Science - part 1

Mad Science and Flawed Logic

An astrophysics student studying for his PhD went to his advisor concerning his doctoral thesis. “Ma’am, I have two theories I’d like to explore but I’d like your advice on which to choose.”
“Enough research will tend to support your theory,” the Professor said.
“But I haven’t told you what they are yet…”

It’s an old gag, sorry for not showing any originality there. And truth be told, that line of thought, i.e. whatever the idea, enough facts can be found to support it, is at least as old as Aristotle if not older, and certainly isn’t limited to the sciences. But we will notice that much of what we view as authoritarian (or just claims authority) has no sway over a matter save what we give it. Rhetoric can powerfully manipulate any audience. It remains a necessary and beneficial tool in presenting any argument, whether scientific, theological, cultural, etc.

So, in the end, we hope here to constructively and, at least insomuch as possible, objectively, demonstrate what can and cannot be attested to by science, what bounds are real and which are imagined, should we construct some, should we tear some down, which have been crossed and which should we cross? In effect, what claims are pseudo-science, which qualify as meta-physical and in the middle of all this, we are certain to find there are certain questions science cannot answer. Into the fray we venture.

Warp speed, Mr. Sulu.

Over the coming weeks, several interviews are lined up with some Christian scientists… wait, no, lemme rephrase that, with some scientists who are Christian. Yes, that is much better. Anywho, I hope they prove interesting. I know at least two are promising; the rest I cannot yet tell because we haven’t completed them. If they fall flat, we’ll throw in some more Futurama quotes and irrelevant humor. (Editor’s Note: No, none of that, we are going to be pointing out logical fallacies, not making them I hope.)

Boundaries?

There are certain rules of logic that are broken in debate, sometimes unintentionally, often quite intentionally. The logical fallacy has its place in speech and persuasion, and though it may be used in advancing a theory in the natural sciences, it should not display its head by thrusting those theories upon us as fact. Logical fallacy has many forms and some downright tongue-twisting names. When I was a wee lad, we had to study it though not as much as my old man did when he was a young man. Aristotle’s Rhetoric proves a good read if not difficult; a lighter and more enjoyable lesson would be Madsen Pirie’s entertainingly witty “How to Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.” In fact, go out and buy it now. I’m using the Jedi Mind Trick on you. Do it.(What? You mean it doesn’t work? And I spent all that time practicing!)

After studying up a bit, its easy to point out fallacies in argument. Why is that important? Well, let’s look at one example to start us off. To whet our appetite, some things propounded by one the world's best know atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins: Dawkins holds to “universal Darwinism,” meaning basically, as he so famously sums up, ‘[the universe] has no design, no purpose; no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ (Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. page 133) He avoids apparent fallacy (in this case, the ever-present petition principii, i.e. “begging the question”) by keeping “purpose” out of it in saying there are no 'ought to’s' in life. But on close inspection he has committed the same fallacy he wishes to avoid – and seemingly hates so much coming from “dyed-in-the-wool faith heads” – by expressing what cannot be empirically known. ‘There ought not be any oughts. How is it one man, or 6 billion men for that matter, would know if there is purpose or not in life, the universe and everything. If he is genius enough to know, let him answer, but I fear genius has nothing to do with it. Dawkins' vantage point would have to allow him, not only access to, but the ability to retain the knowledge of, all things, every action of every person, animal, atom, everywhere, for all time. In short, Dawkins claims omniscience. He claims to know what no mortal can. (Maybe he isn't denying God, so much as to who holds the job title...)

It’s a circular argument. Though for someone omniscient, he contradicts himself later in “The God Delusion,” saying that religion must be an ‘accidental by-product’ of some otherwise useful evolutionary process. (p.188) However, 'accident' denotes malfunction of purpose. Hmmm. No purpose, purpose. Looks like Dawkins should stay out of meta-physics and theology. (Maybe I should to, come to think of it.)

Is this the case for all science? Certainly not. Do not think for one minute that is where we are going. Fundamentalists on both sides, atheist and religious alike, will start to make statements that the other is evil and should be done away with. That is precisely the attitude we are trying to dismiss. But before we start, we need to know that we are on a level playing field. Next time I'm going to tackle what religion can and cannot say as well, focusing largely on Christian theologians and apologetics and absolute existential statements made by both sides.

This introduction to Science has turned out to be more of an intro to logic, but we shall see that logic, religion, theology, psychology and world view will all play very heavily in the next few weeks’ discussions. Stay tuned and we will delve deeper through the mire! Feel free to ask questions anytime, criticize where you see mistakes (‘cause I make ‘em a bunch) or just join in the fun. The question forum is at the right or you can leave comments below!