Neutrality of science

[August]

I am increasingly running into those who claim that science is neutral, and has no hidden motives. As I see it, there is a couple of responses to that. Firstly we should recognize that science is one of the primary ways that we describe God's creation, and identify how to make use of those resources He put at our disposal. Applied science, or technology, undisputably has it's place in our world.

The problem around scientific neutrality arises when some scientific disciplines come to conclusions with metaphysical implications that are in opposition to the first point. If we follow the scientific method, it starts with observation and hypothesis, and it is there where I see a problem. Science claims to be neutral, i.e. follows the observations and conclusions where it may lead, but some scientists add the caveat: "as long as the conclusion is not supernatural or metaphysical." By stating that science can never consider a supernatural cause, the hypothesis formed by a scientist that presupposes that, is no longer neutral, since the scientist assumes that within the observation and hypothesis, he has already gained sufficient metaphysical knowledge so as to exclude it from the resulting theory.

The common objection to this reasoning is that science will cease to produce results, since everything will be explained away by attributing it to God. While this is a laughable objection, it is sometimes necessary to point out the slippery slope fallacy being committed with that objection. Many great scientists were and are Christians, and there has been no erosion of the discipline, in fact the contrary is true.

I am sure I have only touched the tip of the iceberg here, anyone care to comment or add?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The Bible teaches that there is something called "science" which is falsely so-called (1 Tim. 6.20). Science is not outside the bounds of morality. All unregenerate men suppress the truth, they do not love the truth (Rom. 1.18-20; 2 Pet. 3.5; Rev. 22.15).

Biblical science is summed up very nicely, I think, by Kepler. Only a Christian worldview can account for things seen and unseen. That is not to say that unbelieving scientists have never contributed positively to the body of knowledge that we rely on. But this is despite their unbelief, not because of some mythical neutral pursuit of the truth. All truth is God's truth. But since God is the creator of all things and governs all by his providence, it is a suppression of the truth to try to ascertain reality apart from this basic fact.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Science of today is not neutral. It uses circular reasoning; that is, presuppose that miracles and supernatural events do not occur, and then explain such seemingly miraculous and supernatural events with reason and logic. But, Christians do the same thing, so you can't fault them for it. However, you can't let them get away with saying they are 'neutral,' either! Liberal politicians and naturalist agenda pushers do the same thing, in re-interpreting the Constitution of the United States. They claim that government shall not establish any religion (literally, in context, any one denomination or sect of Christianity... but not according to them), but in the same breath push for the establishment of Naturalism/Atheism - a religious worldview based on faith as much as 'fact' or reason - a complete contradiction and obviously not neutral. Neutrality is impossible. Everyone has presuppositions. Take that to the bank.

 

[August]

Of course, we are to believe that the peer-review mechanism is supposed to ensure that there is "neutrality", but if all the reviewers use the same presuppostions to start with, that also does not work.

 

[crhoades]

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm

PA044-"Science, Subjectivity, and Scripture," [Are Science and Logic Objective, Neutral, and Invariant?] (1979) - Dr. Greg Bahnsen

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Hey guys,

I think Herman Dooyeweerd provides the best explanation for understanding the (non)neutrality of science.

First of all, he would distinguish between the structure of a thing, and its direction.

Science can be non-neutral when its direction is motivated by pre-suppositions. Think of a Christian chemist, and a Nazi chemist. Though they may both be chemists, so that the structure of how do to chemistry does not change whether you are a Christian or fascist, the relative ends and goals or direction of the Christian's research will (hopefully) be vastly different from the Nazi - one will aim at promoting peace and health, and the other at death - because their ultimate religious motivations are different. Therefore the direction of a science is definetly not neutral with respect to philosophical or religious convictions. However, its structure can be, because the rules for doing chemistry (boiling points, types of compouds, number of electrons, etc.) does not change whether you are Christian or not.

Secondly, Dooyeweerd would also distinguish between kinds of sciences.

He would argue that there are many different kinds, each with their own irreducibly distinct areas of expertise, and each with their unique corresponding laws and methods. Theoretical Physics, Biology, and Structural Engineering do not follow the same kinds of laws and methods, though there can be some overlap between them. The result is that, depending on the kind of science you're talking about, ultimate commitments can affect your conclusions. For example, it makes no great difference whether your building was built by a Christian, a Muslim or an atheist, because the structure of how you do engineering is relatively ''neutral'' in regards to your ultimate philosophical/religious convictions. Wood and steel can only withstand so much pressure per inch before they 'break', and that does not depend on your religious faith. On the other hand if you are theorizing about the origins, stability, or essence of the universe, or perhaps of biological life, as in physics and biology, then philosophy will inevitably get involved. Therefore those kinds of sciences are definetly biased with respect to philosophy.

In short, the structures of the different sciences can be more or less neutral with respect to religion and philosophy (though that may not be true, ie: theoretical physics, biology, etc), but the direction of the sciences are definetly biased and non-neutral.


Man, I hope I made that clear.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[August]

Hi Shawn, thanks for the reply.

Of course, Doyeweerd held very strongly to the fact that everything, including science, is held to be in service of God. So as long as the starting point is that, there is no disagreement between Christianity and science. I think we agree that science is the way in which we describe creation, and the ways in which we can use creation to our benefit, and ultimately to God's glory.

As for technology (applied science), there is of course much room for abuse there, depending on your worldview and motives. I think this was more what you described above?

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Hi John!

Yes and no. Certainly, Dooyeweerd's focus was on establishing that all of theoretical thought ultimately depends on religious ground motives, but the extent to which differing groud motives actually influence the way you do things, such as the way we do science, varies considerably in his thought, as well as in his disciples. And that holds true for the theoretical sciences as well as the applied sciences. Chemistry is chemistry is chemistry.

So, I guess I'm saying his thought is a little more nuanced than some presuppositionalists, in that he could (1) account for the fact that you don't have to be Christian to do good science, and (2) you can still dialogue with non-Christians on a variety of subjects, depending on the relative neutrality (absolute neutrality is a myth) of the particular area of dialogue.

Cheers,
Shawn

PS: My wife is from Dallas... a little suburb called McKinney. I may be moving there in a little bit!

 

[August]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1979/JASA12-79Knudsen.html

Here is an article on Doyeweerd, and his doctrine of science. Some of it is a bit beyond my capabilities.

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Yah, Dooyeweerd is generally outside of everyone's capabilities. That's what makes reading secondary literature both useful and extremely dangerous. A problem that is only compounded by the burdensome english translations of his books that have generally been produced. Which is understandable, to a degree, not only because Dutch can be such a convoluted language, but because Dooyeweerd often uses hyper-specific, and highly technical philosophical jargon... in Dutch. Difficult to translate.

That being the case, I've found that the best, most easily accessible introduction to his thought is his article "The Secularisation of Science"in the July 1966 issue of the International Reformed Bulletin. Its actually very lucid and readable, quite unlike most of his other works.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[August]

Hmm, after spending a good few hours reading Dooyeweerd, I'm starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. It all makes good sense, of course, especially when one considers his comment on religious presuppositions and ground motives that follow that.

I'm still not 100% sure how exactly his aspects relate to the neutrality or lack thereof in science, except for his conclusion that it can never lead to absolute truth. Maybe that is part of the answer, but I don't know if it is that contentious, even among atheistic scientists.

 

[JohnV]

What I'm reading in these posts is that scientists are not neutral, not that science is not neutral. I'll go along with that. But to say that science itself cannot be neutral, that kind of takes any usefulness out of it, doesn't it? I mean, how do we know if something is useful unless we try it? That's the scientific method. So it has to be neutral itself. It's people that bend it out of shape, not itself.

I think science is still a noble pursuit. Science itself doesn't come with any presuppositions but those that God has created in it. Because if it does come with other presuppositions in and of itself, its not science anymore. That's always been the rule, and a good one.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
What I'm reading in these posts is that scientists are not neutral, not that science is not neutral. I'll go along with that. But to say that science itself cannot be neutral, that kind of takes any usefulness out of it, doesn't it? I mean, how do we know if something is useful unless we try it? That's the scientific method. So it has to be neutral itself. It's people that bend it out of shape, not itself.

I think science is still a noble pursuit. Science itself doesn't come with any presuppositions but those that God has created in it. Because if it does come with other presuppositions in and of itself, its not science anymore. That's always been the rule, and a good one.

But John, I dont think you can neatly divide science apart from the people who participate in science.

Now if you mean that everyone who attempts to start their properly working car with proper amounts of fuel, will in fact start it, then okay in that way, science is neutral. But this is a very narrow view of science and far narrower than the way the term is normally used.

Also even if one was to argue that "science" did not come with presuppositions, everyone who does science has them, so it would be a moot point.

 

[JohnV]

Not really, Hermonta. It would mean that objectivity is possible, and that we are to strive for it even if we keep stubbing our toes against our own predispositions along the way. Yes, I know that people are going to have their views imposing on their work. But to recognize them, and to not be prejudiced even by your own presuppositions is what doing science is about.

In reality, what we are saying about scientists is that they're not really doing science. And I agree with that. They are colouring the conclusions to fit in with their own predisposed world-and-life views. Well, they're only fooling themselves, and trying to take others with them. But they don't fool real scientists. At least not if they don't want to be fooled in the first place. Its been my contention for a long time already that Evolutionists aren't doing science, except as a fallout from what they're really doing. Theorizing, and being narrow-minded at that, is not science. You and I are contending the same thing, but we're approaching it from different perspectives.

But mine is scientific.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
Not really, Hermonta. It would mean that objectivity is possible, and that we are to strive for it even if we keep stubbing our toes against our own predispositions along the way. Yes, I know that people are going to have their views imposing on their work. But to recognize them, and to not be prejudiced even by your own presuppositions is what doing science is about.

The point is that there is no way to avoid prejudice. If you think you are, then you are not drilling down far enough to see all of your prejudices. Also the issue is not objectivity per se, but instead the goal is truth. Without the correct presuppositions then you wont reach that goal.

In reality, what we are saying about scientists is that they're not really doing science. And I agree with that. They are colouring the conclusions to fit in with their own predisposed world-and-life views.

My point here, is that you cannot avoid colouring the conclusions, and if you think you can then you are deceiving yourself. The issue isn't colouring of the conclusions, it is colouring the wrong color.

Well, they're only fooling themselves, and trying to take others with them. But they don't fool real scientists. At least not if they don't want to be fooled in the first place. Its been my contention for a long time already that Evolutionists aren't doing science, except as a fallout from what they're really doing. Theorizing, and being narrow-minded at that, is not science. You and I are contending the same thing, but we're approaching it from different perspectives.

But mine is scientific.

The evolutionists are just colouring with the wrong worldview. We colour with the correct one. Everyone is going to use their own worldview.

And when we use the worldview, we are being narrowminded. That is not a problem. The problem occurs when we are narrowminded and wrong.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
Not really, Hermonta. It would mean that objectivity is possible, and that we are to strive for it even if we keep stubbing our toes against our own predispositions along the way. Yes, I know that people are going to have their views imposing on their work. But to recognize them, and to not be prejudiced even by your own presuppositions is what doing science is about.

The point is that there is no way to avoid prejudice. If you think you are, then you are not drilling down far enough to see all of your prejudices. Also the issue is not objectivity per se, but instead the goal is truth. Without the correct presuppositions then you wont reach that goal.

In reality, what we are saying about scientists is that they're not really doing science. And I agree with that. They are colouring the conclusions to fit in with their own predisposed world-and-life views.

My point here, is that you cannot avoid colouring the conclusions, and if you think you can then you are deceiving yourself. The issue isn't colouring of the conclusions, it is colouring the wrong color.

Well, they're only fooling themselves, and trying to take others with them. But they don't fool real scientists. At least not if they don't want to be fooled in the first place. Its been my contention for a long time already that Evolutionists aren't doing science, except as a fallout from what they're really doing. Theorizing, and being narrow-minded at that, is not science. You and I are contending the same thing, but we're approaching it from different perspectives.

But mine is scientific.

The evolutionists are just colouring with the wrong worldview. We colour with the correct one. Everyone is going to use their own worldview.

And when we use the worldview, we are being narrowminded. That is not a problem. The problem occurs when we are narrowminded and wrong.

But if all this is so, how do you know that with certainty, instead of it being your own prejudice?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
Not really, Hermonta. It would mean that objectivity is possible, and that we are to strive for it even if we keep stubbing our toes against our own predispositions along the way. Yes, I know that people are going to have their views imposing on their work. But to recognize them, and to not be prejudiced even by your own presuppositions is what doing science is about.

The point is that there is no way to avoid prejudice. If you think you are, then you are not drilling down far enough to see all of your prejudices. Also the issue is not objectivity per se, but instead the goal is truth. Without the correct presuppositions then you wont reach that goal.

In reality, what we are saying about scientists is that they're not really doing science. And I agree with that. They are colouring the conclusions to fit in with their own predisposed world-and-life views.

My point here, is that you cannot avoid colouring the conclusions, and if you think you can then you are deceiving yourself. The issue isn't colouring of the conclusions, it is colouring the wrong color.

Well, they're only fooling themselves, and trying to take others with them. But they don't fool real scientists. At least not if they don't want to be fooled in the first place. Its been my contention for a long time already that Evolutionists aren't doing science, except as a fallout from what they're really doing. Theorizing, and being narrow-minded at that, is not science. You and I are contending the same thing, but we're approaching it from different perspectives.

But mine is scientific.

The evolutionists are just colouring with the wrong worldview. We colour with the correct one. Everyone is going to use their own worldview.

And when we use the worldview, we are being narrowminded. That is not a problem. The problem occurs when we are narrowminded and wrong.

But if all this is so, how do you know that with certainty, instead of it being your own prejudice?

God has spoken to us. This is the reason that we for example, reject evolution and can be confident in our rejection of evolution.

God has told us how to look at the world. Without him speaking we would be in a very bad way, and we could not be sure that our view of truth is the 'actual' truth.

CT

 

[JohnV]

So basically, you can't test truth? You just have to believe it to be true?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
So basically, you can't test truth? You just have to believe it to be true?

You can test your view of truth by what God has revealed. Other than that, there is no more ultimate test.

 

[Scott]

Best book on the topic is Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Also recommend a healthy dose of Bahnsen, such as the article Chris posted).

 

[August]

Hi, JohnV, thanks for your comments, they most assuredly add value to the topic.

What I'm reading in these posts is that scientists are not neutral, not that science is not neutral. I'll go along with that. But to say that science itself cannot be neutral, that kind of takes any usefulness out of it, doesn't it? I mean, how do we know if something is useful unless we try it? That's the scientific method. So it has to be neutral itself. It's people that bend it out of shape, not itself.

While I agree in the broadest terms that the scientific method can at the very basic level be neutral, current scientific methodology is probably viewed as methodological naturalism as penned by Pennock et al. MN assumes ontological naturalism, and therefore cannot be construed as neutral, because by its very definition it excludes any "other than physical" explanations. The moment anything is excluded, it can no longer be viewed as neutral, or can it?

Again, no-one is denying the utility of science as a way to discover ways to make better use of Gods creation, on a material level. My concern here is more philosophical, and whether science currently holds a philosophically neutral view, and if that is even possible.

 

[Answerman]

Don't forget that the way you define science is greatly effected by your pressupositions. This is what all of the fuss was over here in Kansas, defining science in such a way as to allow supernatural conclusions to be drawn in the study of origins.

 

[JohnV]

Again, all you're saying is that scientists are not neutral. If you are holding to the utility of science, and that in basis it is neutral, and if you hold that there is a testable way in which to determing its lack of neutrality, then you are saying that science is neutral. But now, I guess, we have to give out a mutually agreeable definition of neutrality.

What I mean by neutrality, in simple terms, is that a scientist can look at or investigate his object of research with a degree of unbiased objectivity. It is the discipline of the pursuit to do so. The fact that so many have lost much of that discipline in our time, parading as science what is nothing more than glorified opinionizing, does not change the fact that there are still some real scientists out there. Nor does it change the fact that some of us can do critical work in areas of science that expose the bias of modern scientists. Its like a butcher who doesn't know his cuts of meats, or a mailman who can't seem to deliver letters to the right houses; so it is with scientists who purposely, or carelessly, cast aside the discipline of their profession, make far-ranging conclusion far beyond the confines of their research.

If you take all the evidence there is for evolution, and put it all in one room, what you have it a bunch of stuff that says, "This is what we are now", and not "This is what we have been before what we are now.", so to speak. Conjecture is conjecture, theory is theory, hypothesis is hypothesis; but science is science, no matter what is pasted all over it in our day.

And we know that by two means: the revelation of the Word of God; and the revelation of God in the light of nature. To stand on those principles is a stand on neutrality, the unbiased, unvarnished truth.

What you are talking about is not neutrality, but absolute autonomy. We can look at things and see them as they really are because we are created a person, a living soul, after the image of God. We, as men, alone of all creation, share in that attribute with God; no other part of creation has that attribute. On the side of God's infinity, there we share with the rest of creation, being finite. We are not ultimately authonomous, but part of God's creation, dependent upon His providence. But we are persons, capable of creating, of decision, of desire, and of response out of ourselves, and of objective discipline. We are not stocks and blocks in the creation. That, to me, strongly suggests that we have the capability of being truly free.

Remember that science does not really belong to unbelievers, it belongs to believers. They are the ones who pursue objective truth, weeding out the falseness of their own self-delusions, self-conceits, and self-deceits. That stongly suggests a capability of neutrality in man as a person.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Perhaps it is better to look at pure science as an observational tool. Presuppositions determine how you will gather, receive, and interpret the data gathered by that tool.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
Again, all you're saying is that scientists are not neutral. If you are holding to the utility of science, and that in basis it is neutral, and if you hold that there is a testable way in which to determing its lack of neutrality, then you are saying that science is neutral. But now, I guess, we have to give out a mutually agreeable definition of neutrality.

Definitions are good

What I mean by neutrality, in simple terms, is that a scientist can look at or investigate his object of research with a degree of unbiased objectivity.

I dont think "unbiased objectivity" exists. Something looks objective if people look at something with the same biases. Again saying one is biased does not mean that they are necessarily wrong. We, Biblical Christians are biased, we just are biased correctly.

It is the discipline of the pursuit to do so. The fact that so many have lost much of that discipline in our time, parading as science what is nothing more than glorified opinionizing, does not change the fact that there are still some real scientists out there.

Those doing all the "opinionizing" are also the ones that deal with real data and make real discoveries. All a scientist ever does is say "Given these presupps and this data, what is the deal?" Depending on the question asked, they may or may not have the correct presupps to come to the right conclusion. (They also may be lacking data, so that can throw a wrench in things as well.)

Nor does it change the fact that some of us can do critical work in areas of science that expose the bias of modern scientists.

I think you are saying that correct bias is equivalent to no bias at all. I disagree.

Its like a butcher who doesn't know his cuts of meats, or a mailman who can't seem to deliver letters to the right houses; so it is with scientists who purposely, or carelessly, cast aside the discipline of their profession, make far-ranging conclusion far beyond the confines of their research.

They have all the discipline you could ask for, but the issue is that false presupps have far reaching consequences.

If you take all the evidence there is for evolution, and put it all in one room, what you have it a bunch of stuff that says, "This is what we are now", and not "This is what we have been before what we are now.", so to speak. Conjecture is conjecture, theory is theory, hypothesis is hypothesis; but science is science, no matter what is pasted all over it in our day.

Depending on what presupps you have, you then determine what is evidence for your position and what is evidence against it. Evidence is also not neutral.

And we know that by two means: the revelation of the Word of God; and the revelation of God in the light of nature. To stand on those principles is a stand on neutrality, the unbiased, unvarnished truth.

I agree with the unvarnished truth aspect but not the neutrality and unbiased aspects.

What you are talking about is not neutrality, but absolute autonomy. We can look at things and see them as they really are because we are created a person, a living soul, after the image of God. We, as men, alone of all creation, share in that attribute with God; no other part of creation has that attribute. On the side of God's infinity, there we share with the rest of creation, being finite. We are not ultimately authonomous, but part of God's creation, dependent upon His providence. But we are persons, capable of creating, of decision, of desire, and of response out of ourselves, and of objective discipline. We are not stocks and blocks in the creation. That, to me, strongly suggests that we have the capability of being truly free.

I think our sin nature suggests against our "truly free" chances. I also disagree that we can ever create anything.

Remember that science does not really belong to unbelievers, it belongs to believers. They are the ones who pursue objective truth, weeding out the falseness of their own self-delusions, self-conceits, and self-deceits. That stongly suggests a capability of neutrality in man as a person.

I think we just disagree on the def. of neutrality.