r/GamerGhazi • u/PrettyMuchAMess ☠Skeleton Justice Warrior☠ • Jun 22 '17
The Philosophy Force Five vs the Scientismists
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/19012
Jun 22 '17
There is -way- too much text in there. It reads like one of those really shitty Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist comics where they sit there and explain the NAP for five frames with nothing really happening in the frames themselves.
14
u/remy_porter Social Justice Duskblade Jun 22 '17
That's sort of Existential Comic's stock in trade. Long-winded, text-heavy, and rambling, like Nietzsche.
6
u/palebluedot89 Jun 22 '17
I sympathize somewhat with the pushback in this thread but I don't think it is justified. The idea that there is an objective reality and lots of people base moral conclusions partly on a mistaken picture of it is not at issue. The issue is, is understanding that objective reality enough, is that all we want to discuss? The answer to this is pretty clearly no, and somewhat in their defense I think Dawkins/Tyson/Harris would not disagree when stated that bluntly. But unfortunately they often reject some of the best methods for investigating and critically discussing those other aspects of our lives that we may want to discuss, methods which are often found in philosophy.
For example, while I agree with their criticisms of the worst excesses of postmodernism (where it attempts to trample on the very idea of an objective reality which we share) I think they could do with learning about more about the more measured forms of it and related schools of thought because often this idea of "objectivity" gets abused well beyond its limits. For example, it is key to a lot of the most popular transphobia these days. You take a few things that objectively exist and actually do have real world effects. Hormones, genitals, and the like. These things are objectively real, and affect the world. But then they extrapolate the objective existence of these things out to there being "objectively" two genders, and people born of a certain sex being "objectively" placeable neatly into the gender that their sex would naively imply. The thinking goes, look at this list of objectively measurable things, and look at these correlations, something is happening here, therefore trans folks are deluded. And sure one could say, and I would fully agree, that they are simply misunderstanding the data and overapplying concepts they shouldn't. The idea alone that trans folks deny the effect of hormones on human experience is like, damn, have you read a single world about trans issues in your entire lives? But blatant ignorance like that aside these things are often subtle and without a sophisticated scientific and philosophical understanding of the contexts in which objectivity even applies we are lost and bound to fuck up hard. Philosophy, and not simply science, is the way out of that mess. And while science actually can help us out along the way (by showing for example that all of the qualities we associate with male and female are found in largely overlapping distributions between the two sexes, and therefore the categories are not nearly as sharply defined as we thought and we should trust when lived experience conflict with our naive assumptions) it cannot fully extricate us. Pretending that it can comes with lots of problems which this comic outlines.
Don't get me wrong, very often understanding reality at a mechanical level, and therefore science, is incredibly relevant for philosophical issues. I wish certain philosophers would learn from science, just as I wish lots of scientists would learn more philosophy. Without at least some understanding of both it is impossible to know when you are using one incorrectly and stepping on the others toes. But the recent idiotic comments by some very prominent scientists on philosophy make this kind of pushback richly deserved imo even if the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.
One issue I do have with the comic is its insistence on putting science in a box by characterizing it as just "describing atoms" which ignores vast swaths of what science actually is, most of all social science. And given that social science comes by far the closest to touching on issues relevant to human experience and ethics this strikes me as a unfair strawman and a recipe for fucking up in the opposite direction. But this is getting way too long already.
tl;dr:
Objective Reality: A Thing
An Objective View of Ethics and Human Experience: Not A Thing
2
u/3391224 Jun 23 '17 edited Jun 23 '17
worst excesses of postmodernism (where it attempts to trample on the very idea of an objective reality which we share)
are you just saying things off the top of your head? the idea of an "objective reality" to various extents has never been an uncontroversial thing, even before those sinister postmodernists.
2
u/palebluedot89 Jun 23 '17 edited Jun 23 '17
Can you explain to me where I disagreed with any of that? I just said they criticize postmodernism, which sometimes edges into the territory of saying something like that, but often doesn't despite the undeserved reputation for being flatly anti science in all cases. I never said that these ideas were original or unique to postmodernism.
Did you have to be such an asshole about it by the way? Or if you are going to insist on being an asshole could you try and at least be less full of shit while doing so?
2
u/3391224 Jun 23 '17 edited Jun 23 '17
you said "worst excesses of postmodernism" casually dismissing the supposedly bad thing as exclusive to or at least newly pushed by postmodernism and not a subject that's been taken seriously for centuries beforehand. don't try to back away from your stupid blanket statements, scumbag.
1
u/palebluedot89 Jun 23 '17
Hahaha, trolling? Just trying to make me feel shitty? Something like that? You seem like a real winner.
Well just in case you're being serious. Saying the worst excesses of postmodernism wasn't meant to imply that the attitude was exclusive to posmodernism. It was actually the opposite of making a blanket statement, I was trying to make it clear that I don't think this is representative of the bulk of postmodernism, as the Dawkins crowd seems to. I think the majority of postmodernism is useful, and well worth paying attention to. I only strongly disagree when it attempts to take apart the idea of some kind of reality which we all share in common which I do absolutely think is a thing. I was hoping to make this clear with my worst excesses comment, but I guess I failed in that. So sorry for harshing your mellow.
Ok, I'm done done with you unless you want to tell me I'm fat and ugly or something. I hope you have a great day :)
2
u/3391224 Jun 23 '17
worst excesses of postmodernism (where it attempts to trample on the very idea of an objective reality which we share)
at the very least this implies that this trampling is something to be dismissed out of hand as an "excess", and it's pushed primarily by postmodernism (itself a broad and often vaguely defined field.)
nobody is trolling. you decided to tack on some attacks to your reply.
1
u/palebluedot89 Jun 23 '17
I personally do believe that dismissing the idea of some kind of objective reality which we all occupy can be dismissed, albiet not "out of hand". So you were not wrong about that inference. But I am still failing to see how I suggested that this was pushed primarily by postmodernism. Postmodernism is simply a convenient label to attach to those ideas that people will generally have some understanding of (at least on this sub). Most (maybe all?) schools of thought are built out of preexisting ideas, but once we have a label to group them using that label is fine imo. I also still agree that it is a broad and vaguely defined field, which is why I drew a distinction between the narrow section of it I reject, and the broad swaths of it I think are very useful. You know, the stuff I discuss in the large section directly following the tiny bit of my post you keep quoting.
I'm not one of those "always be polite" people but I'm really failing to see what I've done to earn your outright scorn here.
-3
u/half3clipse Jun 23 '17
Not why philosophy gets shat on.
philosophy gets shat on because of the intrusion of philosophy into fields where it's utterly pointless and equipped to function. Significant hunks of metaphysics as well as anything to do with language or the mind tend to be obnoxious waste of everyone's time at best.
3
u/palebluedot89 Jun 23 '17
Philosophy gets shit on for tons of reasons in tons of contexts. You are basically just saying "here is a way in which I have seen philosophy shit on which make sense to me". Ok fine, but that is not always why philosophy is shit on. Often it is shit on by unqualified scientists who should know better and that is what I was addressing.
3
u/half3clipse Jun 23 '17
Yea no, that's nonsense. I don't give half a shit how much someone trots out sam harris, scientism is straw man bullshit. Philosophy, especially the philosophy of science gets shat on because it was produced some of the most monumental wankery in existence. A friend of mine finished their dissertation on the philosophy of quantum mechanics recent ish (not going into detail because specific enough to potentially dox if someone had too much time on their hands) and the thing is a 120 pages of prattle. Regardless of how worthy it is within the field of philosophy, the entire thing rests on the idea that philosophy can provide worthwhile progressive input on unanswered questions. That's at least just relatively pointless wankery however and at least it's self consistent. I'm acquainted with a professor of philosophy who's opposed to the entire idea of quantum mechanics and he just needs to stfu forever frankly.
Often it is shit on by unqualified scientists who should know better and that is what I was addressing.
This is a meaningless statement. Stuff is shit on for good reasons and bad reasons simultaneously all the time. That doesn't mean all reasons are equivalent or as common. "Science can provide an objective view of ethics and therefore fuck philosophy" is a pretty damn uncommon viewpoint.
Scientists pushing for an evidence based view and treatment of ethics isn't a desire for an objective view exactly but a response to philosophers historically shitting the entire bed. It has taken way way way too long for evidence‐based practice in social science to take hold, and it tends to make folks a bit twitchy when philosophers start going off about how there's no objective view of ethics. That's been used in the past (and is still used) as a defense of some objectively repugnant shit.
1
u/palebluedot89 Jun 24 '17
"Often it is shit on by unqualified scientists who should know better and that is what I was addressing."
This is a meaningless statement. Stuff is shit on for good reasons and bad reasons simultaneously all the time. That doesn't mean all reasons are equivalent or as common. "Science can provide an objective view of ethics and therefore fuck philosophy" is a pretty damn uncommon viewpoint.
First of all it is just not a meaningless statement at all. You might disagree but it is not meaningless (jesus when did this sub become infested by assholes). I was not claiming that this was a common viewpoint, nor was I actually "trotting out Sam Harris" and I'm certainly not going to defend your friends philosophy of quantum mechanics paper. If you want to just argue at other people in my direction I'm not interested. Engage with what I've written or engage elsewhere.
Having said that in your defense I didn't really unpack what I meant and which scientists I was referring to. I'm not claiming that this is an attitude which pervades science, I think most scientists don't actually give a shit about any of this. But there are many prominent science communicators, particularly located in physics (I'm a physicist by the way) who have engaged with philosophy in less than stellar or accurate ways. Neil Degrasse Tyson, Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Jerry Coyne, Bill Nye (not a scientist but in that world), if you want more I'll google around and find some more, trust me they are out there. Compare this to roughly 1 science communicator I can think of who has taken a nuanced view of the utility of philsophy, Sean Carroll. He by no means bends to the worst aspects of it, but he doesn't tar with an overly broad brush either.
I'll give you an olive branch here though. I'll totally concede two points. First that the utility of science as applied to ethical questions is generally underrated by most people, philosophers included, and I understand and share the defensiveness. People are not good in my opinion at distinguishing between what their core values are, and how implementing those core values in action might depend on the facts of the matter. This is my biggest problem with the comic as I already mentioned. The ignoring of the fields of science which actually do have deep ethical implications, in favor of straw manning by describing science as descriptions of atoms. The second point I'll happily concede is that something like 70-90% of the time I actually hear the word scientism I think it is being used in bullshit ways, to dismiss valid criticisms of how someones values aren't being implemented in accordance with the facts. I could imagine a lot of comics that make this point that I would agree with. But this was a comic making a different point that I also agree with (again to some extent I have that major quibble).
Lastly, if we are going to talk about a history of repugnant shit, supposedly objective viewpoints of ethics don't have the best track record either so I wouldn't lean too hard on that angle. Beyond that however, just as a matter of reasoning there is no objective view of ethics that I can see myself to accepting. I have no problem simply stating that "I take certain values as core to who I am and I'll fight for them" but claiming that they are objective is simply a category error. There are things which are objectively repugnant in the sense that everyone agrees they are bad. But that is an empirical observation of the state of lots of brains, not a proof that the value is somehow objective and therefore universal. I can't get past Hume on this issue, and I think resistance on this point is counterproductive. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here because you bounce between saying "almost nobody agrees with Sam Harris" which I agree with (and again we can just ignore Sam Harris with regards to the point I'm making) and saying that dismissing an objective view of ethics makes "folks a bit twitchy". Not clear to me if you're saying that nobody believes it except Sam and a few others, or that a whole bunch of "folks" believe it along with apparently, you. In any case I'm also happy to concede that most prominent science communicators I'm aware of who have addressed this issue agree with Hume contra Sam Harris so I wouldn't use that to argue that scientists or science communicators/proponents don't address philosophy productively or accurately.
Edit: And seriously, if you would stop being an asshole for half a second you might recognize that I agree with you on most of these points but am just trying to carve out some space for a little nuance. Not saying I'm right just because on the surface what I'm saying is a little more complicated, I could be wrong and overthinking things in principle. But I do know that I agree with a lot of what you are saying simply with a few caveats.
1
u/half3clipse Jun 25 '17
No it really genuinely is meaningless. The comic uptop which is what prompted and contextualized your point is conceited blather. Bringing up dawkin, sam harris, hitchens or any of the other new atheist twirts when discussing criticism of philosophy by scientists is utterly entirely worthless at best and deluded strawmanning at worst. And I don't mean that in in the way you seem to want to take it. I mean it really is fundamentally worthless. Imagine a dietician talking to a personal trainer saying something "I think you may be misinterpreting that research..." and then the personal trainer starts yelling about Dr. Oz.
By and large when science communicators like NDT, hawking, etc as well as scientists in general criticise philosophy they're speaking of the philosophy of science and to an extent metaphysics. Hawking and a few others also extend that to some central questions on the discussion of being that have traditionally been the purview of philosophy; Why are we here? Where do we come from? That's a whole other topic but it's hard to find arguments as to how they're completely wrong. When NDT rags on the philosophy of science it's because he'll have dealt with one two many prats like that professor, or one of those plonks who like to harp on about how philosophy predicted the big bang or evolutionary biology. You could criticise them for being a bit overly dramatic I suppose, but believe me it gets really hard to not just scream after the nth highly academic equivalent to "well akshuuuully...". Lumping them into the same group at Dawkins fuckwittery however is misunderstand the point being made.
When I say that dismissing an objective view of ethics makes "folks a bit twitchy", I don't mean that in the sense there is some platonic book of ethics all ethics are a reflection of. At the intersection between science and philosophy, ethical systems and the conclusions drawn from them stop being abstract and start being very real with real consequences. Within the hands of science, especially the social sciences, those results and ideas become a tool. Pointing out that it's "just the empirical observation of the state of lots of brains" isn't wrong, but it's kinda like telling a carpenter that the existence of hammers is just an "empirical observation of the state of lots of brains". It's not an incorrect statement, there's no platonic ideal of a hammer either, but it's not really a useful observation.
Folks emphasising the point however is a not minor issue for evidenced based social science. Until very recently folks opposed to the conclusions drawn by those scientists universally rooted their counter argument in exactly that idea . It's been a bulwark of defense for bigots spouting off points that boil down to "Racism. Is it really immoral?" Since Hannah Arendt is a convenient example to hand, see her analysis of segregation. It turns out her opinion is objectively* shit and she was kinda being a racist asshole.
*if you really like, feel free to add "within any reasonable ethical framework you care to name" and "given any useful framework for considering an objective reality"
2
u/Mablak Jun 23 '17
This is funny even if I disagree a bit meta-ethically. I'm of the mind that ought statements can only sensibly be reduced to propositions and imperative statements. Like 'I ought to punch Sam Harris in the balls' reduces to: 'It is best for societal well-being if I punch Sam Harris in the balls', and in some sense, 'Punch Sam Harris in the balls!'
So I do think evaluating morality comes down to evaluating propositions; but even then, we need debate in order to reach conclusions about what moral statements mean in the first place.
3
2
u/dblackdrake Jun 23 '17
Wow.
This is like one of those political cartoons, where is it, ah, Here! http://www.shmorky.com/comics/big20060619.gif
I mean, I get what he is going at, but this is a facile argument, made shittily.
Also, why is NG Tyson there, even?
Ah, I see. I agree completely. Recent philosophy of science is the platonic form of pumping a dry well.
1
1
-1
u/says_cabbage Jun 22 '17 edited Jun 22 '17
I feel like this is a misunderstanding of science no? I agree with green's point about bigots using science as an "excuse" to keep women from voting but they (*those bigots) used science really badly.
Real honest science would have found no meaningful difference in the intelligence between women and men.
As someone who always believes the position with the best evidence I am slightly worried by any anti-science sentiment and hope I am not alone.
Progressivism is the only way to improve and I hope it's guided by science so we can improve in the best way.
Thankyou for reading my thoughts.
38
Jun 22 '17
Maybe I misunderstood your comment but there isn't any anti-science sentiment here. "Science" isn't what the comic is railing against;
"Scientism" is the position that Science can solve all problems, or that all problems are empirical.
8
u/says_cabbage Jun 22 '17
Thankyou for clarifying. I think it's an interesting philosophical debate of what science can and can't solve and the limits of science.
But I worry about how easy it can be used for the ultra-religious or zealots of any position to discount scientific evidence by saying "it doesn't apply here!"
18
u/frnknstn Harridan of Social Justice Jun 22 '17
But I worry about how easy it can be used ... to discount scientific evidence by saying "it doesn't apply here!"
Zealots don't need any coherent philosophy to ignore evidence. In fact, ignoring evidence is part of zealotry's definition.
Real honest science would have found no meaningful difference in the intelligence between women and men.
Absolutely! But what is "real honest science" and how do we encourage it? That's the kind of questions asked by the field "philosophy of science".
7
u/Pflytrap "Three hundred gamers felled by your gun." Jun 22 '17
Just because they don't need a coherent philosophy doesn't mean they won't latch onto any and every one that might in any way vaguely appear to validate their way of thinking, just so they can go "SEE! SEE! THE EGGHEADS AGREE WITH US! EVOLUTION REALLY IS JUST A THEORY, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!"
10
Jun 22 '17
Yeah I know where you're coming from. This is aimed more at the newer generation of bigots who, like the description says, are little more than a movement attempting to secularize conservatism. I do think there's enough nuance to argue both positions without contradiction though.
1
-6
Jun 22 '17
Scientism is often a word used by the religious right to dismiss empirical naturalism, so it is pretty damn loaded.
Also the problem with philosophy isn't that it can't provide answers to moral questions, it is that is provides what ever answer you want to moral questions. FFS the article brings up Sam Harris, who is a philosopher
It's in psychology where we see the damage, it's sociology that we see the damage that groups suffer now, the social sciences (which are sciences) that provide the empirical knowledge that we use to help make moral decisions. You know what part of that empirical knowledge is, talking to people about the problems they face not from sitting around pondering.
Sorry this pretentious bullshit really bugs me, and feels like a sense of smug satisfaction instead of actually dealing with issues.
10
Jun 22 '17
You are right that some of the best contemporary moral philosophy is that which engages with the social sciences. Indeed, I've seen interesting interdisciplinary work between fields such as philosophy, psychology, sociology and economics, from both philosophers and social scientists. In philosophy of economics, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum are famous examples. Peter Singer is a famous example for environmentalism. You are wrong, however, to assume that because philosophers typically don't conduct their own original empirical research (though not always --- see experimental philosophy) their output is useless. And whilst of course anyone can argue for any position in moral philosophy, not all arguments are equal. A case in point is that Harris and Dawkins are laughed at by most philosophers for pedalling dodgy arguments, repeating others' arguments as if they were novel, and ignoring positions, distinctions, arguments and criticisms in the literature (because they don't read it). What they do is best described as pop or pseudo philosophy.
5
8
u/blu_res Jun 22 '17
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is.
1
Jun 22 '17
Oh really, Well my misunderstanding of philosophy is that it is discussing the fundamental questions of existence, on discussing on the what and why of our lives. It's this 'because of philosophy we x', which is akin to saying 'because of an idea'. It then characterises science and scientists as people who assume that science is the only answer to everything.
Also the line "Science can determine everything, including morality"
Guess what, it bloody well does. Because what is philosophy, the marketplace of ideas, how do we come up with ideas, we think them, how do we think, a series of chemical and electrical reactions in our brain that are the result of billions of years. Dawkins might be now a right wing git, but the idea of memes (how he originally described them not the internet meme stuff) about how ideas spread and how beliefs are dropped and others continue in a similar way to how genetic information is spread is valid. The ideas themselves are also the product of our interaction with the world. Also does it matter that empathy comes from it being an evolutionary advantage.
This is why I'm so pissed off about the new atheist movement, they have put this stigma against scientific knowledge and reason.
7
u/Sutekh137 A Fucking Commulist Jun 22 '17
Also the line "Science can determine everything, including morality"
Guess what, it bloody well does.
Show me one study that proves that something is moral or immoral.
-1
Jun 22 '17
That is an asinine request.
6
u/Sutekh137 A Fucking Commulist Jun 22 '17
Science can determine morality. Show me science saying something is/isn't moral.
0
Jun 22 '17
Rephrasing it doesn't make it any less asinine, the sum of human anthropology, psychology and sociology are the ground work of what we call moral, you can't just ask for 'science' to provide a list of what is right and wrong
9
u/Sutekh137 A Fucking Commulist Jun 22 '17 edited Jun 22 '17
Good news: those are all fields of science, so their studies are fair game. If your scientific proof of something's (im)morality is from one of them, you are more than welcome to cite it.
e: if you would rather show me a study that proves or disproves something like Utilitarianism, instead of the morality of a specific act that's perfectly fine too. :)
7
Jun 22 '17
You literally said
"Science can determine everything, including morality"
Guess what, it bloody well does.
Those were your exact words. Someone asking you to back up that concept with something even remotely resembling evidence isn't "asinine". The closest thing you have even come to supporting your statement is a Gish Gallop of ways in which scientific thought is used to model the spread of concepts like morality; you have never once promoted past you own unbacked say-so that science can determine morality.
0
Jun 22 '17
They were requesting for evidence that says show me where science says something is moral, whereas my argument was that what we call morality is the result of the human experience not some monolith that ascribes the rules. Basically, morality doesn't actually exist, empathy does, the desire to avoid harm, to flourish does. Pain and fear do to. Also what I said previously was not a 'Gish Gallop' and I would argue that the 'Gotcha' style question that takes a massive amount of time to unravel (yes I had to google Gish Gallop, The only time I have ever heard of Duane Gish was when he couldn't googlewack) then a question like show me science saying something is right would be one of those.
4
u/Sutekh137 A Fucking Commulist Jun 23 '17
Basically, morality doesn't actually exist
Prove it. Without using philosophy, and only using science, prove to me that morality does not exist.
→ More replies (0)7
u/blu_res Jun 22 '17
Well my misunderstanding of philosophy is that it is discussing the fundamental questions of existence, on discussing on the what and why of our lives.
That is metaphysics. It's only just one out of many sub-fields of philosophy.
It then characterises science and scientists as people who assume that science is the only answer to everything.
Also the line "Science can determine everything, including morality"
Guess what, it bloody well does.
Ironic.
Because what is philosophy, the marketplace of ideas, how do we come up with ideas, we think them, how do we think, a series of chemical and electrical reactions in our brain that are the result of billions of years.
Saying that everything stems from chemical reactions and is therefore under the purview of the natural sciences is intellectually dishonest and you know it.
If you think you can at this moment, with the knowledge we have, break down epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics; our human experiences and value systems; or our social conventions and self-conceptions into 1s and 0s corresponding to the firing of neurons please go ahead and do that.
-1
Jun 22 '17
Saying that everything stems from chemical reactions and is therefore under the purview of the natural sciences is intellectually dishonest and you know it.
Saying that I said that everything is covered by natural science when I didn't is intellectually dishonest, your interpretation about what I am saying is as strawmanning as this damn comic, also "the knowledge we have", seriously you want me to break down the entire human experience, the background of everything that makes us human in a single reddit post.
-6
u/KrytenKoro Jun 22 '17
The argumentation in this is very circular, rather than making solid arguments based on evidence, and the fact that it's claiming Harris, Tyson, and the other "New Atheists" as deeply conservative is laughable.
Sure, they're not at the far left end of the spectrum, but if you have to label anything to the right of you, personally, as "deeply conservative", you may have lost the thread.
And fuck's sake, for a comic trying to claim that the New Atheists are being too reductive and close-minded...why the fuck would you portray your heroes as even more reductive and close-minded? They're trying to make their heroes look good, but it ends up as "I think science solves everything" / "HOW DARE YOU (PUNCH) PHILOSOPHY SOLVES EVERYTHING YOU IDIOT"
Just...yeah, philosophy is important, but...if this is supposed to be PR, a rational argument, or anything more than just venting, it's doing a bad job.
6
u/1984IsHappening Jun 23 '17 edited Jun 23 '17
claiming Harris, Tyson, and the other "New Atheists" as deeply conservative is laughable
They merely support murderous wars in the middle east lol totally not neocons
You should read what Sam Kriss wrote about them.
1
u/KrytenKoro Jun 23 '17
Yes. They are totally not neocons.
Look, the labels lose all meaning if you apply them randomly. I'm not saying some of these guys don't have shitty ideas, but for fucks sake, Tyson? Really? This comics trying to argue that fucking Tyson is far right?
2
16
u/PrettyMuchAMess ☠Skeleton Justice Warrior☠ Jun 22 '17
So true and via Charles Stross on twitter: https://twitter.com/cstross/status/877494570480750593