The Scientific Method: What’s It Good For? (Clip with Dr. Jan Bentz)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2024
- In this clip from my interview with German philosopher Jan Bentz, we discuss the scientific method, epistemic humility, and dogmatism. Can one know something if not through scientific means?
Full interview: • This Is Why Modernity ...
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.sub...
Donate | www.nationalpr...
⸺LINKS⸺
Podcast: "Conversations with Peter Boghossian": pod.link/16501...
Website | peterboghossia...
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalpr...
Resignation Letter | peterboghossia...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/pete...
__________
#science #scientificmethod #peterboghossian
What the scientific method can do is examine claims and determine whether there is any scientific basis for them. What it can also do is assess proposed alternative methods for arriving at conclusions and determine what else those methods allow for. For instance, asserting that feelings are an alternative method of knowledge basically leads to an epistemology where anything goes because we know that feelings get it wrong sometimes, but here is someone wanting to acdept conclusions based upon them anyway.
Completely agree with peter, when things are accurate there is a convergence upon the same answer, when something is not known there is a divergence of interpretations. The reason why the default is using the scientific method is because it has earned its trust, it has produced amazing results, the method works.
I watched this whole interview and Dr. Bentz is quite brilliant and pleasant to listen to and learn from -
That being said, this interview was like watching an expert drive a race car at record speed on a razors edge through a twisting track, then when the track straightens out (at “theology is a science”) he jerks the wheel and nose dives over the edge.
“Theology” 🙄 is NOT a “science”. It’s the study of mythology. PERIOD. It’s like learning Klingon, and calling yourself a linguist
I really liked this conversation. think you and Dr Bentz should write a book together!
To answer the question, “Should science be used here?” First answer the question, “Do I want to know true things about the way things actually are?”
If yes, then yes.
How do you prove that scientifically?. The physical sciences were developed in the 12th century by Catholic monks and priests. Science is defended by philosophical argument. It works on what's measurable. Scientism is a brain disease that shuts out reality.
Bentz tipped his hand a bit when he claimed that theology was a science. A moment earlier, he'd accused PB of "dogmatism" for suggesting that the scientific method provided a uniquely rigorous and effective means of reaching the truth. But if theology were itself a form of science, it would necessarily be subject to the same empirical standards as the method he appears to be undermining. Which one is it, Bentz? Is theology subordinate to the standards of evidence-based knowledge or does it provide some alternate means? If you can demonstrate the validity of this latter approach, I would join you in a heartbeat. And you would win the Nobel Prize.
His point is exactly what you’re saying at the end of your comment. Rigorous empirical testing is not even close to the only way to reach the truth, it’s not even a *good* way to reach the truth, at least not truths that actually matter for human flourishing.
The case in point is this debate itself, which is philosophical, not empirically testable. Peter’s conviction that the method is all important (from the scientific or the Socratic) and perhaps the only thing he holds above all else are themselves claims that are not empirically testable. Those claims are just as “dogmatic” and “ideological” as other philosophical or theological claims. Nothing in their entire 1.5h conversation is scientifically testable. Yet it is important, and they can debate it, and ostensibly approach truth in their conversation and arguments because the empiric and scientifically testable is not the be all or end all, it’s not even close to being even the most important, which Peter himself actually admitted early on without realizing when he was talking about the Socratic method.
Queen of the sciences
Religion's potency may stem less from what people believe, and more from the fact that they believe it together. This shared faith, regardless of its object, can be a powerful motivator. While a scientific exploration of this phenomenon is possible, it might be politically inconvenient, as it could expose the mechanisms by which belief systems, both religious and secular, are used to influence and control.
I'm clearly not smart enough to understand this stuff, but damnit do I enjoy it. Wish I could steal a few IQ-points somewhere.
I was confused when Bentz said that philosophy and theology are science until I remembered the old definition used by natural philosophers. It meant the study of classified knowledge. After Whewall coined the term "scientist", the meaning of "science" eventually changed to an empirical process of discovery-invention. In the context of the discussion (without notice of the definition he intends), Bentz effectively misrepresents. The misrepresentation follows Bentz's equation of scientific explorations with the creation of dogma (scientist = ideologue). Is the equation meant to complement the "lack of belief is a religion" subterfuge?
Magical supernaturalistic fantasy has nothing to do with science. Bentz abuses the term to get on the same level as science, but all he has to offer is magical fantasy.
I like both of these positions
Me too.
To be clear, I am in no way defending or siding with the guest. Theology indeed does diverge, because it is based on idiosyncratic cultural events that have been turned up to 11. However, Mysticism does converge, but the reason for that is the commonality of human psychological processes, from which it emerges. It is largely the purification of the psychological phenomena that are usually used to support specific religions from those very idiosyncrasies.
You needed King Crocoduck on this one. Knowledge is accuracy, independent of convergence. Science is showing that you're right, not convincing people of that.
Do emergent behaviors exist? Can they be proven? Can you prove that emergent behaviors exist?
It becomes a focus on where the rubber meets the road.
If someone believes in a god or higher power then believe in it with all your heart.
But if your belief in a god or higher power is pushed onto myself, I will reject it based on the fact that you cannot prove it to me or many others for that matter.
Oh boy, you need a conversation with David Bentley Hart.
At the end I feel like he's shoehorning two unlike things together, because they both have an element of conceptualisation that can't be totally resolved.
Aquinas didn't have an empirical model for musing that the core of being is actuality, except that it was more of an if all you gave is a hammer, the world looks like a nail type of thing.
Einsteins revelation actually produced a testable result that went in to predict and resolve other theories, they sre not the same even conceptually, except for when trying to resolve what exactly energy is, its only a concept that lets us undetstand that theres a measurable difference between two states...of being. Aquinas didnt get quite that far, he surmised as best he could that two things are different, because they are different. In a couple centuries we might say something similar about physics.
They are only the same answer in two dimensions like two intersecting lines, but if veiwed ftom the side in 3d, they are parallel. Sharing some similarities doesn't actually make something similar enough to be compatible.
Now when it comes to truth, I think we all have this eclectic and eccentric version of truth we prescribe for ourselves, but doesn't quite make sense for others, especially when we attempt to explain why something is true, and what truth is. Going back to the cheeseburger example earlier in the video, yes just that will give someone an idea of personal truth, but there's also empirical truth, factual truth, logical truth ECT, that at varying levels don't resemble one another. 'It's factually true that thus brick is red.' in a more pedantic level colour doesn't actually exist outside of individual perception, so that is a truth by consensus where most can agree to sharing a similar experience. Colour blind ppl unfortunately just have to take our word for it. When they both brought up the issue of god, and how that is unprovable empirically but one can feel, possibly perceive on some level that there is one, and they can find others with a similar shared experience, it becomes a truth by consensus, we can't empirically say it's wrong, or right.
"At the end I feel like he's shoehorning two unlike things together, because they both have an element of conceptualisation that can't be totally resolved. "
True, but science is the only method that delivers true working results. Religion is just making stuff up. Although I admit that unbridled theistic magical fantasy seems to help needy people to cope.
🙄 Colors are a wavelength that can be measured, so yes, while peoples perceptions may be different, the color itself is independently verifiable and measurable, and not subject to opinion or. Perception.
@@theunknownatheist3815k, what frequency range is brown found at? What about purple, silver, white? I think you get the point, but picking off an inconsequential price of pedantry is not how one should try to insert themselves into a conversation.
So anything to add on how perception forms personal truths and the varying levels of scrutiny one is willing to provide as evidence of that truth? Which is the topic btw.
@@andreasplosky8516 well, science is both a methodology for finding which truths are better supported by the evidence, and a body of knowledge that uses those truths to form a model of reality. In that regard I think science performed honestly and properly has the best methods for revealing objective truths we can measure. One could say that something untestable or unfalsifiable can't be considered a truth, but I'll say it's simply not a scientific truth, which yes I understand is tautological.
When it comes down to things like moral, ethical or spiritual truths...theres an uncomfortable amount of subjectivity in those we tend to bicker over, and religion is one type of model of subjective truth seeking. By no means is it science or superior in the way I described previously, but it does attempt to address the subjective side of human experiences in a way that science largely cannot at the moment. Is it coping? Yes, is it wrong or somehow inferior to science? No, because that's not a scientific question, we haven't reached a nexus yet where we can satisfactorily quantify perceptive experiences, even though neuroscientists are trying their darndest to tease that out.
It's about predictive power. The scientific method stands as a universal tool for recognizing patterns and making predictions across all levels of reality. Its power lies not just in its applicability to straightforward natural phenomena, but in its adaptability to the most complex and seemingly irrational aspects of human behavior and society.
While local observations or short-term trends might sometimes appear to defy scientific explanation, the broader application of the scientific method consistently reveals underlying patterns and enables predictions. From the smallest subatomic particles to the largest societal movements, from rational economic decisions to irrational religious beliefs, the scientific method provides a universal framework for understanding and predicting our world.
Its universality is not diminished by the challenges it faces in complex human systems; rather, these challenges highlight the need for more sophisticated applications of the method. As we continue to refine our scientific approaches and integrate insights from diverse fields, the universal power of the scientific method in recognizing patterns and making predictions only becomes more evident and more crucial for navigating our complex world.
"The challenges it faces in complex human systems; " it's because the scientific method which is applied to chemistry , physics and biology cannot be applied to social science. Social science is not really a science.
@@cosminu.4519 Agreed. But it could be.
Human behavior is often irrational, but predictable as such. See digital footprints from social media, online searches, and app usage.
@@christiandittrich2646 I dont know about that but what i do observe is that for every failed prediction in hard science the implication is that something is wrong with the theory which the prediction was based on. But in social science that is not applied. If my prediction about next year inflation fails it does not mean that the theory of economic inflation is wrong it just means that shit happens. That is not science.
@@cosminu.4519 Any prediction underlies statistical distributions, some narrower, some broader. As Peter mentions, the 'soft' sciences aren't rigorous enough in their expression of uncertainties.
@@christiandittrich2646 What is statistical distribution that underlies Earth Gravitational acceleration ? Is that a narrower ..like 90% of the time is 9.8 m/s . Or a broader one ... is 9.8 m/s in around 70% percent of the cases?
This conversation started out really promising, but when it got to the point in this clip I thought Dr. Bentz really fell off. I was hopeful of being competently refuted by Dr. Bentz, but I feel let down.
Existence of god is one thing. "My religion and its rules are gods will" is another especially when it involves violence.
The state's rules are just another religion. "My" (the state's rules) are more important than anybody else's (individual's) rules. Religion is just a belief system. It's not God per se. Humans need belief systems. If they don't have one, they invent one like the rainbow people have, or PB has. Now the state (those in power by whatever means, and in the democracy I live in, Australia, historically, the swing between Labor ("Democrats sort of") and Liberal/National Party (Republicans sort of) is less than 2%. So, at any one time, 52% of the population is telling 48% of the population what to do, 😅 That is not a state belief system that will ever be successful when 1 in 2 people haven't agreed to it. I grew up very Catholic Christian and I know a belief system (religion) when I see it. PB has his own belief system (religion) that doesn't include God. But his belief system isn't necessarily going to be agreed to by everyone (remember how successful the communist belief system (religions) have been. The Catholic religion had original sin as part of its belief system, I think it was called white fragility. Oh, darn, I'm wrong. That's the new original sins of one of the current state belief systems, colonialism.😅 welcome to the Australian opening of Parliament with a smoking ceremony. Ditch the CHristian God, adopt a pagan religion. 😅😅😅
The belief that "I have the moral imperative" is employed in almost every violent conflict throughout history whether religious or not. Look at politics in America right now. You have Democrats installing a presidential candidate without a primary election to ironically "save democracy" from Donald Trump. They also tried to save democracy by using the government to coerce social media companies to censor speech of their political opponents. It's fine though because they see themselves as the good guys, they are saving us from a totalitarian dictator in Trump. That moral imperative even causes people in the public to cheer on attempts against Trump's life. Moral imperatives like this open the floodgates to any and all behavior.
Then let's just stick with the existence of God for now before we get lost in tangents of human actions.
Today's swift technological progress reflects the hectic expansion that led to the economic crash of 1929. This growth, rooted in past successes and an antiquated Aristotelian perspective, burgeons unchecked, ignoring the depletion of its theoretical underpinnings. In scientific theory, there is a battle to interpret data, resulting in a resurgence of archaic mysticism. In the humanities, the consequences of a crash are apparent, characterized by profound unease and the near-complete collapse of scientific assurances. This is most apparent in the relatively new sciences of psychology and political economy. In psychology, there is an effort to analyze human behavior without considering human consciousness. In political economy, there is an effort to study and formulate social systems without accounting for humanity. Philosophy is tasked with defining and setting the epistemological standards that steer general human knowledge and the specific sciences.
Science is not concerned with proving things
But discovering things.
@@ambermoon719no
Science is concerned with describing things we can see
@@jaxwhyland Can you see mathematical equations in the sky and can you see electrons, compression waves or gravity? That would be cool. But my only point is my dad is a physicist and at least I was taught as a child that science is a journey that seeks to uncover the nature of reality. And that process is ever evolving. ☮️
Humans are limited in what we know compared to everything that exists beyond our comprehension.
Bentz is at best disingenuous.
Tldr the scientific method starts at this is not true unless I can prove it. the theological method starts at this is true unless I can disprove it.
“God or gods” also needs defined.
…their Bible mentions several, different ones held by various tribes… military victory being the reason a certain one only is mentioned nowadays.
“There is little emperical evidence [for god] and it’s complicated," states Jan Brenz. Boghossian is correct- there is no empirical evidence for a deity. Brenz suggests that personal revelation should be regarded as valid evidence by everyone. I strongly disagree with that position. Also Brenz: "Theology is a science". LOL
"Theology is a science" 😂😂😂
It is as much a science as philosophy, or the philosophy of science, upon which all science necessarily relies. Or even statistics, upon which all modern scientific analysis and empirical measurement relies.
Science, my ass. 😂 it’s the study of mythology. Even “theologians” don’t agree on practically anything. Go ask a Protestant what they think about Catholicism, and Vice versa. It’s literally ALL MADE UP
You've both failed to define science. Science is study of empirically observable phenomenon by empirically grounded axioms and the scientific method. Theoretical frameworks are the boundary condition of the extremities of this methodology. Philosophy is the chasm and time is the cliff, jump only if you think you can fly.
Science is purposed towards operational concerns - nothing more, nothing less. That's easy enough to grasp isn't it ?
It's more than that. It's an acknowledgement that we need tools outside of our reasoning to make sure we have good confidence something is likely or not. And that extends to everything in our lives, or should. Science is just one tool, history is another, inquiry is another so on. Some are betters at some things than another
@@ltzmin erm...ok. thats a bit amorphous for me tbh. Science gets things done. Archimedes kicked off with weaponry. Chemistry enabled global population explosion due to industrial fertiliser production. Rocket science gets things into orbit etc.
@@ltzminand yet we make our most important personal decisions- mate selection for instance - using methods much less certain.
@@celiacresswell6909 I would argue mate selection would benefit from a deeper understanding of human psychology, for example and a positive vision of the future (what do one wants to do with their life) and so on. It's not difficult to see how or what array of knowledge is required to get or not a good partner derived from science (human psychology), history, anecdote, stories and so on.
Then he should convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because it is the only true religion and there is nothing he can say otherwise.
I don't need the scientific method to know that I was taught through obfuscation and that my testimony was built on lies.
What does he suggest one does when they realize their subjective truth is false? How am I supposed to trust that method of ‘truth’ moving forward?
Theology is probably the most useful science. The hypothesis testing I do at work is a methodology for arriving at approximations. Why wouldnt I apply that to what God to worship? I doesnt seam prudent to ignore a significant portion of being because it doesnt have a position and a momentum.
I put my faith in Jesus and it worked. I came alive.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ sounds very ouroborian GOD created a universe with no free wheel
Theology is absolutely NOT a science.
Are you joking? 🙄 Theology IS NOT a “science”. Theologians DO NOT AGREE on anything. Whatever faith you chose, I promise you there are religious people, scholars, clergy, and lay people who think your beliefs are false, and possibly blasphemy. I have heard Protestants say “Catholics are idolatrous, they worship Mary and saints instead of just Jesus, so they are going to hell.”
If your beliefs work for you, fine, keep them. I’m not here to convince you otherwise. But don’t tell me they are objectively true, because they are not. You are welcome to say “I believe god exists”, you are NOT welcome to say “god’s existence is a fact”.
@@theunknownatheist3815Not welcome? Who do you think you are? The One? God gave everyone the welcome.
There is good evidence and bad evidence. And then there is proof
Man made God...
Most definitely.
I doubt I could ever trust him
Absolutely nothing say it again! No, sorry. Great method and song.
The issue with god is that its by design that there can be no definitive evidence. Our greatest gift is that of free will. We get to CHOOSE to believe. If god made the world with enough evidence to "prove" his existence, then we wouldnt have a choice whether or not to believe. The god that leads the israelites from egypt to freedom goes from being a god that allows us to be free, to a god that leads us out of tyranny back into tyranny. Which is precisely the opposite of what he is.
🙄 absolute garbage
Peter, you’re looking for the field of meta-science to justify your unscientific intuitions about science. Then you may see that your own embodied cognition self-refutes.
Wow its scary to hear Peter saying such crazy stuff.
Believers should not have a high degree of confidence that God exists. Non-believers should not have a high degree of confidence that God does not exist.
Science can't prove a negative, and science can't prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis :)
Well, no. Believers can know past the 5 senses.
Faith / Intuition are tools and means of knowing with confidence there is a God and one having a relationship with God. Can they be corrupted, misled by Wishful Thinking, dishonesty, character flaws, Magical Thinking steeped in Superstition / Manipulation bent on Self apart from God? Sure. One must be humble constantly, as taught in Christianity, for example. One can be humble and highly confident with belief in God. Doubts are a part of the Journey and/or "Dark Night of the Soul". These things can all be true at the same time. ( "Proof" is another term altogether. Believers ought not to have a "high degree of confidence" regarding proof. Same with Non-Believers being highly confident God does not exit. Both should be humble and honest. )
What can science prove?
@@pigetstuck Proofs are for mathematicians, See Gödel
@@sdrc92126 how high can scientific confidence get?
Spoken like a true non scientist. Science cannot “prove” any positive. That’s literally the point of it.
If i asked 10000 people to define the "scientific method", list the generic steps and given an observation to make a hypothesis and describe the procedures, methods and test they would use to verify that hypothesis...finally to test it! I'd get 9990 blank stares 5 takers who wouldn't make it past a hypothesis, 3 takers that would go try to put it all together and quit before the generic steps were established. 1 that would make it thru specifics, 1 get to the specifics and test it. The last one would fail having missed something (improper isolation, introducing bias, tainting the subject, instrument error). Science is an art.. testing the super natural (beyond the natural world -a.k.a not phenomenal) is by definition beyond the scope of science for the question of the existence of god. That is not to say that evidence does not exist for god... It is better to use a statistical frame work such as: odds god exist + odds god does not exist = 100%. Then thru observation of things, processes, and information assign the odds to questions such "without divine intervention (or in a completly material world) could this process, thing or information exist. For me the odds are 99.95 God exists, he is triune, christ is the saviour and the .005 i give to faith. Some days i have less faith in the sun rising in the morning some days more.
Youve failed your own test. How can you possibly put a statistical anaysis on a god? Im not criticising your faith and Id make the same complaint to someone aserting god/s dont exist. I have a digital random number generator on my computer. Whats the odds I will get a 6? You have no way of even begining to put probabilities on this until you know the range ive set into the generator. Same with the universe.
I showed you the framework it is logical. The probability of a single factor "being" and the probability of that factor "not being" is 100%. That's a basic building block in statistical solutions and in life. Look up the math phenomenon "the birthday paradox" and see how to solve for the odds of "two people having the same birthday in a room of X people".
@@cameronlapworth2284does your "random" generator use floating point, big integers, int.. why do you believe with confidence that your brain is the result of millions or billions of years of random mutations of which surviving traits pass down...and the "unsurvivable traits" are eventually culled? Assuming this process is at play, why would you trust your randomly generating meat machine to understand the water it swims in?
@@crusader_2028 doesnt count. You csnt judge ststistical likiehood of a god. Or any statistical likihood that can is equally as likely as any other god or mystical creature. I can say were are here the observable universe is here. Without knowing much more I have zeeo hope of calculating the odds of how the universe started. I know people exist to calculate birthdays. I know how many days there are in a year. I dont know the necessary conditions that need to exist so that a diety can exist let alone my favoured one.
@@cameronlapworth2284 your avoiding criticizing the framework I proposed. There are many problems where you cannot prove the existence of a thing or it's absence. You agree that the universe exists - right? The question becomes, given this universe exists.. what is the probability this universe is the result of creation or not creation (loose proxies for God or strictly material processes). That is 100% - (odds of purely random processes and materials created THIS UNIVERSE) (N) = (odds this universe was created by God)(G). Now let me address your assertion that a numerical value cannot be assigned to either N or G. On the following questions I have after decades of exploration, observation, and learning HAVE ASSIGNED the numerical value to N.. as zero! Odds that our finely tuned physical laws arise out of random = 0% (f). odds the material world emerged out of nothing from before time existed = 0% (m). probability of life originating from randomness within our material world given the laws of physics, chemistry, emf, etc = 0% (l). Odds of random processes and natural selection resulting in highly complex living organisms (c) = 0%. Odds of highly complex organisms developing a conscientious (that often results in unsurvivable choices), while continuing to survive and propagate = being charitable 2% (uc). Let all other factors of known and unknown nature = O. Now the variable N = f * m * l * c * uc * O. You have already agreed this universe exists so that is 100%. 100% - 0% (N) = (G) => G = 100%. If you are unconvinced, doubt is ok..just keep learning about real science, history and ancient wisdom... The odds that you will arrive at Christ are good! Science was largely developed by Christians, we are not afraid of the book of nature..we believe it is understandable by our brains, because the creator gave us minds with which to understand it, hands to test it, a back to work it, and a sould to rise above it. The world view of materialism cannot give you axioms on which to value and judge actions. Why is racism bad? Why shouldn'tvthe strong kill the weak? Why shouldn't the most intelligent, fool all the less intelligent? Why should a person expect to keep what they earn? What is justice? Every attempt to ditch God and replace him with a "scientific/material" answer for morality..has failed..the englightenment, socialism, Marxism, mauism, stalinism..all failures responsible for more deaths then all the supposee "holy wars" the revisionist history teaches.
Aristotle, father of modern science told us that there are 4 types of causes and we only use two of them. A tennis ball has efficient, material , formal and final causes. Efficient - factory; material - skin, formal- the roundness and shape we give it and most important, the reason for the other three types... FINAL cause... the END or Purpose , delight of a child, Joy is the main cause. God is the Final Cause of all being. Why we are moved by Love. Love literally is BEING, the ground of all being, especially us. With our free wills and intellects which cannot be just neurons, we show that God is spiritual. Aquinas' arguments were and are solid for God. th-cam.com/video/wefohtJBnN8/w-d-xo.html
🙄 Aquinas was a hack. He didn’t “prove” shit.