# Some Help from an Enemy



## py3ak (Jul 4, 2009)

Aldous Huxley is no friend of Protestantism. But this quote is a very limpid statement of a fact that it is sometimes hard to get populist "evidence-based" types to acknowledge. After saying that if Behaviorism is true it is probable that Behaviorism is untrue he goes on to add:



> All science is based upon an act of faith―faith in the validity of the mind's logical processes, faith in the ultimate explicability of the world, faith that the laws of thought are laws of things. In practice, I repeat, if not always in theory, such conceptions are fundamental to all scientific activity. For the rest, scientists are opportunists. They will pass from a common-sense view of the world to advanced idealist theories, making use of one or the other according to the field of study in which they are at work. Unfortunately, few scientists in these days of specialization are ever called upon to work in more than one small field of study. Hence here is a tendency on the part of individual specialists to accept as true particular theories which are in fact only temporarily convenient. It is highly unfortunate that so few scientists are ever taught anything about the metaphysical foundations of science.


-Aldous Huxley, _Complete Essays_, Volume IV: 1936-1938, "Beliefs" (originally printed in _Ends and Means_)

And of course, since all science is based upon faith in the validity of the mind's logical processes and the ultimate explicability of the world, it can never demonstrate any conclusion that undercuts that faith.


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 4, 2009)

I heard a commencement speech recently at a liberal arts college which was one of the best lectures I have heard. He addressed the importance of a liberal education as the necessary foundation for further _scientific_ study; and though his emphasis was on the philosophical field of ethics (If Aristotle's axiom is accepted that, man being by nature political, political science is the most fundamental study, then scientific progress must stem from the principles of the societal good and the ethical ties and obligations to one another and to the society as a whole) and not metaphysics, many of the same principles apply. If one does not understand from a philosophical (or theological?) point of view the framework in which empirical science can function, then it ceases to be useful. Whenever a system is used to attempt to overthrow its foundational assumptions, trouble's a-brewin'.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jul 4, 2009)

> If one does not understand from a philosophical (or theological?) point of view the framework in which empirical science can function, then it ceases to be useful.



I assume by the use of 'it' in the phrase "it ceases to be useful" you are referring to empirical science. If so, then I think your statement above is mistaken. It seems to me that the utility of science is independent of any understanding of the philosophical foundation for science. For instance, the utility of my car seems to be independent of my understanding of the theory of combustion engines. 

Brian


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 4, 2009)

Brian Bosse said:


> > If one does not understand from a philosophical (or theological?) point of view the framework in which empirical science can function, then it ceases to be useful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wholly agreed. I spoke inaccurately. I intended to state that it ceases to be useful once the foundations are forgotten _and therefore_ it attempts to go beyond its capabilities. Either way, I learned long ago never to express disagreement with anyone whose name is, in fact, "The Brain," so I willingly yield the palm to you on on anything.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jul 4, 2009)

Hello Paul,

When I was first learning how to spell, I would frequently misspell my name 'Brain.' As a result, my parents started calling me 'Brain' and it stuck. A little inauspicious, huh? 

Brian


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 4, 2009)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Paul,
> 
> When I was first learning how to spell, I would frequently misspell my name 'Brain.' As a result, my parents started calling me 'Brain' and it stuck. A little inauspicious, huh?
> 
> Brian


Don't feel bad, Brian. Mine was often misspelled 'Brat'. We both seem to have conformed to the connotations attached to our errant spellings, but mine to a much less desirable result. Just ask anybody on PB. 

-----Added 7/4/2009 at 08:29:32 EST-----

BTW Ruben, I first heard part of that quote of Huxley in a sermon by Barnhouse, making the same point; that even a rank unbeliever with any intellect could see that a form of faith was necessary to swallow the assertions of atheistic scientific theories.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 4, 2009)

It's remarkable, but Huxley makes many of the same points as Lewis: of course, some other points he makes are soundly refuted in a proleptic manner by Chesterton.


----------



## Theognome (Jul 4, 2009)

Brad said:


> Brian Bosse said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Paul,
> ...



Mine was most often misspelled, 'Hey you!' and others that can't be posted here.

Theognome


----------

