Wednesday 25 May 2011

Chris Port Blog #263. Winning the Narrative: Empiricism, Rationalism and Metaphysics


© Chris Port, 25th May 2011

Atheism is an empirical viewpoint. Agnosticism is a rational viewpoint. Theism is a metaphysical viewpoint. The latter may or may not be absurd depending on what specific assertions are being made or refuted.

Debate between these three viewpoints is desirable, if only to define their respective claims on ‘truth’. Dispute is also desirable to identify logical fallacies or inconsistencies and clarify misconceptions.

Unfortunately, many disputes merely add to the confusion because they are often not playing the same ‘language games’ as each other.

For example, suppose a theist asserted a belief that ‘God’ is a generic label rather than a physical entity, encompassing various metaphysical phenomena such as ethics, aesthetics and meanings. If an atheist challenged this assertion on the grounds that such phenomena have natural explanations, and need no supernatural referent, what (if anything) would they be arguing about? Is the argument about the supernatural, or about meanings?

Alternatively, suppose an atheist asserted a belief that ‘the soul’ is synonymous with the mind, that the mind is synonymous with the brain, and that the soul is therefore destroyed when the brain stops working. If a theist challenged this assertion on the grounds that, according to the laws of conservation of matter and energy, the material of the soul is not destroyed but transformed, what (if anything) would they be arguing about? Is the argument about identity, or about thermo-dynamics?

Some find esoteric beauty in mathematics. An ‘elegant’ proof, to the uninitiated, looks like meaningless arcane squiggles. Alternatively, for some mathematicians, it is the equivalent of poetry in numbers. Beauty has a mathematical aspect - patterns, proportions, symmetries. It also has a metaphysical aspect - that which is expressed may allude to something profoundly inexpressible. It is this feeling of inexpressibility that I would call ‘supernatural’ rather than some undefined ‘entity’. To ask whether this feeling is ‘true’ would be as absurd as asking whether a mathematical equation is ‘beautiful’. It is if you feel it that way.

Empiricism delights in reductionist definitions. Metaphysics delights in expansionist feelings. Whether you delight in definitions or feelings, reductionism or expansionism, is a purely subjective experience. It is a personal response rather than an empirical ‘fact’ and has nothing to do with being ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’. It is either well argued or poorly argued.

When an empiricist tries to refute a metaphysical assertion by restricting a debate’s terms of reference to empirical data, this is as absurd as an artist telling a scientist that E = mc2 is not art because it is not paint.

For me, the sensible ‘default’ position in any debate between empiricism and metaphysics is therefore agnosticism, at least until the direction of the debate becomes clear.

For example, evolutionists have clearly won the debate over creationists. Empirical data has rightly won out over doctrinal texts. While I might quibble with Richard Dawkins’ emphatic assertion that evolution is a ‘fact’ (yes it is, but in a world of many ‘facts’ I would lay the emphasis on selectivity) agnosticism here is no longer a sensible default position. The craven politician’s evasion of a straight answer to a straight question, “Do you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?” completely destroys their credibility and fitness to hold public office.

Richard Dawkins versus Young Earth Creationist Politician

(In repeated polls over the last 30 years, 40 to 45% of Americans have consistently stated that they believe the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old…)

“It’s even worse than that because they actually believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and because the true age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that’s a non-trivial error... I’ve previously compared it to the width of North America is 8 yards…” (Richard Dawkins)

The direction of a debate often depends on the rhetorical skills of the interlocutors. A more wily politician could have played to their electorate by believing in the accuracy of the data then shifting the focus of the debate into asking what narrative should be told here?  Perhaps the ultimate use of philosophy is simply to win control of the narrative and win power?

“Traditionally, the way people thought about power was primarily in terms of military power. For example, the great Oxford historian who taught here at this university, A.J.P. Taylor, defined a great power as a country able to prevail in war. But we need a new narrative if we're to understand power in the 21st century. It's not just prevailing at war, though war still persists. It's not whose army wins; it's also whose story wins. And we have to think much more in terms of narratives and whose narrative is going to be effective.” (Joseph S. Nye - speech on ‘Global Power Shifts’ at http://www.sweetspeeches.com/s/699-joseph-nye-global-power-shifts)

7 comments:

  1. From the The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) Facebook page. A classic example of how empiricists can get themselves into trouble without metaphysical perspective...

    [Original post]: "I have just had a thought that may bear some examination and may be a problem for theists, though they will have a facile way out. It has just occurred to me that Mathematics is something that exists in effect outside of the universe and simply is. Completely immutable, absolute, existent before time or the big bang, defining everything there after, and built upon rock solid axioms. Like “god” Mathematics is eternal and self existent though sadly has offered no opinion as to how Noah should have built the ark."

    [My reply]: The word ‘exist’ may be leading you astray here. Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. It is overwhelmingly probable that these phenomena exist independently of our minds. However, mathematics is the study of the phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. Mathematics is the attribution of consistency in the mind. The universe itself is as indifferent to mathematics as it is to beauty. Without consciousness, mathematics would not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. [My response to a subsequent post that "the universe is mathematics made function"...]

    I think that you may be falling into a classic teleological trap (getting things back to front).

    Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or direction in natural processes. To say that “the universe is mathematics made function” is to infer that mathematics preceded the universe, and that the ‘purpose’ of the universe is to give mathematics physical form.

    I would argue that in reality it is completely the other way around. The universe came first. Mathematics is our expression of patterns that we observe in it. These patterns are relationships attributed by our minds, not inherent properties. The only inherent properties of the universe are the four basic force charges and the ways in which they interact with each other. Everything else in the universe is an ‘emergent property’ rather than an expression of function.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "... as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein.

    ReplyDelete
  4. [Subsequent post: “Nice Google. Now, please explain how, if we are [individually] [making] mathematical truths, subjectively, how they are united into a coherent [objective] system."]

    [My response]: Because that's what we've designed the system to do. If it's not consistent, its not maths. You're starting to slip into Wittgenstein's 'category errors'.

    Mathematics (unlike language) is specifically designed to be consistent and coherent. The universe, by existing, is coherent. The ‘laws’ of physics are consistent and (quantum theory of gravity aside) mostly coherent down to the Planck scale. To map a coherent system onto a coherent universe, then claim that the universe is somehow a manifestation of the system, is to confuse two different categories of coherence. They are physically unrelated. They just look similar. Fortunately, the consistency and coherence of our mathematical system enables us to make testable predictions about the consistency and coherence of physical systems. There is a ‘family resemblance’ concept at work here. But they are not the same thing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [Subsequent post: “You didn't answer the question, my friend;)"]

    [My response]: I have answered it. I've just not answered it on the terms you've suggested ;)

    Coherence gets more ‘fuzzy’ at the quantum scale. Quantum mechanics is the most consistently accurate scientific theory ever devised. Heisenberg was dismissive of attempts to understand what was ‘physically’ going on. As far as he was concerned, all that could be claimed about quantum mechanics was that the maths worked. The uncertainty principle, and the strange interference of measurement and even consciousness on quantum level 'events'/probability waveforms, are still profoundly incomprehensible to us. As a lyricist physicist, I derive a wry satisfaction from this. Maths is designed to be ‘perfect’, yet the universe (so far) eludes perfect notation. There is, of course, no such thing as an objective system.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [Subsequent post: “Great! Can't answer, so you pull the old QM card....gotta love it!"]

    [My response]: All roads lead to foam...

    Although (strictly speaking) non-sequiturs, you may find the following 'family resemblance' posts amusing when pondering some of the discrepancies between numbers and 'reality'...

    Marty Gull - Targets
    http://martygull.blogspot.com/2011/03/chris-port-blog-130-marty-gull-targets.html

    Monkey Dust - Government School Targets
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLvDKI1T14Q&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'The best non-fiction, the best documentary, is presented as a narrative with all the conventions of fiction.'

    'Different kinds of truth: religion, science and fiction'
    Occam's Corner, The Guardian, Friday 31 August 2012
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2012/aug/31/truth-religion-science-fiction?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

    ReplyDelete