Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
'the language in which discoveries ,insights, judgements and so on are mutually communicated must be meaningful independently of the particular individual who uses it' and 'any view that is liable that partiality comes from conscious or unconscious selection from the myriad of matters upon which opinion depends.'
Harre refers to the ideas of Feyerabend, and the objection that ''"Scientific rationality" may be no better, indeed it may be even worse, as a general ideology for regulating the relations of the people one to another and to the natural world than lay rationality'.
Within science there is a whole mythical level of thinking. In, 'The Myths We Live By', Mary Midgely points out how people 'often praise science for being value-free: objective, unbiased, neutral, a pure source of facts. Just as often they speak as being the only true source of values.
She queries the philosophy of reductionist materialism, as perpetuating a particular narrative of reality.
This thought is also present in Jeremy Griffith's, 'Freedom: The End of the Human Condition'. He points out that 'the very dangerous trap inherent in this mechanistic resigned to-living-in-denial- of- the- human- condition, fundamentally dishonest approach is so that it could become so entrenched that those practising it could resist the human- condition- confronting, truthful explanation of the human condition when it was finally found and continue to persevere with the dishonest strategy to the point of taking humanity to terminal alienation'. Here, he is speaking of the underlying rhetoric and narratives about human nature and worth. These involve assumptions in science and in the political structures supporting them.
So, this thread is aimed at looking at the way science depicts human nature. What does it mean to be human? How do the ways in which scientific knowledge are developed perpetuate ideas about humanity, its origins and significance?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
A worthy and practical aspiration, which we largely achieve already, in a general and approximate way. But that's probably as much as we can do to achieve this aim. Imagine a language with no ambiguity. It necessarily uses a different word for every different shade of meaning we might wish to express. This means an active vocabulary of many millions of words, and I don't think we could cope with that. Just think what would happen if you forgot the word you wanted to use? You would find it difficult to describe in terms of other words, for the word you want is unique, by definition, and any description of it would necessarily be approximate, ambiguous, and misleading.JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 25th, 2021, 12:37 pm I will begin by saying that this thread is not another one aimed to look at science and itd underlying values. One writer, Rom Harre, in, 'Varieties of Realism', suggests that, 'the language in which discoveries, insights, judgements and so on are mutually communicated must be meaningful independently of the particular individual who uses it'...
No, such a language, that sounds so practical when we start thinking about it, proves to be inescapably impractical. And so I choose to celebrate the ambiguity of our English language (and all other human languages), if only because I have little choice. This ambiguity also introduces the possibility of word-play, of playing with the assorted meanings that words can express, because of their delightful ambiguity. Sometimes, a double entendre is the best way to express our intended meaning! And then there's poetry....
JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 25th, 2021, 12:37 pm So, this thread is aimed at looking at the way science depicts human nature. What does it mean to be human? How do the ways in which scientific knowledge are developed perpetuate ideas about humanity, its origins and significance?
- Science depicts 'human nature' mechanistically, inasmuch as it depicts it at all. How could it do otherwise?
- What does it mean to be human? This is not a question that science can answer, or even consider.
- How do the ways in which scientific knowledge are developed, perpetuate ideas about humanity, its origins and significance? They don't. Except in a purely sociological way, given that science is a human invention, the "ways in which scientific knowledge is developed" have no effect or influence on "ideas about humanity, its origins and significance" that I can see. Science isn't that kind of tool. Philosophy is the tool you need for that, but it won't give us any certain conclusions, as science strives to do. This is not a failing; it stems directly from the fact that such speculations have no certain conclusions.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
I don't think that's so. Reason is "enabled" by serious thought, which science employs, just as philosophy does. Any non-trivial train of thought includes 'reason', I think, even if it is not exclusively reasonable.JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 10:02 am ...it is the case that science and technology enable reason and progress...
As for "progress", that lies in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
Of course the resulting theories and models will be caveated by the perceptual and cognitive limitations of the observers and the implications they draw. Individually, and as a species.
Now human nature isn't really physical in that way, but science can contribute by coming at it from different angles. The social sciences, psychology, neuroscience, evolution, anthropology. These can all help us understand human nature better. But really what we're talking about when we say human nature, is human conscious experience, the general similarities we share as humans. And science isn't well equipped to talk about the qualiative nature of conscious experience which is about meaning, value, purpose, goals,feelings, mattering - what it's like to experience being human, or a particular human, and what it means to flourish.
We use a different type of language and framing when it comes to the conscious aspect of being human, which is qualiative rather than quantitive, private rather than observable, and first-person subjective rather than third-person objectively falsifiable. It's less clear cut and harder to grapple with. But science can and should still inform our thinking on this. Science doesn't say anything which has to lead to a de-valuing of the human condition.
All we have to do is recognise the source of meaning and value lies in being a conscious, experiencing being, with a quality of life, which means it matters that we thrive. And that goes for other sentient species too. Science can't be the justification for that approach, but it can help or hinder in thriving.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
All scientific approaches to humanity are external. Disciplines such as sociology, and even neuroscience, produce knowledge and understanding equivalent to that which an alien observer might reach, after a suitably-long period of careful observation. There is no coverage of the subjective aspects of being human, because that isn't what science does, and it isn't what science is capable of doing.
The 'new age' concept of EQ comes close to what I'm getting at. If sociology is the 'IQ' version, it is the 'EQ' version that tells humans what they want to know - what they value - about being human. Understanding humans and humanity requires more than just statistics.
All IMO, of course.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
Yeah, I was trying to make that subjective/objective distinction at the beginning of my post.All scientific approaches to humanity are external. Disciplines such as sociology, and even neuroscience, produce knowledge and understanding equivalent to that which an alien observer might reach, after a suitably-long period of careful observation. There is no coverage of the subjective aspects of being human, because that isn't what science does, and it isn't what science is capable of doing.Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 6:17 am
Now human nature isn't really physical in that way, but science can contribute by coming at it from different angles. The social sciences, psychology, neuroscience, evolution, anthropology. These can all help us understand human nature better.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
Oh, OK. It's just that the bit I quote above seems to say something quite different. How can science "contribute" to the discussion of something wholly outside its purview? "Human nature" is not a topic to which science can be usefully applied, I don't think. The very concept of "human nature" is invisible to science, and unintelligible too. That's not a criticism of science, whose use and value are there for all to see. But no tool is applicable to all problems.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
I do think the soft sciences can tell us things about our mental nature, even though consciousness can't be third party observed and measured. You can just ask people what they think and feel about things, and you can observe behaviour. The soft sciences have come up with plenty of useful ideas about human nature, even tho they're objectively falsifiable. We each make such observations ourselves every day as we interact with others, share feelings, etc.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 12:55 pmOh, OK. It's just that the bit I quote above seems to say something quite different. How can science "contribute" to the discussion of something wholly outside its purview? "Human nature" is not a topic to which science can be usefully applied, I don't think. The very concept of "human nature" is invisible to science, and unintelligible too. That's not a criticism of science, whose use and value are there for all to see. But no tool is applicable to all problems.
And neuroscience has discovered neural corralation, which allows us to study physical brain functions which correlate with aspects of human nature, and even make medical interventions. Also to chart the history of human nature in terms of brain evolution, see how (and why in evolutionary terms) certain dispositions arose. For example understanding our tribal nature, which in modern societies can work against our shared interests. Or discovering brain plasticity, how learning and memory neural subsystems work, how childhood experience affects adult nature, etc.
There are plenty of useful things we can learn about human nature in these ways, which don't require direct observation and measurement of conscious states. That's what I was getting at. These things are intelligible in their own ways.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
The aim of sciences is to be able to make observations of the 'external' and I am not suggesting that this is not important. The empirical method gives a way of measuring and provides evidence. For example, in medicine there is a need for treatments to be viewed on the basis of evidence of effectiveness. However, there is a certain amount of subjective bias inherent in most aspects of science, in selection of criteria and interpretation of findings.The idea of human nature is invisible to science but it is likely to be in the minds of the scientists who develop theories and models.
As far as rationality it is not the only basis for understanding as feeling and intuition are important. However, it is considered important to be able to form rational arguments, in science. This is the part where philosophy meets science and in thinking about 'progress' and where science is going, that is where human values play a central part.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
The distinction between the hard sciences and soft sciences is extremely important. Within psychology in particular there is some argument whether it is a science or an art, especially as people can choose to study it as a BA or BSc. Courses can vary so much with an emphasis on different approaches, ranging from more of an emphasis on descriptive psychology and psychodynamic theory in arts based courses. Some science based courses are focused on experimental aspects. I know some people who chose to study science orientated courses because the BSc seemed to have more prestige. However, there is probably a lot more blending of the scientific and arts in the light of cognitive behavioral approaches. Also, it would be difficult now for arts based psychologists to ignore the findings of neuroscience.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 6:39 pm @Gertie
The distinction between the hard sciences and soft sciences is extremely important. Within psychology in particular there is some argument whether it is a science or an art, especially as people can choose to study it as a BA or BSc. Courses can vary so much with an emphasis on different approaches, ranging from more of an emphasis on descriptive psychology and psychodynamic theory in arts based courses. Some science based courses are focused on experimental aspects. I know some people who chose to study science orientated courses because the BSc seemed to have more prestige. However, there is probably a lot more blending of the scientific and arts in the light of cognitive behavioral approaches. Also, it would be difficult now for arts based psychologists to ignore the findings of neuroscience.
I didn't say the distinction is unimportant, my post pointed out the difficulties the physicalist scientific toolkit has in addressing consciousness specifically, which is key to human nature. I was trying to explicitly locate the nature of the underlying problem you had raised. The soft sciences are essentially working with clues as to the nature of consciousness, because consciousness can't be observed and measured the way physical stuff can. And we're having to create different types of models, theories and language to the physicalist ones, which aren't reliable in the ways third party (objective) testable physicalist ones are. But that doesn't mean they're useless, or understanding = de-valuing.
Reductionism isn't a problem as long as you give consciousness its due as the source of value, meaning, mattering and purpose in the world.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Science, Human Nature and Values: What is the Relationship?
I read this today, because Iost track of it during the holidays. So, I am a bit late in replying, but I am doing so if you or anyone else is still interested. I think that the point which I am trying to make about reductionism is that it is a way of seeing reality and consciousness. Sometimes, it may be seen as a concrete reality and scientists may think that they are coming to explanations as a form of objective truth, whereas it is interconnected with values as a source of perception that interpretation.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023