4 ms·

Wonder if Coyne realizes the circular and non-responsive nature of his reply. To rephrase this, science is the only thing we know. Show me something that's not

Wonder if Coyne realizes the circular and non-responsive nature of his reply. To rephrase this, science is the only thing we know. Show me something that's not science that we know. Of course, you can't. You've given yourself the answer before you begin to ask the question. Effective science and humility have to go hand-in-hand. Otherwise you're just creating a new religion with the rubric "science" stuck on it.

webnrrd2k 14y ago
Maybe we are thinking of "scientific" in different terms, but I know lots of things that are not scientific. I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. My internal experiences aren't scientific. So I'd say that, on one sense, at least half of what I experience is not scientific. No one actually knows what is going on inside of my head at this moment. Yet I know my own thoughts, emotions and experiences. Science may know that I can experience love, for example. But it can't tell me that I am experiencing love at this moment, as I write this comment, or who I fall in love with.
- inavat 14y ago
  That science can't yet know you're experiencing love at this moment (if indeed that's the case) isn't a reason to think it never will be able to. I know it's common to think of our internal thoughts and experiences as metaphysical things, but I know of no evidence that they're anything but chemical and physical processes. You know, science.
  - webnrrd2k 14y ago
    Oh, I'm not saying that thoughts and experiences aren't physical things -- I didn't mean to imply otherwise. The question I was responding to was: "Show me something that's not science that we know". My response is that there are lots of things that we, as people, actually know but can't study scientifically.
    - rohern 14y ago
      Love and emotions are being studied scientifically. The neurotransmitters behind love and affection are extremely well studied. One could quite easily construct experiments to see if exiting fMRI technology can determine the difference between a brain experiencing love and one not. These questions are in every way within the domain of science.
      - thirdtruck 14y ago
        Exactly, rohern. Just look at the findings on oxytocin. Even more to the point: the impetus lies with the proponents of "love as a useful, concrete object" to defend their hypothesis from dissection by neuroscientists. Linguistic and poetic convention have no hold over hard data.
      - MrScruff 14y ago
        While this is all true, it wouldn't tell us much about the actual experience of feeling the emotion. That would remain metaphysical.
        rohern 14y ago
        I do not see any reason to suppose this is true. I grant that this is question that is not being tackled by current research (as far as I know, as neuroscience and theoretical neuroscience are in a period of boom right now), but that does not make it scientifically intractable. There is little I can say about this as I do not know what you mean by "the actual experience".
        MrScruff 14y ago
        As in, the difference between the neurological processes that govern ones mental state, and the subjective experience of having that mental state. For example, if I'm hungry and eat a good meal the changes in my brain chemistry that induce the sense of well being that follows are well understood. That doesn't tell me anything at all about the actual subjective experience of feeling pleasure though. That is something distinct.
- derleth 14y ago
  > I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. Do you think they'll remain unscientific?
  - webnrrd2k 14y ago
    I don't know if they will become scientific or not. I wasn't trying to speculate about the future, just to point out that there are lots of things that people know but can't prove in a scientific sense. As a matter of fact, there is an interesting book about it: [What We Believe but Cannot Prove](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prov...). Just off the top of my head, I'd say the most obvious thing that people know that isn't scientific is to make creative leaps and discover/invent new ideas. Science can tell us a lot about how it happens, but there is no scientific formula for creating new, true, useful, or provocative ideas. When people make a creative leap, do they know it's true, in the scientific sense? Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method.
    - thirdtruck 14y ago
      Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method. Demonstrably false. Going by Steve Martin's autobiography, as just one example, stand-up comics routinely submit their new material to controlled tests with sample audiences. Jokes (and performance details) that fail to elicit laughter and post-show satisfaction (i.e. as practical a demonstration of "funny" as any), are judged provably false and left out of the routine.
inavat 14y ago
I didn't get that from his response at all. He's asking what the "other ways of knowing" have done for us. Science has been demonstrably useful -- Coyne is asking why the criticisms of Scientism aren't followed by examples of the questions answered by "other ways of knowing". I wonder the same thing myself.
wonderzombie 14y ago
To rephrase this, science is the only thing we know. Show me something that's not science that we know. Of course, you can't. You've given yourself the answer before you begin to ask the question. Er, isn't that the entire point? Coyne didn't set this trap; Hughes did by contrasting science with ???, where ??? is some as-yet undefined way of apprehending truth. It's incumbent on Hughes to solve that dilemma, not Coyne. And, of course, Hughes doesn't. At all. But since some theoretical physicists can't tell you why the universe exists and evolutionary psychologists still publish papers, the periodic table of elements, Maxwell's equations, and the theory of evolution are all part of a religion. QED!
lotharbot 14y ago
Observe that Coyne's criticism centers on words like "truth" and "answer". "Science works, bitches" -- to answer particular types of questions which have certain properties. Questions about ethics (that is, what one "should" do) can be informed by science, but there is no such thing as a falsifiable ethical framework; an ethical framework must by its nature involve assumptions which are not determined by science. Thus, an "answer" or "truth" within ethics is a different type of thing than an "answer" or "truth" within, say, chemistry. Coyne glosses over this by assuming the only type of "answer" or "truth" that matters is the type that comes from science or can be verified by science. This is not an isolated misstatement; he has previously said that "Only science has the ability to answer questions" [0]. Rather amusingly, this is a philosophical and non-scientific assumption. This is why Coyne's response is essentially useless. Science is an awesome tool, but there are questions it can only address within a framework dependent on non-scientific assumptions. [0] http://vimeo.com/31505142 http://vimeo.com/31505142 around the 34:20 mark

webnrrd2k 14y ago

Maybe we are thinking of "scientific" in different terms, but I know lots of things that are not scientific. I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. My internal experiences aren't scientific. So I'd say that, on one sense, at least half of what I experience is not scientific. No one actually knows what is going on inside of my head at this moment. Yet I know my own thoughts, emotions and experiences. Science may know that I can experience love, for example. But it can't tell me that I am experiencing love at this moment, as I write this comment, or who I fall in love with.

inavat 14y ago
That science can't yet know you're experiencing love at this moment (if indeed that's the case) isn't a reason to think it never will be able to. I know it's common to think of our internal thoughts and experiences as metaphysical things, but I know of no evidence that they're anything but chemical and physical processes. You know, science.
- webnrrd2k 14y ago
  Oh, I'm not saying that thoughts and experiences aren't physical things -- I didn't mean to imply otherwise. The question I was responding to was: "Show me something that's not science that we know". My response is that there are lots of things that we, as people, actually know but can't study scientifically.
  - rohern 14y ago
    Love and emotions are being studied scientifically. The neurotransmitters behind love and affection are extremely well studied. One could quite easily construct experiments to see if exiting fMRI technology can determine the difference between a brain experiencing love and one not. These questions are in every way within the domain of science.
    - thirdtruck 14y ago
      Exactly, rohern. Just look at the findings on oxytocin. Even more to the point: the impetus lies with the proponents of "love as a useful, concrete object" to defend their hypothesis from dissection by neuroscientists. Linguistic and poetic convention have no hold over hard data.
    - MrScruff 14y ago
      While this is all true, it wouldn't tell us much about the actual experience of feeling the emotion. That would remain metaphysical.
      - rohern 14y ago
        I do not see any reason to suppose this is true. I grant that this is question that is not being tackled by current research (as far as I know, as neuroscience and theoretical neuroscience are in a period of boom right now), but that does not make it scientifically intractable. There is little I can say about this as I do not know what you mean by "the actual experience".
        MrScruff 14y ago
        As in, the difference between the neurological processes that govern ones mental state, and the subjective experience of having that mental state. For example, if I'm hungry and eat a good meal the changes in my brain chemistry that induce the sense of well being that follows are well understood. That doesn't tell me anything at all about the actual subjective experience of feeling pleasure though. That is something distinct.
derleth 14y ago
> I'm speaking broadly here, but qualia are not scientific. Do you think they'll remain unscientific?
- webnrrd2k 14y ago
  I don't know if they will become scientific or not. I wasn't trying to speculate about the future, just to point out that there are lots of things that people know but can't prove in a scientific sense. As a matter of fact, there is an interesting book about it: [What We Believe but Cannot Prove](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prov...). Just off the top of my head, I'd say the most obvious thing that people know that isn't scientific is to make creative leaps and discover/invent new ideas. Science can tell us a lot about how it happens, but there is no scientific formula for creating new, true, useful, or provocative ideas. When people make a creative leap, do they know it's true, in the scientific sense? Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method.
  - thirdtruck 14y ago
    Or how about humor? Can you scientifically prove a joke to be funny? I know what I find funny, but humor is not provable, or created following the scientific method. Demonstrably false. Going by Steve Martin's autobiography, as just one example, stand-up comics routinely submit their new material to controlled tests with sample audiences. Jokes (and performance details) that fail to elicit laughter and post-show satisfaction (i.e. as practical a demonstration of "funny" as any), are judged provably false and left out of the routine.

inavat 14y ago

I didn't get that from his response at all. He's asking what the "other ways of knowing" have done for us. Science has been demonstrably useful -- Coyne is asking why the criticisms of Scientism aren't followed by examples of the questions answered by "other ways of knowing". I wonder the same thing myself.

wonderzombie 14y ago

To rephrase this, science is the only thing we know. Show me something that's not science that we know. Of course, you can't. You've given yourself the answer before you begin to ask the question. Er, isn't that the entire point? Coyne didn't set this trap; Hughes did by contrasting science with ???, where ??? is some as-yet undefined way of apprehending truth. It's incumbent on Hughes to solve that dilemma, not Coyne. And, of course, Hughes doesn't. At all. But since some theoretical physicists can't tell you why the universe exists and evolutionary psychologists still publish papers, the periodic table of elements, Maxwell's equations, and the theory of evolution are all part of a religion. QED!

lotharbot 14y ago

Observe that Coyne's criticism centers on words like "truth" and "answer". "Science works, bitches" -- to answer particular types of questions which have certain properties. Questions about ethics (that is, what one "should" do) can be informed by science, but there is no such thing as a falsifiable ethical framework; an ethical framework must by its nature involve assumptions which are not determined by science. Thus, an "answer" or "truth" within ethics is a different type of thing than an "answer" or "truth" within, say, chemistry. Coyne glosses over this by assuming the only type of "answer" or "truth" that matters is the type that comes from science or can be verified by science. This is not an isolated misstatement; he has previously said that "Only science has the ability to answer questions" [0]. Rather amusingly, this is a philosophical and non-scientific assumption. This is why Coyne's response is essentially useless. Science is an awesome tool, but there are questions it can only address within a framework dependent on non-scientific assumptions. [0] http://vimeo.com/31505142 http://vimeo.com/31505142 around the 34:20 mark