Scientism Standing in the Way of Science: An Historical Precedent to Austrian Economics
In this essay I want to draw attention to a period in the history of science that, I believe, will be of interest to supporters of Austrian economics. The episode in question--the rise and dominance of the mechanical school of philosophy--is almost unknown to those only familiar with the accounts of scientific history found in works intended for the general public or in science textbooks, because it doesn't fit into the storyline such narratives almost invariably are intended to convey. It turns out that science does not always make steady progress; it sometimes enters cul-de-sacs that it must eventually back out of in order to move forward again.FULL ARTICLE
Comments (62)
Good article Gene. But does Caplan say anything like the view you attribute to him in the end? I.e. does he say, "I'm not an Austrian because I'm a jellyfish!"?
Published: June 9, 2005 8:49 AM
In the same spirit of the article: the adherence to "science" (basically "natural causes only") as a authoritative presuppositional framework for arriving at truth is as serious an error as mechanicalism.
Published: June 9, 2005 11:19 AM
Jim, why would that be? After all, while supernatural causes can explain anything -- i.e., "God did it" -- they do so by explaining nothing, at leat nothing that is accessible to reason, which is of course the foundation of science. Thus, adherence to "natural causes" is indeed the only "authoratative presuppositional framework."
Published: June 9, 2005 12:17 PM
A similar problem exists with evolution. The paradigm asks us to accept that the universe popped into existence and that its source was nothing. Where is the evidence that anything can come from nothing? Then we're asked to believe that the energy of the big bang "condensed" into matter. But where is the evidence that energy can be turned into matter? Has anyone captured fire and turned it back into a piece of wood? Scientists have searched for decades for the Higgs Boson, the particle that was supposed to make the transition from energy to matter possible, but no one has found any evidence of it.
Then we're asked to believe that life came from nonliving matter. Again, where is the evidence that this is possible? Most of the evidence for biological evolution is nothing more than what mankind has always known as selective breeding. Mankind has known for ten thousand years that isolating animals and selecting their mates can change many of the characteristics of the species. For example, mules have been around for thousands of years. Darwin's "discovery" of this fact contributed nothing to human knowledge of animals.
What Darwin added to the argument was that these small changes which everyone already knew about might produce new types of animals. But, the evidence for one type of animal evolving into another type, such as monkey to man, is limited to less than a dozen skeletons. But if the theory is true, shouldn't we find millions of such fossils? In fact, shouldn't we find living transitional creatures walking among us? Scientists do have some clever excuses for their lack of evidence, but all the excuses do is emphasize their lack of evidence, and science should be based on evidence, not excuses.
The problem is a 150 year old theory that scientists cling to in spite of the mounting evidence against it.
Published: June 9, 2005 12:55 PM
Mechanical paradigm is a constant in history of science: in fact what about ABSOLUTE space and time in Newton theory? same today biology and physic presuppose mechanical AND determistic views like genetic and rational behaviour of bodies in nature. Moreafter I don't see any connection of history of natural science and economic. There are thousand of style to approach history of scientific ideas but it's very difficult to find that good because the so-called "true" is always temporary in science and scientist use it until they, as a community, found another that fit better (for practical application i.e. technology)
Published: June 9, 2005 12:56 PM
"...the greatest scientists have often been the ones who had the courage to swim against the current."
I agree absolutely! The same goes for the great economists such as Mises and Rothbard.
(From one of the great scientists):
“Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.�
Albert Einstein, quoted in New York Times, March 13, 1940
Published: June 9, 2005 1:10 PM
David - The problem is straightforward: please prove "natural causes only" using science - that of course can't be done. If science cannot satisfy even it's own criteria, it cannot be used to assert any metaphysical claim to authority. "Natural causes only" is self-contradictory and self-aggrandizing. And of course, science puts itself in the place of God and becomes corrupted with falsity, going away from truth ... no surprise there.
Published: June 9, 2005 1:15 PM
Need to differentiate between "evolution" and "first cause." Also between "science" and "metaphysics" or "philosophy."
Published: June 9, 2005 1:19 PM
The point, roger, is that they are *looking* for the Higgs field particle. They know where to look for it and in what conditions it should be detectable. When the Higgs boson doesn't show up, then they'll have to discard those theories.
There's a distinction between a presupposition and a theory. A basic property of a scientific theory is that it is disprovable. Even evolution can be disproved, if the "mounting evidence", as you call it, actually existed.
I'm wondering what evidence you're referring to-- the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? The Piltdown hoax? Inverted strata? Mudbed footprints?
Whatever they are, evolution as a theory works beautifully in the fields for which it is best suited.
I suspect most of those who are so dogged in their opposition to evolutionary theory are that way because they detest what the theory has wrought in its misapplication -- such as people ignorantly believing that it explains the origin of the universe or the origin of animate matter, to the exclusion of other explanations, natural or divine. Or that it is appropriate to apply to social 'sciences'.
Working theories are tools. If a better tool comes along that explains natural phenomena, or if an existing one proves inadequate, then it'll be discarded or adjusted. The reason bioligical scientists seem so 'dogmatic' in their use of evolution is because it is the only theory that explains the confluence of disparate fields of science -- most significant among those radiochemistry, paleobiology, and comparitive physiology.
To discard the theory of natural selection without having any viable candidate to replace it that maintains a cohesive and simple explanation for all these varied factors would not be helpful.
Science also doesn't put itself in the place of God. The position of science in relation to divinity is the same as the position of praxeology to divinity. Mises wrote what would be a striking disproof of God's existence in praxeological terms (in his discussion of perfection versus dissatisfaction in Human Action -- the definition of God is a logical impossibility in praxeology), but since he acknowledged that it is inapplicable to the divinity question, no one raises a fuss.
The same goes for evolution. Why is there so little rancor over meteorology? Because we can accept that the formation of lightning bolts isn't the sole province of God.
What of linguistics? The study of ancient languages and their slow mutation over time into modern ones conflicts with Genesis as well. Why not campaign for stickers inside English textbooks stating that English may have been created fully formed ex deus and that it is just a theory that it descended from a mishmash of germanic, latin, and greek antecedents?
Scientific thought creates conflicts only through its misapplication. Science can never say God does not exist, because a scientist knows you can not prove a negative. Science only says it has no evidence that God exists. Praxeology is equally inapplicable, even though it can be misused - to great affect - in disproving God's existence among the vulgar masses who are not as finely schooled in the nuances of the logic behind the theory.
Published: June 9, 2005 2:01 PM
Joining Jim, I would argue that our most important Truths comes from careful reasoning, not tracing the lineage of natural causes as does natural science. The Austian emphasis on a priori reasoning is the perfect example.
Published: June 9, 2005 2:04 PM
Roger, you're going too far in the other direction. A priori is appropriate for philosophies and the study of human action.
However, all the ratiocination in the world won't help you make a better steel alloy or faster transistor, or explain how we came to use the same hole in our heads for breathing *and* eating *and* communicating, at some non-trivial risk to our safety.
Empericism and naturalism has its place in some areas of human study; a priori has its place in others.
Published: June 9, 2005 2:32 PM
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the point of your last post, roger. I didn't notice that you capitalized the "t" in truths. I leave the majiscule T to philosophers; miniscule "t" is good enough for me.
Published: June 9, 2005 2:34 PM
Duo: Are you sure that "Even evolution can be disproved"? Does lack of supporting evidence prove the hypothesis is incorrect? I think the evolutionist's argument goes something like this:
"Until you can show me a better scientific explanation, evolution, regardless of the lack of supporting evidence, is the best scientific theory available. And stop trying to slide your religion into our science (you religious fanatic)."
Paleontologist and evolutionist Niles Eldredge had this to say about the evidence for evolution:
"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not."
He also said this about the fossil record:
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."
Even this didn’t disprove evolution to Eldredge, nor anyone else who knows in his heart that some form of evolution must have caused all this biology.
And the heat some scientists take for standing up and suggesting science doesn’t support evolution is quite the thing to behold. But that is what this article is talking about. It’s the way it’s always been, it’s to be expected, life goes on, i guess.
Published: June 9, 2005 3:16 PM
What people in general need to realise is that creationists don't reject natural selection, so asking creationists to come up with a alternative, is basicly the same as attacking a strawman.
Published: June 9, 2005 3:22 PM
I don't know what the Elderidge quote is supposed to prove. That quote is taken from his discussion of punctuated equilibria, which is one of the two main theoreties within evolution. It wasn't until the punctuated equilibria hypothesis was first asserted that paleontologists started seeing evolution as a workable theory.
Or are you trying to take a quote out of context on purpose?
Published: June 9, 2005 3:30 PM
I don't know what the Elderidge quote is supposed to prove. That quote is taken from his discussion of punctuated equilibria, which is one of the two main theoreties within evolution. It wasn't until the punctuated equilibria hypothesis was first asserted that paleontologists started seeing evolution as a workable theory.
Or are you trying to take a quote out of context on purpose?
Published: June 9, 2005 3:30 PM
"I don't know what the Elderidge quote is supposed to prove." It proves nothing at all. That's the beauty of the theory of evolution.
Published: June 9, 2005 3:34 PM
Clever riposte.
You posted the quote in an attempt to show that there is insufficient evidence supporting evolution in the fossil record by taking a section of a book out of context. I call you on it, and then there's an attempt to slither out of it by saying the quote didn't matter anyhow.
Back to the debate... Scientists are no more immune to vanity than any other human. So backbiting and turf wars are as common there as in any other human endeavor, maybe moreso. No natural right on claiming an idea as property, after all.
Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. To be scientific, a theory has to be disprovable. In order to disprove a theory, it has to make predictions. The origin of species via natural selection predicts the existence of common ancestors.
Many common ancestors have been found -- something halfway between an ant and a wasp, for example. A big problem with the whole 'transitional' idea is the way we drop species into a box and call it a distinct entity. This is a common misconception. All species are transitional.
However, as in human action, prediction in biology is a difficult thing. Too many variables. We can't know what, say, domesticated cats might involve into because we don't know what will happen to the Earth in general over the next million years.
Are you sensing a bit of a kindred issue here? Austrian economics is widely dismissed because it posits the same thing. You can not aggregate and predict human action; such things are meaningless.
Newton's theory was incomplete. So was Einstein's. Darwin was not the end-all be-all of evolution.
Punctuated equilibra was denounced early on, but now is an integral part of evolutionary theory. In fact, empirical evidence of it cropped up recently in genetic studies showing massive mutations can stack up in a gene pool or even individuals and not be expressed until a period of severe stress (such as a mass extinction event). This evidence supports punctuated equilibria in explaining how we might see radical changes in an organism in a geological eyeblink.
They've also found that massive changes in body plans -- whole extra pairs of limbs, etc., -- are controlled by very few genes in many species.
The fossil record is very incomplete due to its physical nature. It requires very specific circumstances for a fossil to form in the first place, and generally dense populations of organisms as well. The most common fossils are of invertebrate sea organisms, simply because there were so many of them and because so much sediment settled on top of them. Land animals don't often get the benefit of a swift burial in huge numbers (there are some cases of this -- some quite spectacular -- but they're outlaying exceptions).
But you don't have to believe any of it. We're on the same side, I think, when it comes to public funding, public schools, that whole rot. If you want your children to follow intelligent design, no harm done to me. I just don't find any of the alternatives to evolution convincing.
Also, sorry about the double post and a few mis-spellings.
Published: June 9, 2005 3:58 PM
Duo,
I agree that empirical evidence is necessary for the small truths. But as the Austrians point out in the field of economics, it has its limits. Only so much can be made of such evidence. It can tell us what happened, to a degree, but for answers to how and why, we have to fall back on reason. Even in the process of analyzing empirical data, scientist have to use sound reasoning in order to make sense of the enormous amount of data they collect.
Paul--You're right. The official response from the National Academy of Science to Creationists/Intelligent Design has been "Give us another naturalistic theory and we'll consider it." Well, that's the point isn't it? Creationists argue that the scientific evidence and the a priori reasoning suggest to a reasonable person that no naturalistic theory can explain the universe or the emergence of life. Scientifically, that's as far as creationists can go. For answers to these origins you have to fall back on reason, possibly revelation. But the NAS insists that if we can't know something through naturalism, it ain't worth knowing. In essence, the NAS has said that they don't care about truth; they only care about preserving their naturalistic presuppositions.
To bring this full circle, Gene Callahan is arguing that mainstream economists are doing the same thing. They don't care about the truth, just preserving their Keynesian presuppositions.
Published: June 9, 2005 4:14 PM
Paul--Can you tell me where you got the Eldredge quote?
Also, have any of you read "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson? Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. But his reason for writing the book interests me the most: He has a good friend who taught molecular biology at Stanford and was fired from his teaching position when he suggested in class that the theory of evolution has problems. Johnson found that similar cases at other schools. He suggests that naturalism has become a theology for mainstream scientists.
Published: June 9, 2005 4:21 PM
Mr. Callahan: Aren't you glad that your article set off a weird debate about evolution and creationism? Why do you think so-called Austrians would respond this way? You should share all the blog comments with your colleagues at the London School of Economics. They'll have a good laugh about American parochialism and superstition.
Published: June 9, 2005 4:29 PM
Bruce: That's a typical leftist response: Don't respond to the arguments. Just call people names and insult them.
Published: June 9, 2005 4:42 PM
Dou - Science isn't the sum total of truth, and in fact properly relies on a belief in God's natural order else it undercuts it's own authority. "A basic property of a scientific theory is that it is disprovable." -- right -- so anything that happened in history that isn't precisely repeatable and agreed upon by a variety of observers (that hopefully aren't collectively biased, another assumption that seems to fail in the case of "natural causes only") can't be "scientifically true". That leaves out half of what we know to be true that is important: for instance, human action and psychology. The bigger point is that the methodology of naturalism (a "natural causes only" presupposition) intentionally deletes or refuses to accept ANY supernatural intervention evidence, and even goes so far as to dictate in history "what could have happened", building a mountain of evolution-biased evidence. That is a presuppositional "faith" framework, but most science people either don't realize or won't admit it, poking fun sometimes at religion's stricture to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness".
Bottom line, there's absolutely nothing about evolution (including the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that things go to disorder for BOTH open AND closed systems) that really strikes us as congruent with experience. Last time I checked, the evolutionist wasn't randomly throwing materials at his house to fix his roof. It seems to me that intelligence is necessary.
Plus true knowledge - that which benefits mankind's short term physical and long term (moral) health - is received in humility, it is revealed, and it is earned. We could spend 50 years looking at something right in front of our faces only to have an "aha" experience which seems so obvious in retrospect. We don't originate knowledge, it is given to us. The entire scientific paradigm is greatly overrated when it comes to the field of humanity - including the origins of humans.
Published: June 9, 2005 4:44 PM
Roger, I have not read it. But when i studied this topic several years ago i did spend many hours combing through Johnson's arguments on the web and i found his reasoning highly logical, like I find Mises's and Rothbard's arguments. When i went to find those quotes several weeks ago, i just googled them and they sprung up for me. I think i will now shut up on this topic, however, because it isn't really economics is it?
Duo, i offer my thanks for the "Clever riposte" compliment, i'd like to answer the other comments, but i think i have already said too much on this in this forum. A good controversy is like a TV set to me, i can't easily turn away from it.
Published: June 9, 2005 5:00 PM
Fascinating. Otherwise intelligent people arguing whether gods exist or not.
If they do, then they are part of the natural world pre-existing our knowledge of them just like the value of Pi.
If they don't, same thing. Shrodengers Cat does not "exist as a cloud of probabilities", it is either in the box or not, dead or not, whether we look in the box or not.
Folks who want to call "evolution" false, that's fine. It's a theory, you can call it anything you want. E=MC**2 was a theory too, but in time it was proven. "Ether" was a theory too, later proven false. The universe didn't change one way or ther other, only human perception of the universe.
Creationists (intelligent design, same thing) also have nothing but a theory. Their theory of the existence of gods is not empirically testable.
Published: June 9, 2005 5:03 PM
Bruce writes: "Mr. Callahan: Aren't you glad that your article set off a weird debate about evolution and creationism? Why do you think so-called Austrians would respond this way? You should share all the blog comments with your colleagues at the London School of Economics. They'll have a good laugh about American parochialism and superstition."
However snide the remark (and it is snide to the point of being an affront to this forum), I too am amazed at how quickly the discussion turned to evolution. How important it is this "theory" to science as a whole? As the Jesuit-scientist Teilhard de Chardin (notwithstanding the aforementioned Piltdown hoax) wrote some 40-odd years ago:
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforth if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow."
Does this exclude the God of traditional theism, i.e., a pre-existent, all-powerful, all-knowing being? For this staunch believer in freedom (not in the circumscribed freedom that such theism inevitably entails, but in the real thing), it does indeed. Does this exclude a God who evolves out of the creative process? No, it does not. On the contrary, as this gives freedom, which is a means and only a means, its proper end, which is everywhere and always the fulfillment that beats in the heart of every human being. Thus would visionary historian Lewis Mumford write:
"The universe does not issue out of God, in conformity with his fiat: it is rather God who in the long processes of time emerges from the universe, as the far-off event of evolution and the ultimate realization of the person toward which creation seems to move."
It's all about mind over matter, in other words -- the triumph of intelligence -- and I am not alone in believing that the triumph is not a "far-off event" but, on the contrary, would be all but upon us had mankind not had to struggle so long and so needlessly against the forces of oppression -- i.e., the State -- which even now is doing its deepest, darkest best to subvert intelligence to its own purposes (see "Perfecting Humanity" in the May 30 issue of Fortune magazine).
Published: June 9, 2005 6:14 PM
Except, David, if we consider that God evolves from man, then we've reversed the true order of things (man is the recipient, not the creator) which is eminently observable and empirical! I think any time an article presents a conflict on the proper deciding authority regarding the "source of true knowledge", God is ever present -- an unavoidable axiomatic base which cannot be escaped ... And Christianity I regard as the highest and best philosophical basis of truth as it relates to human life. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like some participant(s) believe the discussion has degraded. On the contrary. The root source of knowledge is not science and Christianity is not a toy religion -- and of course if the Christian God is real, then the saving grace of Jesus Christ is as well, and so the fact that we are aware of an eternal judge of our behavior (which the Bible teaches is "written on the hearts of man") is also empirically explained. I don't think any discussion of knowledge without a discussion of God and the implications of morality is complete.
Published: June 9, 2005 6:30 PM
Excellent article, Mr. Callahan. A fascinating episode of science history.
Published: June 9, 2005 7:09 PM
Jim Bradley writes: "I don't think any discussion of knowledge without a discussion of God and the implications of morality is complete."
I completely agree, and as it may well be that to some the discussion has degraded, I would be happy to continue it via email -- with you or anyone else -- my premise being that insofar as "an eternal judge of our behavior" is the all-powerful, all-knowing God of traditional theism (Christian or otherwise), THAT God is incompatible with true freedom and thus with taking full responsibility for one's actions, this being the basis of any morality worthy of the name.
Published: June 9, 2005 7:44 PM
Mr. Bradley, no insult intended I assure you. Please tell me what test proves god(s) exist. What repeatable test can I perform that demonstrates divine intervention?
Published: June 9, 2005 8:26 PM
Mr. Callahan,
I wish to congratulate you on a thought-provoking article. Scientists (often including the vast majority in any given field of study) have indeed gone down wrong paths before, are doing so now, and will do so in the future. The beauty of science is that the errors will eventually be corrected, even if everything seems like a jumble now. Natural science is a process of weeding out--no a priori truths there!--and dogmatism has no place in the natural sciences. Unfortunately, scientists are not only all too human, they're usually pretty smart, and many of them know it. Tough to be humble. But it is always important to recognize when a particular line of inquiry is no longer fruitful.
Like Hoppe says about praxeologists (maybe Mises said this first), scientists who truly advance the level of understanding only show up every so often. One problem is that many scientists at the top level of their fields of study think they're the ones raising the bar. It's usually not so. That's not to denigrate the valuable work they do, but let's face it, there are only so many rock stars: scientists who not only advanced the science by shifting the paradigm, as it were, but also by actually being right!
Some of the other discussions in this forum remind me of the bull sessions we had at the Mises Institute last year during the Hoppe seminar. Interestingly, I'd say about half of the folks I talked with at length were committed Christians, and about half were nonreligious. All of us were wholly committed libertarians, regardless of our ultimate origins.
Published: June 9, 2005 8:51 PM
Roger, evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. go back to church and continue sticking your face in your bible.
talkorigins.org will answers your questions, which are so basic to show you have no grasp on the theory whatsoever.
Published: June 9, 2005 9:11 PM
"Where is the evidence that anything can come from nothing?"
I myself believe that zero and infinity are the same number, and that our zerfinity universe contains equal parts everything and nothing--a melange, maybe even a derivative of colliding dimensions.
Yin and Yang stuff; ancient geometric spirals; Mayan baktun time cycles. I try to minimize my Gregorian exposure (e.g. I haven't worn a "time" piece in years).
Check out www.tortuga.com, and then click on today's symbol near the top of the page to play with a "birth date" converter. I am a Red Cosmic Skywalker.
Published: June 10, 2005 1:00 AM
Bruce: That's a typical leftist response: Don't respond to the arguments. Just call people names and insult them.
Posted by Roger at June 9, 2005 04:42 PM
I wish to remind you of the case of Kettle V. Pot
Also, Zero and Infinity being the same number, who said that infinity was a number?
Published: June 10, 2005 3:28 AM
I think studying current evolution theory is very appropriate for Austrians. My understanding from having read Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins is that current theory is based on several axioms such as "no living creature has ancestors who failed to reproduce." From a few basic rules the vast variety and complexity of life can be understood (although from the debate here apparently not to everyone's satisfaction).
My hope is that just as the success of physicists in the last couple centuries lead economists to make the mistake of emulating their methodologies, the growing success and application of evolutionary theory (and molecular biology) will help accelerate the renaissance of the Austrian School.
Published: June 10, 2005 7:46 AM
For those who felt my comment was snide: Fair enough, it was snide, I withdraw it. But I just groaned to see how Callahan's interesting article became a springboard for a debate about creationism. It confirmed my growing conviction that the Austrian movement has become an adjunct of mainstream conservative politics. Or perhaps it just shows that the movement has more paleontologists and molecular biologists among its ranks than I ever imagined.
Published: June 10, 2005 7:49 AM
Bruce:
But I just groaned to see how Callahan's interesting article became a springboard for a debate about creationism. It confirmed my growing conviction that the Austrian movement has become an adjunct of mainstream conservative politics.
I understand where you're coming from; I too thought it was great to see how many comments Gene's article had, and then was disappointed to see it was four people arguing over evolution. (I think this debate is important, but I had hoped the posts were tailored more to Gene's article.)
Having said that, I don't think you can take the comments on this blog as an unbiased sample of the Austrian movement. For example, there are about three or four "professional" Austrian economists who regularly post here, and most of those don't ever post comments, just start threads. E.g. Gene hasn't even commented here (yet).
Published: June 10, 2005 8:21 AM
A storm in a teacup. All the article says is - some people, in following others, get it wrong, even if they're scientists. Ho hum. There are many more wrong ways than right ways, so this is hardly surprising.
What is even less surprising is that the religious should jump on this article as if it justifies them saying "see - those scientists were wrong, therefore christ died for your sins". This does not help rational discourse, let alone the growth of human knowledge.
Published: June 10, 2005 8:22 AM
Bruce - come on, the debate is much broader - It's a debate about the fundamental ability to arrive at true conclusions. Just as the current economics profession is wedded to the paradigm of "statistical mechanics" in violation of fundamental philosophical principles and thus cannot capture a great deal of human action, so is modern science wedded to "natural causes only" in violation of the principle of open inquiry, biasing evidence and missing a great deal of reality. Deja-Vu all over again ...
Published: June 10, 2005 11:54 AM
Curt -- If God is real, you don't have an authority outside of God, God is the ultimate authority. You've got the super and subcategories reversed. Feel free to send me an email if you want to continue discussing. www.pathtochrist.com has some info.
Published: June 10, 2005 12:04 PM
Getting back to economics, Meir Kohn published an article very similar to Callahan's called "Value and Exchange" in the Cato Institute's quartely. Kohn describes the problems with the narrow, math-centered paradigm of mainstream economics. It's here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj24n3/cj24n3-8.pdf
Published: June 10, 2005 12:49 PM
Getting back to economics, Meir Kohn published an article very similar to Callahan's called "Value and Exchange" in the Cato Institute's quartely. Kohn describes the problems with the narrow, math-centered paradigm of mainstream economics. It's here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj24n3/cj24n3-8.pdf
Published: June 10, 2005 12:49 PM
"modern science [is] wedded to 'natural causes only' in violation of the principle of open inquiry"
That's what makes it science. Science is not philosophy nor economics nor theology. This is becoming an argument over semantics.
So if it's not a natural cause, then it's either artificial or supernatural. If it's supernatural, then by definition it's beyond science. If it's artificial -- directed by finite power -- then it'll become science once we find the little green men who accidentally created the universe, or sneezed it into existence, or whatever it may be.
Most supernatural causes have been explained naturalistically over time. The only threat to God is if man uses God to explain the natural world; the only threat to Faith is if man tries to find evidence supporting his faith (after all, it's no longer a sign of faith if you have proof; proof replaces faith with fact).
We can't explain to some satisfaction the origin of living matter or the universe itself beyond some arcane hypotheses. You can posit supernatural influences as the first causes here, but you run the risk of having to shrink God further if we ever do find natural cause for such quests -- just as the medieval God shrank continually before the we found natural explanations for things we still call "Acts of God".
God doesn't fit within the praxeological paradigm. God doesn't fit within the scientific paradigm. If this forum supported vector drawings I'd make a Venn diagram for you to try to understand this. Science is not hindered by the "natural causes only" prinicple; science is DEFINED by that principle.
Perhaps the problem here is that many people inappropriately attempt to incorporate the natural world into their theological pradigm. God is Faith; evidence destroys faith.
Published: June 10, 2005 1:08 PM
Jim, it doesn't matter if the gods are real or declared integer. Either there are demonstrable, repeatable, testable "laws" or there are not. So far, there are.
Outside of the "envelope" of demonstrable fact, you can believe anything you want. Crystal spheres, titans, turtles, vengeful desert gods, hairy thunderers or cosmic muffins. It is your choice.
Please leave me mine.
Relating this back to economics, as Roger tries to do, "we" keep pushing back the envelope of direct knowledge. To do so honestly, we also need to look at phenomena that don't fit what we expect to happen. Ignoring data merely because it doesn't fit what we expect is dishonesty in the extreme.
However, human beings tend to cling to what gives them warm fuzzy feelings, thus the Federal Reserve was not abolished in 1930 when it was clear that the Fed didn't accomplish it's primary stated job, which was preventing recessions and depressions. Of course, if government were held to that standard there wouldn't be any government, but I get ahead of myself.
Published: June 10, 2005 2:46 PM
I was taught in the SState SSchools that...Wait a minute I was only
brainwashed there. So I had to come up with my own outlook wich roughly is :
There are two branches of philosophy :
MORAL Philosophy on one hand and NATURAL philosophy on the other.
Natural philosophy is basically physics. Chemistry for instance, is a specialized
kind of physics.
Natural philosophy is based on the principle of mass-energy conservation, or "you can't
create something out of nothing". Mathematics is the perfect tool for physics because it
reflects (or should reflect) this conservation principle.
So, questions like the 'origin' of the universe and ridiculous myths like the big ben(bang)
do not belong to natural philosophy.
"Mechanical Science" is indeed natural philosophy and that's the way it should be. The 'physical'
universe is a mechanical, deterministic universe. But God-Heisenberg and QM said...Rubbish.
Any speculation related to Man, Free Will, their origins, etc. is Moral Philosophy. The science
of human action is moral philosophy. Apriorism is Moral Philosophy. And the list goes on.
With incredible arrogance and stupidity, scientism tries to 'bridge' moral and natural philosphy
and so introduce non-determinism in physics and UN-free-will in human action. And the outcome is...
Well, check the history of the 20th century.
Also, there's a reasonable mix of 'science' and 'religion' and that's Deism. Deism and Agnosticism
seem to me the positions that best suit classical liberalism...I think that Jefferson and Paine were Deists ?
Cheers
Published: June 10, 2005 6:54 PM
"...who said that infinity was a number?"
Indeed, who ever said zero was a number either? Nothing can be quantified as pure nullity any more than anything can be said to be pure infinity.
Both appear to me to be irrational quasi-numbers. They also, however, appear to be each other's ultimate limit, and as such are probably two "halves" of something else entirely--maybe not a number, but then again maybe all numbers...
Published: June 10, 2005 11:18 PM
RPM writes: "Good article Gene. But does Caplan say anything like the view you attribute to him in the end? I.e. does he say, "I'm not an Austrian because I'm a jellyfish!"?"
No, but he does say, Austrians haven't convinced the mainstream, so give it up and become mainstream.
Published: June 11, 2005 8:22 AM
Juan and Curt - 20th century is a great example of the result of the view that morality and natural philosophy are divided - and a great example of the complete breakdown of apriori reasoning in Marxism and socialism. It is no coincidence that Marxism and Naziism adopted biological evolution as a worldview, and similarly no coincidence that both worldviews discarded apriori reasoning which showed (right in line with Mises) the bankruptcy of socialism. Apriori reasoning makes clear "what must come first" ... and that IS ultimately a moral position.
Published: June 13, 2005 2:25 PM
Jim, thank you for all your effort. I do appreciate it, even though you have driven me even further away from your brand of faith.
"What comes first" is not a moral question. It is a factual one. In Austrian economic terms, the starting point is that humans act.
Questioning a factual statement because it may or may not be moral is what started this whole thread. The so-called scientists in the original article ignored data that contradicted their preconceptions. They believed the data to be immoral? Sure, I'll throw that word in without thinking just as you have.
If you go back and read what I actually wrote, instead of constantly mistaking what I wrote for what you want to think I wrote, you will see that I never said the gods don't exist. I said that, so far, this universe consists of demonstrable, repeatable, testable laws of physical interaction. The universe is comprehensible. I asked you for such a determinant, factual test for the existence of the gods, you did not provide one.
If you wish to assert that the gods are beyond systematic enquiry, that's fine too. Just don't expect me to be converted by that line of argument.
I remember a wonderful medieval wood-cut graphic, of a traveler poking his head out through the side of the "world" and seeing crystal spheres, stars, the sun and moon, and behind him a flat, enclosed earth.
I echo that image by saying that outside of the envelope of demonstrable, repeatable, testable phenomena could indeed be anything at all including gods. Believe anything you want, please allow me the same courticy.
To assert that socialism was based upon cold, heartless scientific inquiry is also false. Socialism is based upon the false assumptions that there is no dis-utility of labor; that people do not make decisions in their own best interests; that the wealthy get that way by robbing the poor in a zero-sum game of "economics".
Were there any actual scientific inquiry within socialism about socialism, the results of the demonstrable, repeatable and testable effects of various policies would (if honestly followed) lead to no socialism at all.
Please look up the word "science", I think you are deeply confused about what it means.
Published: June 13, 2005 3:02 PM
Jim,
My rant was along these lines :
"Panphysicalism teaches that the procedures of physics are the only
scientific method of all branches of science. It denies that any essential
differences exist between the natural sciences and the sciences of human
action. This denial lies behind the panphysicalists' slogan "unified science".
Sense experience, which conveys to man his information about physical
events, provides him also with all information about the behavior of his
fellow men. Study of the way his fellows react to various stimuli does not
differ essentially from study of the way other objects react. "
(Theory & History p.243)
Natural philosophy(physics) and the sciences(*) of human action(moral
philosophy) are two separate things. Physics is Human Action. Human Action IS NOT Physics.
(*)'Science' is a confusing word. In the end, you'll reach Philosophy.
Published: June 13, 2005 7:06 PM
Curt, Juan - Truth is bigger than science. One cannot demonstrate their own birth -- it's not "repeatable, demonstrable, testable". If the difference between good and evil and the incredible design in the natural world (and the origin of it) aren't proof, then what could possibly satisfy?
Juan - the assertion that moral philosophy and physical reality are separate may be a false assumption -- after all knowledge is intrinsically tied with morality, as no conscious observation can take place without morality playing a part. Man ascribes meaning to events, and "meaning" immediately has an interplay with morality. That fact is something that I think Mises philosophical base was very weak in, and Rothbard was stronger (Rothbard was very honest in the implications of his philosophy).
Published: June 14, 2005 1:16 PM
"no conscious observation can take place without morality playing a part"
What justifies this claim? If I observe the sun is shining, does morality play a part in that?
Published: June 14, 2005 3:15 PM
Gene - Depends what you mean. Observation without cognition isn't a moral question, but as soon as one is "thinking about one's thinking" it becomes necessary to fit one's observations into a worldview for any abstract thought or knowledge accumulation to take place.
Then observation becomes moral because man decides on a worldview in which to place the knowledge he receives. The framework itself is a moral question, because the more facts are integrated, the more implications for man's life and his relationships to other men arise.
The opposite attitude is to downscale the cognitive framework which destroys the ability for comprehensive understanding ... a moral choice in itself.
Published: June 14, 2005 4:47 PM
Jim, good and evil are defined by the society in which those words are used. Every perversion that you might want to call "evil" has, at one time or another, been perfectly normal with the possible exception of random murder.
I stated in response to your email that playing well with others, what you call "good", is a human survival mechanism and is therefore easily explainable, like the division of labor, because the people who do so prosper and reproduce, thus passing on those tendencies to their descendants as what you call the sense of good and evil. You called me a fool. I enjoyed your "You cannot prove you were born" quip too, especially since you have yet to offer any testable evidence that your gods exist at all. All you do is spend your time spewing unsupported assertions at the top of your lungs with your fingers in your ears so you cannot hear anyone else's words.
You're right, the realm of truth is bigger than what has yet been determined by scientific inquiry. That doesn't mean you're right. It means YOU DON'T KNOW, and neither do I. Your belief is not knowledge. Stating your beliefs louder doesn't make them true.
And your "Depends what you mean"... You made a specific statement that morality and observation cannot separately exist. When challenged, you backpeddle with "depends".
Regardless of someones world view, the sun is either shining or it's not. Morality has nothing what so ever to do with it. Morality is a subjective judgement about what someone does with that knowledge. Go ahead and declare that morality is absolute because your book says so, I'll go find a book that says it isn't and cancel you out.
Published: June 14, 2005 9:40 PM
Good and evil aren't defined by society, Curt, just as the law of gravity or economics isn't. "Morality is a subjective judgement about what someone does with that knowledge." Exactly. Since to think and function you must fit knowledge into a mental framework, Curt, morality has EVERYTHING to do with what you consider evidence and what you accept and integrate into consciousness. As an extreme example: what Hitler and Mother Theresa accepted as truth were profoundly different!
And you can't function with the idea that "society defines evil". You know there are better and worse societies: some societies live in utter darkness, to believe any other way is to accept any "socially approved" actions as equally valid - which is a complete win for the propagation of evil.
Many scientists stand amazed at the result: a LOSS of respect for truth and science. But that is the natural result. If there's no real good and evil (thus no God), there's no reason to hold fast difficult truth over pleasurable falsity, and the race to the bottom, started by "redefining" evil contrary to God's laws, is on.
That fact was a major failing (and a strength in some ways) of Mises "wertfrei" ... his analysis is not value free, it chooses apriori logic over other methods of truth ... note it contains an assumption that contradicts the "purely" empirical scientific worldview: that our minds are structured to understand and observe using logic. But Mises position was consistent. A position a lot of scientists hold is not: science relies on apriori presuppositional thinking. Mises was honest in admitting it. Many scientists are not honest in admitting they are making metaphysical claims about the nature of knowledge.
Published: June 15, 2005 8:26 AM
Curt - one last thing -- you need to read these posts more carefully. For example: the claim was that no CONSCIOUS observation can take place without it being moral - meaning that one is mentally aware of their observation (as opposed to being unaware but observing). There's a difference, and I wasn't sure which one Gene was referring to.
And the evidence for God? The incredible design in nature, the actions of good and evil, the Bible (study it scientifically), the presuppositional nature of reality (quantum mechanics?), etc. It's all around you Curt. It's your framework that's controlling the "evidence" not the other way around.
Published: June 15, 2005 8:44 AM
Jim, good and evil are redefined constantly, entirely dependent on the society and culture. Of course I can function with that idea, I am doing so right now. Always have, and so have you. The fact that you are so myopic as to think that your idea of good and evil are the only right ones for everyone else is merely the sin of pride.
Do you remember what you wrote to me when I wrote that I treated the people around me well because I wanted to be treated well? Your contemp for someone living by the "Golden Rule" was astounding.
I could not care less about your book. The more you talk about your book being right when all other books are wrong, the further you get from any basis for me to listen to you at all.
I asked you for a test for what you say is right in front of me. You give me platitudes and bald assertions, like the gods planted the dinosaur bones 6,000 years ago and then changed the rate of radioactive decay to "test our faith". It is you who are telling me that I must believe the incredible. There is nothing "incredible" about nature, it's all very mundane and natural. By definition. Pi always was 3.141592654..., even when people thought the gods ordained that it be 3.
The source of all this argument is very likely the vast scales of time involved, scales that elude human context. The idea of natural selection enabling big changes is simply foreign to minds locked into mere human terms of "years".
Especially minds deadend by dogma, chained by hypocrisy, and so wrapped up in their own illusions of superiority to the rest of nature that they cannot contemplate their own irrelevance. "There has to be an afterlife, I'm too wonderful for death to be actual death!" Again, the sin of pride.
It would give me great pleasure if I actually believe you when you said, "one last thing". The sin of pride won't let you walk away, unless this very challenge goads you into doing so. Interesting experiment on my part, ne?
Published: June 15, 2005 10:21 PM
Jim:
The argument that without God we would not be able to define what is good and what is evil has been refuted by many philosophers. To quote Bertrand Russell:
Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.
Published: June 15, 2005 11:27 PM
Having done so in a previous comment (regarding "A Constitution of Contradictory Rights"), let me again quote from E. O. Wilson's "The Biological Basis of Morality" (The Atlantic Monthly, April 1998):
"In the empiricist view, ethics is conduct favored consistently enough throughout a society to be expressed as a code of principles. It reaches its precise form in each culture according to historical circumstance. The codes, whether adjudged good or evil by outsiders, play an important role in determining which cultures flourish and which decline. ... The empiricist argument holds that if we explore the biological roots of moral behavior, and explain their material origins and biases, we should be able to fashion a wise and enduring ethical consensus. The current expansion of scientific inquiry into the deeper processes of human thought makes this venture feasible."
"[E]thical precepts...are more likely to be products of the brain and the culture. From the consilient perspective of the natural sciences, they are no more than principles of the social contract hardened into rules and dictates -- behavioral codes that members of a society fervently wish others to follow and are themselves willing to accept for the common good. Precepts are the extreme on a scale of agreements that range from casual assent, to public sentiment, to law, to that part of the cannon considered sacred and unalterable. ... What have been thought of as moral sentiments are now taken to mean moral instincts (as defined by the modern behavioral sciences), subject to judgment according to their consequences."
"Now suppose that human propensities to cooperate or defect are heritable: some people are innately more cooperative, others less so. In this respect moral aptitude would simply be like almost all other mental traits studied to date. ... To the heritability of moral aptitude add the abundant evidence of history that cooperative individuals generally survive longer and leave more offspring. Following that reasoning, in the course of evolutionary history genes predisposing people toward cooperative behavior would have come to predominate in the human population as a whole. Such a process repeated through thousands of generations inevitably gave rise to moral sentiments."
Published: June 16, 2005 11:42 AM
Walt - Good point - goes back to "is there a standard by which God can be judged". The answer: Yes, his own perfect standard, but no otherwise. In other words, God submitted to his own perfect standard (which he imbedded in our conscience) and it cost him greatly to do so, as he had to reject and punish his own son Jesus Christ when Jesus took the horribleness of the world's sin on his shoulders during the death of the cross. And there's nothing we can do to deserve that gift: we accept it by believing in Jesus Christ as God's son and prove it by leading other people to Jesus Christ. So, God is both coincident with "right" and "below" right as a category: in other words, he IS good and right and just, not in the sense of being judged by those standards, but in the sense that those things are the very essense of God. God is fully and completely good. And it is further true that it is man that brought evil to the world by disobeying even his (man's) own lower standards, not to mention God's perfect standards.
David White - I do not believe the empiricist can make any such claims as were made in your post as none of those claims are empirically demonstrable. The essential point of this entire string (apart from the religious conversation) is that "pure empiricism" is an impossible position: Mises demonstrated it and every thinker, by the process of their thinking affirms it. As a result, metaphysical claims are being made by every empiricist which cannot be empirically validated. The beginning of Human Action is masterful in handling this philosophical truth.
Published: June 16, 2005 5:46 PM
The bottom line for me, Jim, is that I have faith in reason, empircal or otherwise, hoping that the free use thereof will eventually triumph over the evils that beset us, including and especially the greatest of all evils, the State, which continues to this day to subvert both religion and science to its antisocial and inhumane purposes.
Published: June 16, 2005 8:33 PM
David - The State is the reflection of man's heart: his pride and propensity for evil. History similarly suggests "reason" is flawed without the proper framework, because man's heart is wicked -- power only makes it more obvious. Thanks for the engagement. Best wishes.
Published: June 18, 2005 9:24 AM