Bas Ball
... of the sciency kind, not the cricket red leather cherry flavoured kind
Bas van Frassen came up on ToE here . I’ve never really liked the thinking of van Frassen and his intellectual side-kick Paul Feyerabend, however, they do have very good and interesting things to say at times, like my 3 year old nephew.🤣
Especially good is Feyerabend. The actual social messy business of “Science” is in fact a darn anarchic cesspit, but the glory of it all is that out of the madness we get some genuine gems.
That’s Feyerabend minus the cynicism.
However, after listening to van Frassen chat to Curt I find I don’t mind most of his view know. Perhaps I’ve changed. I’ve always though of the core of science output as models, and models are not reality. But this misses almost everything that matters —why we do science, and what the models illuminate, and so much more.
Still, the introductory bit rubbed me the wrong way.
Van Frassen: “Science” is only the models, and “empirical adequacy.”
What van Frassen seems to do in the Clickbait version is dump a pile of poop on all science by claiming science is not revealing any truth. He is just plain wrong about that, imho. Why? Because he is taking a dim narrow view of the meaning of the word “Science,” a view that is so impoverished it neglects the main animating force of all science, which is the human spirit (or soul, or … whatever … do not ask me what it is, for I do not know, I just know it “is a thing,” and probably non-physical1).
((Me here? Just giving you a different point of view.))
Even before he got started with Curt, I had something to say, which does not auger well for my free time today.
Curt mentions in the Intro that van Frassen thinks science does not reveal truths, and “science just aims for empirical adequacy, full stop.”
Right. But empirical adequacy is a damn good guide to the truth about the nature of reality. You can argue it is not strictly the profession of “science” per se that adds the insight into true reality, but you cannot deny the empirical and model theoretic aspects are a good guide — what does this job is the human soul. There may or may not be a 4D spacetime as the bedrock of our physical universe, but science reveals that this is probably the case, or something close to it — 4D but with compactified CY dimensions … whatever. It’s just thoroughly dim and dopey (I think) to think we thereby gain no knowledge whatsoever of the nature of the fabric of physical reality.
The problem is getting some certainty about what is revealed. Science increases our certainty about some general concepts, some abstract ideas, but does not give us 100% confidence, even in the abstractions. But that’s not too bad. If you want 100% go join a cult. Heck, I’d even take a 1% improvement on what I could guess about yesterday.
It is easy to see science makes progress in this regard, for what view of reality do you get without heed to science? The answer is, “a lot less” of a view. Impoverishment.
Anyhow, this is all before I got past the one minute mark. So I guess I should make a cuppa tea and hear out what van Frassen has to say that I did not already know. But if all he’s going to say amounts to “science is not perfect” then I’m going to be extremely ꘝꕯꕷꕷꗍꕒ wasting my lunchtime on this episode.
Science should not be split and regarded only in operational aspects. Science is a spiritual endeavour.
Dirtbag Physicist counterpoint:
“… all this stuff about quarks, spacetime, … is just supererogatory, not the goal.” — this is nuts 🥜🥜🍌. Of course it is the goal!! But I can agree with Feyerabend or van Frassen that strict science does not get us the goal. The key thing is though, that science helps us towards this goal, which is why many of us do science … for no pay sometimes.
In the times we live in I feel this is extremely important. It is not a crisis that science has been neoliberalized, it is 𝖍☉ℾℾⅈ⨎ⅈ⋐ and also by the way 𝖍𝖔𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖋𝖎𝖈. But nothing of such political nature is irreversible.
The saddest thing sometimes is the situation in your own family. Some in my extended family think we need “the profit motive” in Arts & Sciences. “For,” they will say, “otherwise how are we to keep these people honest? Gotta make them make a buck!”
This is deep neoliberalization. When people say dumb ꕷꖾꕯꖡ and do not even know it, like, “Me (counterfeited) tax dollars are payin’ for it!”
{Government spending funds the tax payers, not the other way around.}
Let me tell you, if you can find any scientist person anywhere who is conducting their science for the pay check, then I can show you a person who is not truly a scientist. “Doing science” is not “being a scientist.”
Doing science for just a pay check is like the fire-fighter who is an arsonist. It is like a priest who preaches sermons for the ego-power. It is like a rocket scientist saying we need to get to Mars to save the Earth. It is like the politician who is a servant of the oligarchy. These people we can do without.
To all the true scientists, those who seek truth and are willing to do tedious scientific work to guide us, we should reward you handsomely with public funds so that they are not begging for engineering work from some ꕷꖾꕯꖡꖡꔇ oil company, M.I.C. outfit or spy agency, Wall Street traders, or the like. For who should care if they do not make a profit? When they buy groceries they are funding the tax payers. So if there actual science seems legitimate inquiry but will eventually lead nowhere, I could not give a monkey’s uncle. If I knew ahead of time they’d be making technological breakthroughs then I’d be some sort of god, so again could not give a monkey’s uncle.
Metaphysics Slop
Bas protests too much I think about metaphysics. But I quite like his view that professional metaphysics is just a nonsense word-game, and generates Its own problem, so is worthy of disregard.
But we could apply the exact same reasoning about van Frassen’s “constructive empiricism.” Who cares what van Frassen thinks “Science” is “doing.” That’s also word games. The reality is, I think, Science is doing an awful lot, Its people doing all sorts of weird and wonderful, sometimes dangerous things, just of a qualitatively different character to say fictional art or ballet or whatever.
There is however a humble metaphysics, and for Bas perhaps, a humble theology. He says he is a Catholic, but does not take theology seriously. But you cannot escape theology. An atheist in particular cannot either! Atheists are deeply theological people (the Negative template — political science term, but it can apply here).
The humble metaphysics is that of everyday life. It is one where we dream and imagine, ponder the wonders of the cosmos and question whether there is anything beyond, sometimes thinking, “Yes, of course!” but refusing to say “I am right, and this is how things are!” This is what we can reject, and if that is all Bas was rejecting then I’m with him in spirit.
Aim of Science?
Bas thinks the aim is merely to produce “empirically adequate models.”
I say haellno! This dehumanizes Science.
@9:40 no? I think I strongly disagree. Science is not merely “what scientists do.” For a start, what defines the noun “scientist”? Second, what about their motives? The science and the scientist converge on motive — which is never just model-building, it is in fact the desire to uncover universal truths (a model is just one way of grasping). The humble and true scientist will recognize the scientific methods they employ are not the sole tools, nor infallible, but they are at least somewhat self-correcting. That’s why we do science (most of us who are unpaid or underpaid in any case).
Bas seems to want to tease apart the operational aspects of science (what is done) from the spiritual aspects (why we do it for little or no compensation), but the two are inseparable. If you can find someone “doing science” only for a pay check you have found a non-scientist.
Much like most priests and clergy — deeply non-religious people, to their bones. (My sincere apologies to the few good ones.)
Science proper is a deeply spiritual activity. If not then it is metaphysically incomplete (akin to “shut-up-and-calculate” non-ethos ethos).
Then Bas notes his mentor, Wilfrid Sellars had a different view to his (Bas’) empiricism, more along the lines that Science is seeking universal truths.
I’d agree Wilfrid Sellars there is over-reaching. The motive is to seek universal truth. But the output of science can never perfectly be this, I would hazard. So what is the “aim” of science? Is it the output or the motive or different? Well, does it not depend on the person? The “aim” can be either. Science per se is not a thinking entity, so has no aim. The individual scientist is the thing which has some aim. Any further broader “social aim” (say for funding considerations) is also decided by people, usually in committees, but they are groups of people, not a self-perpetuating system called “science.”
More later on the Achronon website if I get further triggered.
The Dutch are very weird in my view. Completely mad sometimes, sometimes wonderful, sometimes damn annoying.
And who the 𝖍𝖊𝖑𝖑 are you to tell me otherwise? You can just ꘝꕯꕷꕷ off with your physicalism back to the dirt from whence you came. (oo0ps, I did not write that, it slipped out of my keyboard.)