A Fine Tuned Universe? 6 (RJS)

RJS,

To answer the question directly, we should think critically about metaphysical assumptions just as we would any other assumptions in an analysis. The assumptions we make inherently constrain the interpretation of the data to the domain of those assumptions. If we assume that biological systems are ruled by the genetic codes, then we will interpret the data in ways which can only validate, or at least not compromise, that assumption.

Real systems, however, don't allow any one part to rule in that way. Whether the context is biological, chemical, or mechanical (which are themselves arbitrary distinctions), everything operates within a system. DNA, outside the context of a system, cannot express itself. Its modes of expression will be constrained by the system of which it is a part. Nothing that exists in this material universe is outside the systems that operate here. Things can be known to exist only through their interaction with other things. If an object has no interactions, it effectively has no existence. If something exists in this universe, it is part of a system by virtue of its interactions with other things.

JKG

peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com

Excellent post and very important topic.

You said,

"It is certainly true that some in the sciences, like Noble's colleague above, fear opening the door a crack to let God into the picture. Some - like Dawkins - try very hard to keep the door shut, locked, bolted, and the key discarded (A portcullis or two wouldn't hurt either)."

Yes, but the point that also has to be made is that Dawkins may want to keep "God" locked out, but he does not keep his own personal metaphysics out. This is a double standard.

I think it is a fool's errand to try to keep your metaphysics out completely. We are looking for truth, and you can't keep "scientific truth" hermetically sealed from Ultimate Truth (at least when you are dealing with topics like origins). You also cannot "do science" without an underlying philosophy of science. Only by being self-aware of our own metaphysics will we be able separate evidence from interpretation from metaphysics.

Part of the solution is disclosure by both sides of their metaphysical presuppositions.

One of the best aspects of Darwin On Trial by P. Johnson is his analysis of how metaphysics and other assumptions have affected the evaluation of the evidence.

JKG,

But to continue - I may have commented on something completely outside of response to your comment, as your second paragraph, when I read it more carefully shows.

I think that you are right on the importance of "systems" and we are seeing something of a response in science to the reductionist view - not that reduction is not in some sense true, but that the whole is greater than, brings out properties that are greater than those simply apparent in the sum of the isolated pieces.

The data does not seem to all fit neatly into the reductionist view and some modification is appearing.

RJS,

Thanks for the clarification.

I think we generally have two phases in the interpretation of data. In the first, we work from the models to interpret the data in the assumptive/presumptive context. Only when that fails--when we can't make sense of it--do we question the model. The best of both science and theology understands this.

In my opinion, both of the extreme camps in the science/faith dialogue tend to stretch the models beyond the point where they ought to be questioning their assumptions. In their desire to be understood, they hold so tightly to those models that they can no longer admit any data that might refute the model. When pressed, they attack the other model, while driving back any assault on their own.

So, the interpretation is intimately tied to the assumptive context.

The use and credibility of empirical data is likewise subject to both the model/assumptions and the interpretation itself. The data, like the interpretation, can only exist in a context--specifically, the context of the measurement (or means by which the data were acquired). We interpret the data based on models of that context. We can get into trouble, however, when the means of acquiring the data is itself not consistent with the context in which the data are to be interpreted.

This is where the reductionist view will fail every time. The issue is not whether properties of an object are known, but how each object behaves and is understood in relation to the other objects in the system of which it is a part. The object's properties can only be rightly understood in that context. The interpretation of data will become more accurate as the models and assumptions behind it more closely resemble the "real" context in which the object exists.

Thanks for the chance to let off a little steam. This topic is dear to my engineering-trained mind, and the reductionist method has long been a sticking point for me in discussions with those who are more purely science-oriented.

Blessings,
JKG

Craig V.,

Your post reminds me of C.S. Lewis' "Voyage of the Dawn Treader".

When the human children are introduced to an elderly "man" and told that he used to be a star (as in the night sky, not an entertainer), one of the children replies that in their world, a star is a huge burning ball of gas out in space.

The man/star replies that even in their world, that is only what a star is made of, not what it is.

JKG

RJS,

Now that I see from your examples what you had in mind my nit picking may have been too severe. 'Metaphysics' is sometimes used in the sense you intend. It seems like you want a term that covers ground similar to Aristotle's final causes. Perhaps 'telic assumptions' might work.

JKG,

That's a great quote. Unamuno argues in The Tragic Sense of Life that if we restrict ourselves to scientific explanations (RJS' 1 and 2) our explanations become less human. I think your man/star captures that point well.

I'm not so sure the debate about "metaphysics" is all that helpful. I, too, observe that this term with scientists has a meaning something like "ultimate meaning" or "ontology" or "deep reality" when these folks are using it, but they are getting at something: some kind of larger interpretive scheme is at work that shoves the data/facts/etc into a larger grid that explains significance.

pds,

I think you are right - that there are many believers (from influential preachers to those in the pews) who have not examined their worldview top to bottom in light of biblical teaching. Of course part of the problem with "in light of biblical teaching" arises when we try to understand what qualifies as "biblical teaching". A one size fits all plain sense literalism doesn't cut it.

One of the things I've been trying to do is consider all pieces of this from top to bottom. Part of this deals with the nature of scripture and our understanding of inspiration, part of it has to do with theology, and part of it has to do with thinking through what science actually tells us about the nature of the world - always on the foundation that God exists and reveals himself to us. The discussion is useful even (or especially) we don't all agree and different people bring in different views.