridiculous, "In order for atheism to survive the advance of science . . ."  By definition atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.  Why is that predicated on anything science comes up with?  The rest of it is just as bad, why does atheism have to develop a natural explanation of the origin of the universe?  Why does it have to explain something that exists only in the imagination of people like Kirk, the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument?  The only way I think any of this could happen is if Creationists are suddenly about to have a breakthrough in which science confirms, undeniably confirms, the existence of  deity and the host of things Creationists insist could have only happened through the actions of said deity.  I don't see that happening, although I bet Kirk is hoping it confirms the existence of an evangelical Christian God, or else the newly identified deity might not take too kindly to Kirk.  Atheism requires nothing like this, so why would Kirk word it this way? 

I think he's doing a couple of things.  First off by stating it this way, he's trying to equate science and atheism, which is a common, and yet disreputable, tactic and one frequently used by the Discovery Institute and their friends.  Science is not 'atheistic', nor is it 'theistic', at best, neutral.  By trying to equate the two, he's attempting to sell people who do believe in one deity or another that they cannot accept science without dropping their belief.  If that were the case then why do so many scientists profess theistic beliefs?  While it's true that the percentage of scientists who profess such beliefs is lower than the general population, it's also true that the better educated you are, the less likely you are to share some theistic belief set.  No wonder the DI is so intent on damaging science education!

Second, I think he's doing a little projection (the defense mechanism).  How I see things is that while claiming atheists have to explain the universe, the reality is if a religion doesn't come up with supernatural explanations, it will not only fail to survive the advances of science, but it will fail to gain adherents..  I mean when you think of it how many supernatural explanations and entire religions have fallen by the wayside of the decades and centuries?

While they blame science, it's not science that is disproving God, it's that people try and use God as an explanation for something they do not understand -- a very self-limiting process.  Once we do understand it better, the God explanation falls flat.  While they like to blame science, the reality is they are doing it to themselves by clinging to superseded ideas in the perception that they are somehow protecting their cherished beliefs.  The reality is they simply look foolish!  This is also know as the "God of the Gaps' argument, and we'll be discussing that more later.

But back to Kirk.  I think he's also using another tactic.  By claiming that atheism HAS to accomplish certain things, he knows that any answer science comes up with will never satisfy someone like Kirk or any of his friends.  Which means as long as he doesn't accept the answer, he can keep claiming science as some sort of failure.  Sort of like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and making nonsensical noises to avoid hearing something he doesn't want to hear.

I don't believe this line is true either:

" . . . scientists have pointed out that the universe appears to be unbelievably fine-tuned to be able to support life".  

Scientists have not done this in any way, in fact they have shown the opposite.  The majority of the universe we have discovered, granted is a tiny part of the whole, but it is incapable of supporting life as we know it.  You would survive for how long on the Moon, or Mars, or Jupiter if you were suddenly transported their in your shirt sleeves?  Minutes, seconds, even less?  I know Creationists like to point out that the Earth and the Universe is somehow fine-tuned, but that doesn't fit the evidence, not that they will ever admit it.

He also states that Eugene Koonin basically says life is highly improbable, therefore "Koonin's solution is to propose an infinite multiverse".  Eugene Koonin did not propose an infinite multiverse, at best he philosophically thinks that it might increase the odds of life forming somewhere.  But it has nothing to do with the fine-tuned idea.  The multiverse is more a philosophical question than a scientific question and has been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, and even science fiction.  But scientists engaging is a debate doesn't automatically make it a viable scientific theory, which Kirk seems to want it to be so he can try and poke holes in it.

What he is doing is another common tactic.  Building a straw-man so he can tear it down.  In this post he's redefined atheism, misrepresented science claiming that it has 'proven' the fine-tuning nonsense, and it looks like he's quote-mining Eugene Koonin to build a straw-man.  Halfway into Kirk's article and he's already used a number of disreputable Creationist tactics.  The Discovery Institute must be so proud.

He finally got to his main argument, that  . . . well let him tell you:

"So the multiverse has become atheism's "god of the gaps" but some scientists point out that multiverse "science" is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, "they are not observationally or experimentally testable -- and never will be."

His link is to his own blog where he postulates that the whole idea of the multiverse is mainly to avoid the idea of one unseen creator.  So according to Kirk science invented a whole concept just to avoid the possibility of one particular version of a deity?  Sounds more like something Creationists did, as in Creation Science, when they invented a whole new conceptual view of religion in order to avoid facing the reality of science.  So much projection in one short posting!

In order for the multiverse to be a 'God of the Gaps' argument, some scientists would have to stand up and claim the multiverse is the answer for a specific set of questions for which there is no other current answer, or one for which current answers are rejected at least by the scientist making the multiverse claim.  That's how the God of the Gaps argument works.  We see it every time someone like Michael Behe tries to pass of irreducible complexity as science, or Wild Bill Dembski tries to convince us of his specified complexity filter, or any time kennie ham posts  . . . well . . . anything.  What we see are 'explanations' devoid of any scientific support other than wishful thinking.  Is that what we see when scientists debate the many ideas about a multiverse?  The four types, the nine types,and all the potential permutations?  It's still way too soon to call the multiverse the answer to anything, while no one knows what future discoveries might change that, Kirk is trying to discredit it already. 

At this point the multiverse is an idea, barely a hypothesis and one they readily admit may never go much further.  There are any number of ideas about it,  I think Kirk is more afraid of what the multiverse would do for his religious beliefs. Imagine if we found a multitude of other universes and what if none of them provide any evidence of a deity? 

It seems that Kirk doesn't want scientists to be able to imagine and debate fantastic ideas at all.  After all what is Creationism/Intelligent Design but a flight of fancy centered around a narrow view of one particular deity.  How dare scientists make flights of fancy of their own, especially ones that fail to pay homage to Kirk's version of a God!

What Kirk appears to fail to realize is that where innovation comes from?  It doesn't stem from staring at the tried and true, but from an individual, or group of individuals, looking at something from a unique angles, developing the ideas, and proving the ideas in ways no one previously had imagined.  Not all ideas will pan out, as Kirk and his buddies prove on a daily basis.  But it's that fantastical thinking that offers a way to the future that Kirk wants to deny to anyone but I guess himself.

Let's see so far, Kirk has questioned belief in science, the peer-review process, and now the multiverse.  And yet is all three posts he hasn't really offered anything but the usual creationist canards about science and how scientists work.  At best he's reiterated some of the negative aspects of science -- things already recognized and often being addressed by real scientists, while at the same time he's misrepresented a great deal, like peer review, the multiverse, Eugene Koonin, and even the God of the Gaps argument.  You're not doing to well, Kirk.  And I thought your posts might be a bit more fun.  Hey Kirk, don't you have anything original?