This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20090730
Why Univironmental Determinism is "One-sided"
To obtain public funds, philosophy departments must spend valuable time presenting all sides of each issue. As a private entity, the Progressive Science Institute is not required to do that (yet). In my opinion, strictly scientific philosophy must espouse determinism (the assumption that all effects have material causes) and avoid indeterminism (the assumption that some effects may not have material causes). If you find that I have overtly included elements of indeterminism or have "balanced my scale with the religious," then I will have failed in presenting scientific philosophy. As mentioned many times before, there is a constant struggle between science and religion. Because religion is still overwhelmingly powerful, most philosophy attempts some kind of compromise or "peace process" that mixes elements to satisfy the prejudices of both. However, as a scientist, my goal is truth, not eternal life. From the scientific perspective the only thing that can be eternal is the infinite universe itself even though each of its separate parts has a beginning and an end. And, as I showed in TSW, there are ways to have a truly balanced viewpoint within the confines of determinism.
20090722
Needs and the Principle of Least Effort
If I understand correctly, in TSW you describe a need (in the univironmental context) as something that is achieved with the least amount of motion (equilibrium). The satisfied need (a change in the univironment) results in a change in behavior. However, I am confused by those who exhibit the "need" to achieve certain goals that would seem to exceed "the least amount of motion." For instance, people who push themselves to extremes: skydivers, thrill seekers, or even monks who test the limits of their endurance. Have I misunderstood the concept of need and behavior?
Frederic Frees
Frederic:
Thanks for the question. You are not the only one. This is from one of the reviewers of TSW: “Some of Borchardt’s particulars are not as universal as he implies—for instance, “all our planning is motivated by the desire to minimize human effort”…” http://scientificphilosophy.com/reviews.htm This is what I wrote in response:
“[Note that the reviewer missed a major point of the book in the first part of the last sentence. Univironmental determinism concludes that “all our planning is motivated by the desire to minimize human effort" by including both the microcosm (the individual) and the macrocosm (the environment) in the analysis. The well-known Principle of Least Effort, like Newton's First Law of Motion, assumes that microcosms, like Newton's inertial objects, cannot, by themselves, increase their motion beyond that which they already possess. That also would be a violation of Conservation, the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed. Thus, whenever human effort does not appear to be minimized, one can be sure that important factors have been ignored. I may not take the shortest path to the store because my brain contains the idea (matter in motion) that some extra exercise is good for me.]”
When I am flying down a double black diamond slope at Squaw Valley every molecule in my body is moving at the velocity allowed by the univironment. The fact that my brain thinks this is a good thing to do must be included in any scientific analysis of why I do it. The enjoyment of the exhilaration and the beauty of the mountain is a need for me in almost the same way that I need food. Those little synapses just keep firing away across those old familiar pathways until I spend the cash and go up that mountain. The “feeling of freedom” derived from such activities must not be missed. What I can’t do is to follow a “principle of greatest effort”—an imagined instance in which I could expend more calories than I have in my body or that are available to me in my immediate surroundings. In other words, we never can do activities that are physically or mentally impossible no matter how much “free will” we think we have.
The deterministic Principle of Least Effort was first described in detail by Zipf (1949), who appropriately modeled it after the Principle of Least Action in physics. It became popular in library science (Mann, 1987), where its use in information seeking is rather obvious: find the answer in the nearest book and go home. In sociology, the struggle between determinism and indeterminism is not always lost by the determinists (e.g., Harris, 1979), but the popularity of the “free will” doctrine does its damage there as it does throughout society. Whenever we believe that there are no mechanical causes for action, we cease to look for them.
One neat thing about the Principle of Least Action is that the harder it is to apply, the more useful it becomes. Whenever people go out of their way to expend great effort to achieve some goal, we may inquire as to their “motivation.” “Motive,” like “motility,” implies something in motion. If we can find out what that is, we can either sponsor it or discourage it. Great achievers must have a stronger motivation or “drive” than any of their achievements. To claim, instead, that motivation is a manifestation of an acausal free will is a total copout leaving us without answers to the biggest questions.
It is sometimes good to check one’s own motivation, as I started to do in my blog of 8/21/07:
Why me?
From a reader and his brother:
"Your book is epic. We're still wondering how YOU came up with it or did some advanced alien actually write it!"
Thanks for the kind words. Actually, no aliens were harmed during the making of The Scientific Worldview (TSW). Some were contemplated, but readily dismissed for lack of physical evidence. Being on the same page, however, you and your brother probably have come across many of the same inputs that I experienced. The trick was to keeping moving, not getting bogged down in an all-consuming career that would allow little time for drawing stuff together. Another factor was my lack of indoctrination in conventional philosophy, combined with my disappointment with the inability of the Missouri Synod to handle the contradictions posed by science. Fundamentalism tends to force one to make either/or choices--a thread that clearly is evident in The Ten Assumptions of Science (TTAOS) and TSW. I suppose that I could be accused of being a "scientific fundamentalist" by those who would rather mix and match so as not to be upset by the contradictions posed by present views. I would rather be known as the most radical scientific philosopher instead.
References:
Harris, M., 1979, Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture: New York, Random House, 381 p.
Mann, T., 1987, A Guide to Library Research Methods: New York, Oxford University Press, 224 p.
Zipf, G.K., 1949, Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology: Cambridge, MA, Addison-Wesley, 573 p.
20090715
Does Philosophy Make You a Better Scientist?
“This is all well and good, but we must remember that it is impossible to teach someone anything that his job requires him not to know. If physicists and cosmologists really understood the philosophy behind quantum mechanics, relativity, and the Big Bang Theory, they would have to look elsewhere for employment.”
My analysis was based on the fact that the strange goings on in modern physics are solidly based on the philosophy of idealism, which is inherent in the works of all the philosophers cited in the discussion. There was hardly a hint that there might be a problem with that approach. In particular, there was no discussion of how and when to drop the ideality and replace it with materialism. Previously, I have been reluctant to criticize idealism because it definitely has its place in science. I use mathematical idealism and ideal models in my professional work all the time. These idealizations, however, should be slaves to science, not the other way around as in modern physics. For instance, we can invent more than three dimensions, but that does not give existence to more than x, y, z dimensions. We need to be able to distinguish clearly between the real and the ideal.
The discussion so far has lacked a recognition of the importance of the philosophical struggle that has taken place in science in relation to the one in the greater society. In “The Ten Assumptions of Science” and “The Scientific Worldview” I framed that struggle, not as a battle between materialism and idealism, but as the opposition between determinism and indeterminism. I did this to establish a modern determinism (univironmental determinism) as the philosophical goal for scientists as well as for those interested in the scientific worldview. We can discard indeterminism altogether, but we can never discard idealism. We just need to put it in its proper place.
20090709
Why do you use the term "scientific philosophy" instead of "philosophy of science"?
However, in view of the numerous silly so-called "scientific" hypotheses we suffer today (time as a dimension, banging universes, etc.), it is obvious that working scientists need to improve their theoretical foundations. Today's philosophy of science is a mishmash of conflicting presuppositions that have been of little help in cleaning up the theoretical mess left over from the 20th century. Perhaps by using the less popular term "scientific philosophy" we can at least put science first literally if not actually.
20090702
What is the meaning of curiosity in scientific attitude?
Yet, cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a
beginning) still believe all that stuff exploded out of nothing (or a “singularity,”
as the venerable Professor Hawking mathematized). But, as
soon as the first fuzz ball in the night sky was proven to be a galaxy containing
a trillion stars, similar to our own Sun, we had a choice:
1. The
universe exploded out of nothing, or
2. The
universe is infinite.
Neither of those can be completely proven, in the same way
our scientific faith that there are “causes for all effects” cannot be
completely proven. Infinity requires us to make assumptions.
While each thing in the universe had a beginning, the material for constructing
each of those things had to come from somewhere else. That is what the 2nd
choice provides us. The 1st choice is traditional and amounts to the
last gasp of creationism, a myopic construct centered on our pre-Copernican
selves.
Curiosity involves an inquiry outside oneself. The scientific “attitude” is based on the assumption that the truth may be known through observation and experiment. Dr. Chris Drew considers it the primary human instinct:
The seeking instinct is the instinct within all humans that make us want to explore. It’s built into us because it has evolutionary benefits: by seeking, we find food, shelter, and water. It helps us sustain ourselves. However, we can temporarily pause this instinct during times of fear and depression.
The nonscientific attitude is the belief
that truth already is known or that it may be known in ways that do not involve
interacting with the external world. The scientific attitude is inherently
progressive-and dangerous. The statement “Curiosity killed the cat” is not
without wisdom. On the other hand, without interacting with the outside world,
nothing gets done. Each step, each bite of food, is an “ex”-periment. The
upshot: We are all scientists.
One way to avoid the problems caused by curiosity is to look
the other way, like the cosmogonists do. Any examination of the external world
will challenge your religious faith while augmenting your scientific faith. Better you should look the other way. Pope
Francis sums up the religious viewpoint:
Photo Credit: Nacho Arteaga in Unsplash.
Excerpts from the Pope’s radio address in 2013 as
reported by Laura Ieraci:
“…we find ourselves before another spirit,
contrary to the wisdom of God: the spirit of curiosity. …The spirit of
curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom. …And the spirit of curiosity
is not a good spirit. It is the spirit of dispersion, of distancing oneself
from God, the spirit of talking too much. …this spirit of curiosity, which is
worldly, leads us to confusion. …do not seek strange things, do not seek
novelties with this worldly curiosity.”
The “confusion” alluded to here is an enduring problem for
immaterialists who nonetheless must live in the material world. Would be
solipsists expect contact with the world to produce contradictions and
paradoxes. Like those who still believe the universe exploded out of nothing,
they have learned to live with the cognitive dissonance triggered by curiosity.
The alternative is to stifle the engine of science at an early age. ”Dr.” Joyce Meyer leads the battle:
Photo credit: Joyce Meyer.
The “battle” here amounts to the one between education and
miseducation. It shows up whenever reality is
dismissed in favor of dreams and imaginings. It shows up every time there
is a fascist demand to ban books that might upset the political/religious
applecart. It shows up when students are cloistered to prevent their
interactions with the external world. It shows up when xenophobia attempts to
prevent contact with people who are different. It shows up when a scientific
paradigm allows no criticism from outsiders or upstarts from within the ranks.
But, in the end, it is a losing battle. No portions of the
universe are completely isolated from the environment — including the people
within any particular portion. As the human population grows, interactions with
the external world become ever more intense, and therefore increasingly
scientific. Humanity’s curiosity and penchant for observation and experiment is
progressive. In the long run, the regression demanded by the Pope and by Meyer
is not possible. What we have seen cannot be unseen.
The myopism of the current cosmology is only a phase. Today, each examination of the universe adds trillions more cosmological objects, with no end in sight. Humanity’s curiosity, like the universe, knows no bounds.