Causal Determinism—an assumption of science?

[Calminian]

I googled this subject and it lead me to a thread created here a couple of years ago. So, since I think most missed the boat on that thread, I thought I bring it up again.

 

Does anyone here disagree that Causal Determinism is actually a presupposition of science (unproven assumption)? On the previous thread, many here (at that time), seemed to believe that science was still in the process of discovering if this idea is actually true or valid. It dawned on me that this would actually be impossible, since you can't use a methodology that presupposes something, to determine whether or not that something is true. This would be circular reasoning by definition, drawing a conclusion base on a starting premise.

 

One thing that's always bugged me about science is its overuse and our society's over reliance on it in areas like origins, ethics, and human behavior, etc.. These are areas where the assumption of causal determinism is debated and frankly, philosophically, very weak (IMHO). Yet over and over I see scientists and people relying on scientists trying to apply science in these areas and frankly engaging in very obvious circular reasoning—even theists who fundamentally should have problems with universal causal determinism.

 

I will grant this: If causal determinism is true, science is the ultimate epistemology and deserves the worship it receives. But if it is not true (in other words, if freewill—libertarian or incompatibilism—exists in humans, and if a free God and Creator exists) science is actually a very limited methodology and epistemology that will yield very false conclusions in the ares I've listed above.

 

So, am I wrong about this? Is causal determinism not a necessary presupposition of science? Or is it possible that scientists are more vulnerable to this type of circular reasoning than other philosophical thinkers? Feedback is invited.

[UncleAl]

Science is causal but not deterministic in your sense. Chaos (positive feedback; Ilya Prigogine's non-equilibrium thermodynamics), Heisenberg Uncertainty, Gödel's incompleteness theorems... demand that any complex, energetic system far from equilibrium is infinitely (and not the countable smallest infinity, either) richer than the sum of its parts. Bet on the fastest horse, but don't be surprised if he slips.

 

(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

 

Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith! What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[Calminian]

Science is causal but not deterministic in your sense.

 

But how do you support scientifically the idea that causality exclusively exists in this sense? What you seem to be describing is a range (albeit limited) of results (or determinations) flowing from a particular cause. So in a sense, this cause is still deterministic in that it determines a limited range of effects. Do I have this correct? This would still support a form of causal determinism.

 

I personally believe that most, indeed the vast majority of events going on in the universe are the result of this kind of material causality. But the issue I'm having with science is the fact that causal determinism is a necessary presupposition that must be accepted a priori before it investigates any given subject. But what if it investigates a subject where a different type of causality exists? Many believe humans have libertarian freedom—the ability to choose otherwise, not based on prior antecedents outside of themselves, but on the ability to self determine some choices. But if one only approaches human behavior from a scientific perspective, he would have to dismiss this idea a priori.

 

The same thing with origins or the idea of creation, by a Creator that posses the power of self determinism. Rather than helping us to determine the truth of such an idea, science is forced to preclude such a notion before any investigative thinking starts.

 

(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

 

Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith! What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

 

Actually, faith is required by everyone. All empirical observations must be interpreted by a world view which requires faith (trust). This all may be a dream or some kind of matrix, and proving otherwise is impossible. But we both have faith that this is not a dream based on different, yet similar world views.

 

I'm also picking up on a bit of a misconception about faith in religious circles. Christianity actually discourages faith apart from evidence. I have a feeling you're using the term in the vernacular sense of "belief without evidence." But this notion was never held by any of the biblical writers, or founders. I can't speak directly about other religions though. Faith is simply a synonym for trust and trust is always wiser when based on good evidence and rational thinking. But evidence never serves to destroy faith, rather it strengthens it. In my religious world view, there is no merit in believing contrary to evidence and good thinking.

 

1Th. 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

[LaurieAG]

So, am I wrong about this? Is causal determinism not a necessary presupposition of science? Or is it possible that scientists are more vulnerable to this type of circular reasoning than other philosophical thinkers? Feedback is invited.

 

Hi Calminian,

 

The old safety poster 'Accidents don't happen they are caused' seems to presume that accidents don't just happen on their own.

 

Also, recent testing has come up with data regarding peoples brain waves going into a rest pattern 30 seconds before they make an error.

[jedaisoul]

Does anyone here disagree that Causal Determinism is actually a presupposition of science (unproven assumption)?

Yes, I disagree. Causal Determinism is an extreme view which denies free will. There is no need to deny free will in the physical sciences as it is irrelevant anyway. They deal exclusively with causal relationships. That is very different from saying that only causal relationships exist.

 

 

One thing that's always bugged me about science is its overuse and our society's over reliance on it in areas like origins, ethics, and human behavior, etc..

Whoa, you have grouped three very different subjects in one generalisation:

 

Origins is studied scientifically as a physical science. It does not deal with whether or not there is a God who created it. That is irrelevant. What is studied is the process and the timescale in which the development of the universe, and life on this planet, took place. Thus science tells us that the Earth is very much older than certain interpretations of biblical texts may suggest. Many people who believe in God do not have a problem accepting that. Some do. That merely raises the question of why they need to insist on the literal truth of this interpretation of the bible? That would seem to me to be a view that is logically untenable, given the amount and variety of evidence to the contrary.

 

Ethics is not a scienific subject. Any comments on it by scientists are made as individuals. They do not speak for "science", as science has no view on the subject. Can you provide evidence of "science" having an opinion on ethics, as opposed to the views of individual scientists?

 

Human behaviour is studied "scientifically", but I am not aware that there is an established view that science has "proved" that free will does not exist. Can you provide evidence of such a claim?

 

I will grant this: If causal determinism is true, science is the ultimate epistemology and deserves the worship it receives. But if it is not true (in other words, if freewill—libertarian or incompatibilism—exists in humans, and if a free God and Creator exists) science is actually a very limited methodology and epistemology that will yield very false conclusions in the ares I've listed above.

Whoa! You put "if freewill—libertarian or incompatibilism—exists in humans" and "if a free God and Creator exists" in the same sentence, as if they were logically related. Accepting the first has little or nothing to do with the second! On what basis do you link these two statements?

 

So, am I wrong about this? Is causal determinism not a necessary presupposition of science?

Yes, you are wrong. Causal determinism is not a necessary presupposition of science. Also, suggesting that it is risks creating a "straw man" that bears little resemblance to science. Let's stick to the facts.