Reference frames for scientific debates

[Dr B]

There are lots of interesting debates and arguments going on in this Forum – which is good considering it is a debating Forum! However, I do feel that from time to time many people forget what the nature of some of the arguments are and what the nature of the information / criticisms needs to be.

You can think of it as a ‘reference-frame’ if you will – which refers to the nature and scope of the debate / argument. From this, certain reference-frames are exempt from certain forms of criticism (in my opinion).

For example, if someone said “I believe in a god – I cannot prove it, cannot provide evidence for it, but it is my personally held belief and part of my spirituality” the criticism “ah but what’s the evidence” seems out of place. The reason being the individual has not necessarily made a claim of scientific truth – so why do they need evidence? I guess the point is, if no one is claiming that their beliefs are factual, has evidential merit, or rivals the scientific model / view of the world – their views are irrelevant to science (because they are not making scientific arguments).

Only when these people then try to claim provisional, factual truths of the world – which seek to rival science, without furnishing those claims with evidence / facts / etc is there a problem. This is the line which Creationists and I.D. subscribers cross.

I feel that many watching the arguments between scientists and believers (all sorts of believers) come away with the impression that scientists are arguing against the notion of belief, or your right to hold one. This is not true at all. It is not even true of people like Dawkins – from I can tell. Do others feel that sometimes these ‘reference-frames’ of debates get lost in the argument itself? Does any of this make sense to you?

[Zaira]

Guidelines are good and so is being reminded of them, from time to time. Don't really know how much my opinion is worth but yes I do think the water can get a bit muddy at times. And yes it makes perfect sense and leaves me feeling quite relieved that I wasn't the only one thinking that.

[Dr B]

Indeed.

I think the trick is, to always ask yourself, what type of claim or argument is someone making. If its a philosophical point - then the debate should remain philosophical, if its a metaphysical / spiritual one then the same applies. However, this does not mean one can claim what they want within those arguments and ignore science, logic, and reason altogether. I usually find that many Woo's think they are talking about their beliefs - but are actually trying to make sweeping factual (and unfounded) claims. In these instances, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that a line has been crossed and so the rule of engagement (:cheesy:) change.

I agree that there are practical limitations to this view - but it does have merit - at least for me.

O0

[brianp]

I feel that many watching the arguments between scientists and believers (all sorts of believers) come away with the impression that scientists are arguing against the notion of belief, or your right to hold one. This is not true at all. It is not even true of people like Dawkins – from I can tell. Do others feel that sometimes these ‘reference-frames’ of debates get lost in the argument itself? Does any of this make sense to you?

I have no problem at all with believers believing whatever they choose in the privacy of their own minds, but I do have a problem with the indoctrination of children and to a lesser extent with evangelizing in general. And sadly it is in the nature of most believers to do both. I also have a problem with believers attacking science - and sadly there is an increasing tendency in some quarters to do just that.

Children raised to believe that "evidence" means the contents of some ancient text and "inquiry" means searching said text for quotations to support the latest prejudice of some preacher or pontiff are likely to find scientific and objective inquiry difficult to understand let alone accept. If they believe that science is evil they won't even try.

I think that science and science education are extremely important, so to the extent that "belief" impedes these pursuits, I'm dead against it. But, of course, anyone is free to believe what they want - just leave the kids alone to make up their own minds when they grow up.

I'm afraid that any attempt at scientific debate between believers and non-believers is doomed to failure because of the way the two camps regard inquiry. Believers start with a conclusion - how can scientists engage in debate with that mindset?

[tolman]

I think what really annoys people is when someone is trying to have their cake and eat it - such as arguing about what *society should be* based on their beliefs, but not willing to have those beliefs scrutinised.

It's not really a *science* thing, since when when someone steps outside their belief to make judgements about anything based on their belief there's likely to be some kind of conflict.

The thing with science is that it just isn't a matter of opinion - much of the time, someone making an erroneous statement can be shown to be simply wrong.
People can just choose to have different opinions about the merits of same-sex marriage, but they can't just choose to have different opinions about the age of a rock. To the extent they may differ, they have to give sensible reasons which support their point of view, and if they can't, they lose.

If someone just says "I believe something, I don't claim to have any evidence that will convince anyone else, and I'm not interested in anyone else's opinions as to the existence or nonexistence of evidence", one might wonder why they bothered saying anything in the first place, unless there was some general survey of opinions going on.

[Cuddles]

For example, if someone said “I believe in a god – I cannot prove it, cannot provide evidence for it, but it is my personally held belief and part of my spirituality” the criticism “ah but what’s the evidence” seems out of place. The reason being the individual has not necessarily made a claim of scientific truth – so why do they need evidence? I guess the point is, if no one is claiming that their beliefs are factual, has evidential merit, or rivals the scientific model / view of the world – their views are irrelevant to science (because they are not making scientific arguments).

I think the trouble is that many people, especially believers, don't understand the difference. There's a lot of the "I believe it, therefore it's true" around, when the correct statement should be "I believe it, therefore I believe it". I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and having philosophical debates about them, although I can't really see the point, but they usually enter the discussion with claims of what is true, and that makes it a matter of science.

A related problem is that people very rarely understand where the line between science and belief is. For example, "I believe in a god – I cannot prove it, cannot provide evidence for it, but it is my personally held belief and part of my spirituality” is held to be no different from "I believe in homeopathy – I cannot prove it, cannot provide evidence for it, but it is my personally held belief and part of my spirituality” , yet one is a philosophical statement and one is a scientific one. Gods are usually unprovaeable and unfalsifiable and so belief in one can't really be questioned by science, although the resoning behind it certainly can, but whether you have faith in homeopathy or not, it is a scientific matter. I think you will struggle to get people to stay on one side of the science/philosophy line since so few people really understand what science actually is.

[Zaira]

Dr B,

"I feel that many watching the arguments between scientists and believers (all sorts of believers) come away with the impression that scientists are arguing against the notion of belief, or your right to hold one. This is not true at all."

As a non-skeptic (saying skeptic is too much of a commitment for me) I think that makes me a believer - even though I don't believe in very much right now except myself. However, I'm relieved and happy to read the above statement. And I'll keep the rest in mind, too.

[wooo_oops]

I think the trouble is that many people, especially believers, don't understand the difference. There's a lot of the "I believe it, therefore it's true" around, when the correct statement should be "I believe it, therefore I believe it". I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and having philosophical debates about them, although I can't really see the point, but they usually enter the discussion with claims of what is true, and that makes it a matter of science.

A related problem is that people very rarely understand where the line between science and belief is. For example, "I believe in a god – I cannot prove it, cannot provide evidence for it, but it is my personally held belief and part of my spirituality” is held to be no different from "I believe in homeopathy – I cannot prove it, cannot provide evidence for it, but it is my personally held belief and part of my spirituality” , yet one is a philosophical statement and one is a scientific one. Gods are usually unprovaeable and unfalsifiable and so belief in one can't really be questioned by science, although the resoning behind it certainly can, but whether you have faith in homeopathy or not, it is a scientific matter. I think you will struggle to get people to stay on one side of the science/philosophy line since so few people really understand what science actually is.

Oh yea. But what if the belief is also compounded by a certain type of personality - which effectively makes any argument against their belief an ad hominem attack? Is this what you mean by many people?

Like f'rinstance - "I believe that humans are the best recorders of events? "

I could argue that that's because they haven't read the latest scientific evidence that suggests that this statement is wrong, but because of the way they like to cover their backs, they say "Are you saying I'm stupid?"
... and I say no, you're maybe just not well-informed.

And they say, OK, so you think I'm stupid...

How do you argue intelligently without making people think you're attacking their intelligence? Can it be done?

What if Alan Titchmarsh presented Dawkins's last programme? ;D

[Matt]

What if Alan Titchmarsh presented Dawkins's last programme? ;D

He'd be unlikeky to get the Songs of Praise gig again

[tolman]

I could argue that that's because they haven't read the latest scientific evidence that suggests that this statement is wrong, but because of the way they like to cover their backs, they say "Are you saying I'm stupid?"
... and I say no, you're maybe just not well-informed.

And they say, OK, so you think I'm stupid...

How do you argue intelligently without making people think you're attacking their intelligence? Can it be done?
And what if someone *is* thick, or is being deliberately obtuse, rather than just underinformed or misinformed?
Can you argue intelligently with them?

If you explain someone is misinformed, they can choose to take offence at that as being an insult on their culture/pastor/imam/mother/whatever.
Ultimately, if someone is going to choose to be offended simply at having someone disagree with them, it's not going to be possible to leave them unoffended. I guess the trick in a public interaction is to be polite enough that they make themselves look foolish.

[Zaira]

I often use the expression ‘taking the information on board’. I try, I don’t always succeed, but I try to take one step back if the reply to my post hits a nerve. When I am giving advice to others on other forums I stick with the philosophy that that is all I can do - give them the information then what they do with it is down to them. I can’t make them listen and I can’t make them take it on board. Some people, in my humble opinion, are just too quick to reply sometimes. I have experienced myself jumping at a post, hopefully not answering it, then coming back later and reading it completely different.