Proper scientific method positivism makes metaphysical claims, but it sets out from the dismissal of the metaphysical and try to show its own truth by opposing itself to strawmen, i.e. metaphysicians. All positivists are metaphysicians, and no metaphysician should be given too much control over what anyone believes.
If your theories are based in explicit metaphysical statements, even if those statements are just something like "Metaphysics is nonsense" or "No metaphysical statement is either true or false," you should confine these claims to philosophy (i.e. the discourse which leads us to the things which are) and not bring metaphysics into anything else. Metaphysics cannot be supported or refuted except by metaphysics.
Two principles, summarized
1) Claims about metaphysical claims are themselves metaphysical claims
2) Metaphysical claims made by anti-metaphysicians can be ignored
Positivism dismisses metaphysics in general.
This is incoherent.
1. Positivism dismisses metaphysical statements as nonsensical or neither true nor false.
2. If (1) then positivism makes metaphysical claims.
3. Therefore positivism makes metaphysical claims.
By the first principle, positivism is making metaphysical claims. By the second principle, we can ignore everything positivism says about metaphysics.
YOU'VE CONVINCED ME YOU ARE AMAZING GOOD JOBBBBBBB
This is cool and all, but I'd expect any /his/torian to know this. Doubt you'd find some Dawkins or Harris lover on here.
>>865071
>1) Claims about metaphysical claims are themselves metaphysical claims
This isn't obvious and needs defending. This doesn't apply in analogous cases. For instance, the claim "phrenological claims are universally false" is not a phrenological claim, it is a claim ABOUT phrenology, not a claim WITHIN phrenology.
>>866041
Dawkins biology is good, the God Delusion is just meant for normies.
>posting about positivism
>2017
>>866076
>Dawkins biology is good
Sure, but he shouldn't have started meddling in other fields that he doesn't understand.
>the God Delusion is just meant for normies.
I don't really think Redditors qualify as normies.
Science isn't real, in the sense that science for the most part doesn't pursue truth and generally only interacts with truth accidentally (laws of thermo being the prime example). Forgetting this nuance hurts science.
>>866099
Well his job after being a proper evolutionary biologist was Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. If that's not books for normies then I don't know what is.
>>866099
>I don't really think Redditors qualify as normies.
Sure they do. Maybe slightly more towards the weird end of the scale, but still normies. Anyway reddit's gone into full reaction mode lately and is mostly militantly anti militant atheist now.
>>866111
Ah, well he didn't do a very good job at understanding his audience then.
Also, nice dub-trips.
>>866111
As a chemist, most biologists absolutely lack critical thinking skills. This is a consequence of how one must learn biology.
>>866114
>and is mostly militantly anti militant atheist now
That's mostly only against /r/atheism though. I'm sure most of them still admire Dawkins, Harris, Tyson, et al
>>866121
Have you got any problem with the Selfish Gene or the Extended Phenotype?
>>866121
Why do you think that is?
>>866121
>chemists
>analytical skills
Pick one, you memorising autist
>>866121
This is sorta off-topic, but what's your opinion on this Dawkins quote:
>I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientistssuch as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it's tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.
>>866129
Because, due to how information dense biology is, most of the entirety of learning it consists completely of memorizing information. They get good at this at the expense of building analytical/critical thinking skills. Many advancements in things like biochemistry were made by people who weren't straight biology for this reason (Linus Pauling being a good example).
For this reason, I'm always a bit wary about what someone with a background in biology says about topics outside their field (and sometimes in their field as well).
>>866132
I'm a physical chemist for the most part. I don't memorize anything.
>>866136
>most of the entirety of learning it consists completely of memorizing information
That's a meme
>>866138
I had a conversation about this with a biologist coworker of mine today actually. He told me the only thing he actually learned in undergrad was how to memorize things. He didn't actually learn biology; instead he memorized a system of numbers and letters that corresponded to particular bits of information in his notes. He still doesn't know biology.
>>866135
Before I answer or even read the quote, I'm going to state for the record that I'm not an atheist.
That being said, I think this is how Dawkins thinks about religion, or rather how he understands religious feelings. These sorts of things are indeed profound and I suppose sublime. This is not how I view religion however. Or maybe a better word would be God.
>>866139
How long ago did he study biology? To me It seems to be shifting towards a more ecological focus, some aspects of biology certainly have a greater need for memorising, but even a taxonomist would need to understand evolution.
>>866147
Thank you for your insight.
Would you consider yourself part of a religion, or some sort of deist?
>>866154
Evidently it is possible to turn the field of biology into pointless memorization without understanding enough to get a bachelor's degree in it without actually learning it. And I think he's still in it and finishing his final semester or some such thing.
>>866157
Neither. Kind of. I am a fundamentalist christian to the point that I am not really described by a denomination. And I mean fundamentalist in the true sense of the word.
While we're on this sort of related subject, I don't believe in evolution for two epistemologic reasons:
1.) Evolution is a scientific model, not a belief system, and attributing belief to it doesn't make sense.
2.) Evolution is somewhat poor as far as scientific models go, because it is purely descriptive instead of descriptive and predictive (as compared to something like newton's laws, which are descriptive and predictive).
There are also some entropic issues that I don't feel are fully explained with the model (not second law stuff, before someone accuses me of that fallacy). Overall though it seems to be useful to biologists, and hence should be preserved until another model is proposed or it is refined.
>>866190
>I don't believe in evolution
It sounds like this is influencing your opinion on biology itself?
You might have heard pic related before.
>Ernst Mayr stated: "On the other hand, famous evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God."[13] Dobzhansky himself spoke of God as creating through evolution, and considered himself a communicant of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
>>866190
>Neither. Kind of. I am a fundamentalist christian to the point that I am not really described by a denomination. And I mean fundamentalist in the true sense of the word.
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
>2.) Evolution is somewhat poor as far as scientific models go, because it is purely descriptive instead of descriptive and predictive (as compared to something like newton's laws, which are descriptive and predictive).
I also have some epistemological qualms with evolution, but this isn't one. It has made predictions that have been confirmed. For example, the nested hierarchy of species.
>>866209
No, my point was epistemological in nature. It's like saying "I believe in Newton's universal law of gravity."
Also it's not a good model. Not because it isn't necessarily correct, but because it's not really predictive. To be fair though, this is sort of the dividing line between what are considered hard and soft sciences. I don't think you can really get a predictive theory of evolution anyway, because the conditions under which the model purports to operate are longer than the entirety of the human race.
Part of my opinion on biology is from annoyance at trying to discuss things with biologists and finding them functionally incapable of it (before you ask, not evolution, things in general). Part of it is remembering how painful biochem was my senior year.
>>866236
I mean predictive in the sense that you can't put a mouse in a jar and watch it evolve into another species over eons. A predictive model of the origins of multicellular species is probably not possible anyway.
And I mean I believe in the fundamentals of what christianity is as per its scriptures. This is actually sort of influenced by using science, in that I view the subjects of models in much the same way as theological interpretation. Dogmatic interpretation is an attempt for men to understand scripture in the same sense that science is an attempt for men to understand physical reality. All men are generally wrong in both respects, it's just a question of how wrong.
>>866244
>To be fair though, this is sort of the dividing line between what are considered hard and soft sciences
I personally don't like his dichotomy, but some aspects of biology could be called soft science if divided like this. But between genetics (nested hierarchy of species and clades) and the fossil record it seems well supported to me, but sure all the particular aspects of how evolution operates aren't completely understand, but I highly doubt that something as major as the transition from Lamarckian theory to Darwinian to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis will occur again, more so refinements of our understanding.
>>866276
I think the best divider would be whether or not the science is predictive.
As far as the next refinement goes, to me it seems they have missed the driving mechanism behind genetic changes beyond simple random mutations. It's a sort of "impossible except for the fact that it is happening" phenomenon to me. I don't think natural selection alone would be enough to account for things like changes in number of base pairs and that if this is indeed the case there is an emergent property of the biological system itself driving these changes.
But this is me rambling at this point, and I need to sleep soon. Errands to run and such tomorrow.
>>866276
woops
*this. *understood.
>>866051
Phrenology is not like metaphysics. Phrenology is in principle falsifiable. Metaphysics isn't.
>>866190
>2.) Evolution is somewhat poor as far as scientific models go, because it is purely descriptive instead of descriptive and predictive (as compared to something like newton's laws, which are descriptive and predictive).
>evolution is not predictive
What the fuck?
You mean, ignoring facts like the prediction of the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterium, or even Darwin's own prediction of a freaky moth with a super long nozzle that wasn't observed for a century after his death?
>>865071
>1. Positivism dismisses metaphysical statements as nonsensical or neither true nor false.
>2. If (1) then positivism makes metaphysical claims.
>3. Therefore positivism makes metaphysical claims.
Explain how is the claim metaphysical rather than an example of Ockham razor
>positivism is wrong
Literally no reason to think this.
>>867122
It refers to metaphysics. If positivists were going for an Occam's razor type thing, they wouldn't mention metaphysics at all in their theories. Having to deal with metaphysics at all adds unnecessary complications to the execution of the scientific method.
>>867160
So as long as positivist ignore metaphysics it's all ok, but when they tell that they're ignoring it because it's senseless as it treats subjects which should be cut by Occam's razor they're suddenly absolutely wrong about everything since they're metaphysics now?
Sounds pretty dumb.
>>867091
>Phrenology is in principle falsifiable. Metaphysics isn't.
Metaphysics is absolutely falsifiable, depending on your methodology.
If I, for instance, say, which Aristotle did, that the whole natural order is governed by a principle of goals, i.e the goal of a potato seed is to become a potato, e.g some form of teleology in nature, then I am arguing for a metaphysical state in nature, which is absolutely falsifiable, and it was falsified by evolutionary theory.
>>867195
Not really. Don't take this as a disagreement from my side, but a teleology propagator can always just say whatever the end result is was the goal, even though it might seem completely arbitrary and unguided.
>>867175
>So as long as positivist ignore metaphysics it's all ok
That's right.
>which should be cut by Occam's razor
Several things.
1. Please reread my post.
2. Why should anyone act as if Occam's razor is a principle of logic? It's just an assertion William of Occam made and which is conducive to the scientific method. To reiterate my basic point, yelling about this kind of thing just distracts from the proper application of scientific method.
I'm not kidding. I don't understand why people give Occam's razor such priority when they choose to do it. It doesn't seem like a very useful or interesting principle.
>>867213
Sure, but if he does, he is at least admitting that he isn't actually looking for any true representation of how reality functions, and is clearly just biased.
At least that's how I see it. If he can't admit that there is a string of arguments, or evidence that can change his mind, he's not really interested in what the truth is imo.
>>867213
>whatever the end result is was the goal
What if the 'end result' changes? Feathers didn't initially evolve for flight.
>>867195
>which is absolutely falsifiable, and it was falsified by evolutionary theory.
Evolution is not a teleological process, though. And you're wrong, nothing about this is falsifiable except the becoming of the seed. The teleology is not falsifiable.
desu, I don't see why either side would agree with your post.
>>867244
>Evolution is not a teleological process, though.
Which is why I said natural teleology was falsifiable by it.
>nothing about this is falsifiable except the becoming of the seed.
Which is the essence of the whole. If the teleology isn't true about the seed and the potato, then it isn't true for anything else either.
>>867229
Any point in time can be regarded as an end result for any previous point in time. So in that case animals would exist to evolve feathers, and feathers would evolve in order to later be used in flight (or not), or some nonsense like that.
Again, I don't subscribe to this, but this is the kind of argument you can expect, especially on this board.
>>867225
Agreed.
>>867250
>If the teleology isn't true about the seed and the potato,
>teleology
Why are we even talking about this? This isn't something you can scientifically test for, not according to anything I've seen. Can you propose a method to prove that it exists?
