Submitted by CartesianClosedCat t3_y6mqg5 in philosophy
Comments
AndyDaBear t1_isq7zzf wrote
>as in the case of the increasingly clear negative personal and societal effects of, for instance, vaccine and climate change denialism.
Making the endorsement of a theory into a social virtue and its rejection into a moral crime is no part of science.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_isumo6t wrote
Are we sure about that? Isn't there an element of epistemic normativity (both in general, and in science in particular), i.e. a duty to follow the evidence and accept the proposal or model most consistent with the relevant evidence?
So it wouldn't be a moral duty or virtue to accept any particular theory (e.g. a duty to accept, say, general relativity), only to accept theories well-supported by the evidence (and conversely, to reject theories that have been empirically falsified).
AndyDaBear t1_isuvsd0 wrote
>So it wouldn't be a moral duty or virtue to accept any particular theory (e.g. a duty to accept, say, general relativity), only to accept theories well-supported by the evidence (and conversely, to reject theories that have been empirically falsified).
There is a moral duty to be completely open and honest about the evidence rather than be tempted to tweak it due to political and social pressures or for monetary gain or for fame and/or glory.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_isuyl6y wrote
Sure, but isn't there also some intellectual or epistemic normativity involved in what scientific proposals/models one accepts, depending on the strength of the evidence and whether the subject is aware of that body of evidence?
In other words, if you're presented with a body of evidence sufficient to establish a given scientific proposal to an acceptable degree of probability or certainty, do you then have an epistemic obligation or duty to endorse/accept that proposal (albeit provisionally, pending future evidence, as with any empirical or scientific matter of fact)? Put more succinctly, are there such things as epistemic duties or obligations? I don't think its self-evident that there are not or cannot be.
AndyDaBear t1_isv02f5 wrote
>In other words, if you're presented with a body of evidence sufficient to establish a given scientific proposal to an acceptable degree of probability or certainty, do you then have an epistemic obligation or duty to endorse/accept that proposal...
You are mixing things that are right with things that are not quite right.
Not everyone has a moral obligation to look at all bodies of evidence for all scientific theories. Each of us has a limited amount of time and expertise. The obligation to follow the evidence in a given area of scientific inquiry for practical reasons must fall to a limited number of professionals whom we are asked to trust to examine, explore, and to simplify the evidence for us.
It is the obligation of those professionals to follow the evidence though, even if it means being banned by those who put pressure on them to support a narrative.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_isv15ft wrote
>Not everyone has a moral obligation to look at all bodies of evidence for all scientific theories.
Sure, but that's not what I'm suggesting. The question is whether one has an epistemic or intellectual obligation to accept a given scientific proposal (or any proposition, in general) provided there is sufficient evidence supporting that proposal and one is aware of the evidence. The hypothetical obviously doesn't apply to situations where one isn't aware of the relevant evidence.
So again, the question is whether there is such a thing as an epistemic duty or obligation: are we under any normative obligation to accept a proposition (or scientific proposal) when we are in possession of sufficient evidence for that proposition? Or does anything go, as far as the morality or normativity of belief is concerned?
AndyDaBear t1_isvel6a wrote
I am sorry, but to me it comes across like you are pushing a false dichotomy.
Specifically it seems you insist I either:
- nod along and say "yes" to your own language about what this moral obligation is including elastic concepts like "normative obligation" which I suspect you will eventually let me know the meaning of after I pre-agree to it.
- Reject that there is any moral obligation of honesty in science, other than of course the one that you wish to keep control of defining.
iiioiia t1_iszdamv wrote
Such things don't exist in base nature, they only exist within human culture.
Also, there's more involved than just evidence, there is also the element of trust. If I believe myself to have reason to not trust a person or an organization, it will modify how I consider "the" evidence - the point of the quotation marks being that what is often referred to as "the" evidence is usually only a subset of all evidence, and typically seems to not take into consideration that what evidence exists is a function of what evidence was looked for, or discarded.
QuietNewApplication t1_isrj3oh wrote
That is fine, when theory means theory in the colloquial sense, but scientific theory is a not a mere theory.
It is not necessarily a "moral crime" to accept scientific theories (not mere theories) like evolution and gravity, it does certainly signal either willful ignorance, plain ignorance or social/political choices to actively reject scientific theory. The only one that probably ought not be judged, at the very least, as a social problem, is actual ignorance.
AndyDaBear t1_isrt9c5 wrote
You seem to be implying that scientific theories are all necessarily of a high epistemic weight. If so, this is not remotely true. Most scientific theories turn out to be false or at the least only partially right. If this were not the case no more research would be necessary.
PrimePhilosophy t1_issb6o6 wrote
A scientific theory is only a scientific theory if you are allowed to question it...
AllanfromWales1 t1_isq9zfs wrote
Dreadful example of excluded middle here. To say 'science' is perfect and 'pseudoscience' is completely wrong is reductionist in the extreme. And the consequence of that reductionism is to create false dichotomies between peoples and groups, when a search for common ground would be a much more fruitful strategy for all concerned.
[deleted] t1_isq1twy wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_isrln5t wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
PrimePhilosophy t1_issaqqy wrote
"increasingly clear negative personal and societal effects of, for instance, vaccine and climate change denialism."
Aaand that's where they lose credibility for espousing dogmatic views compounded by mass hysteria.
[deleted] t1_isq2kzo wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_isrln21 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
verstohlen t1_isq7gd7 wrote
The Replication Crisis isn't helping either.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_isrlqpg wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
JoostvanderLeij t1_isq5evi wrote
Denialism = unscientific instead of pseudoscience. Pseudescience =
(1) it is not scientific, and
(2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.
Without (2) it can't be pseudoscience.
Only if someone denies theory XYZ because of ABC and claims ABC is scientific while ABC is unscientific, only then Denialism = pseudoscience.
So outright denying XYZ is a science is unscientific but not pseudoscience. Denying XYZ is a science on religious grounds is unscientific, but not pseudoscience.