Card sharp

Here's a powerful essay by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card. It covers a lot of territory - the Intelligent Design controversy, the nature of science, the debate over global warming, the role of religion in human life - and is bound to ruffle a few feathers.

To me, the most interesting part was Card's defense of methodological naturalism in science - the idea that science per se must assume there is a nonsupernatural explanation for every phenomenon. As Card makes clear, this is merely a working hypothesis, not necessarily a matter of philosophical commitment. There is no contradiction between accepting methodological naturalism in the laboratory and going to church on Sunday (or meditating, praying, etc.), because the scientist's naturalism is simply a method used to produce results, not a statement about the ultimate nature, meaning, or purpose of reality (which science, as such, is not capable of discovering).

Anyway, read the whole thing. It's a thoughtful, nuanced, and provocative piece. It also raised questions in my mind about the limits of scientific research in the area of the paranormal. When discarnate spirits - generally thought to be supernatural entities - enter the picture, what becomes of methodological naturalism? Is science even equipped to deal with supernatural explanations, or is pursuing  the truth about supernatural phenomena by scientific methods a category error?

Comments

[Tony S]

Funny to finally find someone who agrees with me :). Although I'm sympathetic to ID, I don't think it should be taught in science class because it's unproven (and unprovable at this point). That's not the same as saying it's wrong. It's more philosophy than science at this point.

[Greg Taylor]

MP:

This aspect has been discussed quite often in ufology, and applies to evidence for 'spirits' as well. Once you have intelligent, perhaps deceiving, personalities entering the equation, the scientific criterion of replicability goes out the window.

Kind regards,
Greg

[william]

“Card is a vocal supporter of many aspects of George W. Bush's leadership style, the war on terror, aspects of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. Though he praises Fox News for aspects of their news coverage”

“Planned Parenthood began, just like Nazi death camps, with the prime goal of improving the human race by eliminating any chance for "inferior" groups to reproduce. It may be rude to say so, but it's still a fact.”

“People flocked to see Al Gore's pack-o'-lies movie because it put forth the orthodoxy of the elite. People flocked to see Michael Moore's deceptive, smug, sneering documentaries because they only attacked people that ignorant elitists have declared to be valid targets.”

Hey this author does not have any political or religious (Mormon) agenda does he? Love the word fact so many people have facts. When people use fact and truth in their statements red flags come up in my mind very quickly.

Ignorant elitists? Hey don’t the ultra skeptics consider religious folks ignorant also. Isn’t it interesting when people don’t agree with our beliefs we label them ignorant. Ignorance is as ignorance does.

Actually I agree with many of his statements on the inability of the scientific method to conduct valid scientific research on the mysteries of life. The book I am reading now makes that very same point. The physics of the soul by Goswami.

Card has yet to address the validity of this quote below in his life. Someday he will it is called the law of progression and he will see the need to take care of the poor and sick (i.e. Jesus teachings not mine) and not look at the sick and needy as just profit enhancements.

“In communism man exploits man in capitalism it is the other way around”.

[Dave C]

While the essay by Orson Scott Card will not bring cheer to either extreme of the evolution debate, I can find very little within it to disagree with. I don't believe that philosophy should be taught in a science class. On the other hand, when the science has serious question marks dogging its conclusions, these should be part of the lesson too.

Sadly, right now the climate of debate is so polarised that nobody dare dissent. The inquisition is alive and well and living in both camps.

[william]

"The inquisition is alive and well and living in both camps."

Brilliant way to state the debate. For me when l look at the wonder of nature and the complexity of human behavior and I say to myself “some people think this is due to chance”.

Saw a special on TV that claimed the moon is necessary and located exactly the right distance from earth for our earth to have the stability that allows the earth environment to have life.

Something special going on and it ain’t chance. And that is a fact.

[Ross W]

A very thoughtful essay. Like Dave C, I have little to disagree with. Just two points:

“It is up to historians and biographers and fiction writers to provide motive and purpose and meaning -- and their work is specifically considered not to be science.”

Surely also philosophers and theologians?

On Global warming:

I am a bit disappointed not to see Mr Sharp’s reasons why he disbelieves it. I agree that it has rather suddenly been catapulted into the headlines as a new orthodoxy, but many of us (I for one) were foreseeing it long before it became fashionable. It is purely logical to see global warming as real, because of our increasing emission of greenhouse gases. The only thing that is unreal is the shrill insistence that it’s going to destroy the world this century. That’s the trouble with fashion: it’s all about what’s in the public mind now, and in a democracy, you can’t get anything done unless you capture the public imagination. Given the entrenched power of the oil companies, I can certainly see why it’s been politically necessary to over-emphasise the threat. But I agree with most everyone that biofuels are a foolish overreaction, because of the desecration of habitats and displacement of food crops. All in all, though, taking power away from the oil companies can’t actually be a bad thing, can it?

[Tony S]

> It is purely logical to see global warming
> as real, because of our increasing
> emission of greenhouse gases. The only
> thing that is unreal is the shrill
> insistence that it’s going to destroy the
> world this century.

Most GW 'deniers' concede that global warming is real. They just don't believe that it is a big deal, or believe the causes are more natural than man-made, or believe that we are better off using our resources to cope with it than we are trying to stop it.

> Given the entrenched power of the oil
> companies, I can certainly see why it’s been
> politically necessary to over-emphasise the
> threat.

Not really, the ever-increasing cost of oil will be their undoing. Oil is the fuel of choice b/c it's been cheaper than the alternatives. That equation is changing quickly.

> All in all, though, taking power away from
>the oil companies can’t actually be a bad
>thing, can it?

I think you'll find that oil companies will either invest in alternatives themselves, and become dominant in them, or else they'll be knocked off their pedistal and replaced by other alternative energy companies who will be just as bad, they'll use their profits to lobby the government to maintain the status quo. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Art]

"Saw a special on TV that claimed the moon is necessary and located exactly the right distance from earth for our earth to have the stability that allows the earth environment to have life. Something special going on and it ain’t chance. And that is a fact." - william
--------------------------------------------

That is EXACTLY what I believe. For me it isn't one smoking gun that makes me a believer, it's the total aggregate of evidence. The preponderance of evidence, all taken together that lead me in the direction that this ain't the main show, that something of who we are survives the death of the physical body and that something very fishy is going on around here. The flatness of the universe, the rate of expansion after the big bang, the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity being adjusted just right for stars to form, heavy metals to form, plate techtonics, the moon being in the right place, the Earth being in the sweet spot for life to form, plenty of water, NDE's, death bed visions, the work of some mediums, EVP, the parallels or corroboration between NDE's and the holographic paradigm, etc. I've even had a few mystical experiences of my own that were pretty amazing. There doesn't have to be "one smoking gun." There are a whole lot of little arrows all pointing in the direction that this so called material universe ain't necessarily the main show.

[Michael H]

It would take a long book to adequately address the underlying causes that drive the issues that Card discusses in this essay. I’ll try to limit it to a long post instead.

Tony S points to the answer when he writes that ID is “more philosophy that science at this point”. Where the ID proponents and their creationist brethren go wrong is in attempting to replace one philosophy with another. The defenders of Darwinism are mostly oblivious to the fact that evolution theory has itself become more philosophical than scientific. And to make matters worse, the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory, the idea that cosmic history itself is a long, linear affair, has been extended to fields such as cosmology, geology and archeology with what appears to be no consideration as to whether that fundamental premise is true or not. All of these fields are taught in our schools and presented by the media as if someone were actually there, watching it all happen and taking notes besides.

Darwinists are rightly offended when a creationist claims that the fossil record was placed in the earth at the moment of creation in 4004 B.C. They howl that it’s not scientific, that the creationists are forcing observations to match theory. Yet, when cosmologists invent concepts like inflation, dark matter and dark energy to support the Big Bang hypotheses, they are doing the exact same thing. So are archeologists when they explain away megaliths built with components that would severely tax today’s most advanced construction equipment as somehow built by gangs of primitive humans using ropes and pulleys. Neither the naturalists nor their religious opponents are willing to humbly say to themselves, “perhaps we’re wrong”.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming argument is another example of the arrogance that continues to dominate “scientific” thought. An article published last month in the U.K.’s Telegraph opened with this paragraph:

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

The writer goes on to point out that the famous “hockey stick” graph used to support the thesis was “so designed that it would have conjured even random numbers from a telephone directory into the shape of a hockey stick”. He also discusses a study published by the World Wildlife Fund “warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million”. But then he shares this tidbit:

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km . . . and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

What’s sorely needed is a newfound, widespread respect for keeping a clear head, and the associated replacement of arrogance with humility. On all sides. In its current state - that of ‘accepted cultural religion’ - science isn’t equipped to properly investigate anything, let alone paranormal phenomena, as Michael suggests in his main post.

W. Y. Evans-Wentz was concerned about the effect on paranormal investigation a century ago, when he wrote in the introduction to The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries, “(We) have by usage unwisely limited the meaning of the word science to a knowledge of things material and visible, whereas it really means a knowing or a knowledge of everything which exists.”

But I think Peter Kingsley provides the most succinct description of the problem science is faced with, which goes to how we are deceived and used by our senses. In an interview with Parabola, Kingsley said, “And Aristotle, God bless him, sent the whole thing in the wrong direction when he proudly insisted that of course we’re aware that we are aware, of course we perceive that we perceive. He didn’t see how rare this state really is, because he was thinking rather than looking. He didn’t see how we go off to sleep. And we‘ve been in this sleep for over two thousand years.”

[pmprescott]

While he was writing I kept thinking of Dr. McCoy and Spock giving advise to Captain Kirk. Emotion on the one hand, logic on the other and the person making the decision balancing the two. Where does the average person balance science and faith? The balance creates civilization and that's learned in the Humanities. Literature, history, law, sociology, psychology, theology.
Everyone, while praising the film admits that ID is not science without getting to the core of the problem. Science only answers the question HOW. Religion answers the question WHO. Is it possible for a person of faith to believe in evolution? Yes evolution is just how God did it. The screaming and yelling about Creationism and ID is not about God or Faith it's about the literal interpretation of the Bible, what is referred to as Bibliolatry, making the Bible your God. When that happens and has been happening since Darwin first wrote The Origin of Species the two views are irreconcilable.
His argument for Darwinian Orthodoxy is plain old politics at the University level. Does science suffer, yes, but there's usually a pendulum swing to most politics. Enough Young Turks that got passed over until the toed the party line eventually rise up to places of leadership and go the other way.

[william]

“The only thing that is unreal is the shrill insistence that it’s going to destroy the world this century.”

Kind of like the killer bees phenomena coming to Arizona. The media led us to believe you would not be able to leave your house for these killer bees would kill you. I only know what I have heard in the media on global warming and I have learned that trusting the media for your news is doubtful at best.

“The defenders of Darwinism are mostly oblivious to the fact that evolution theory has itself become more philosophical than scientific.”

Amen to this quote. Once a paradigm is accepted changing that paradigm is very difficult if not nearly impossible for several generations or maybe for a couple thousand of years or more.

“The screaming and yelling about Creationism and ID is not about God or Faith it's about the literal interpretation of the Bible, what is referred to as Bibliolatry, making the Bible your God.”

Kind of like making science and our intellect our God. I.e. Scientism.

From my point of view his comments at the beginning of his article reveals a person that could be very prone to bias. Comparing planned parent hood to Nazis is a bit much.

[Michael Prescott]

>Comparing planned parent hood to Nazis is a bit much.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an ardent eugenicist (as were many of her contemporaries). She believed in the elimination of "inferior" races, handicapped people, etc., for the betterment of the species. This does not mean, of course, that anyone associated with Planned Parenthood nowadays holds those views.

The Nazis were heavily influenced by Darwinism; see From Darwin to Hitler, by Richard Weikart. This is not to say that Darwinists are Nazis, but Darwinian theory did offer the Nazis an intellectual justification for the Holocaust.

[Topher Cooper]

Every field presents its own challenges that needs to be overcome. Dealing with disencarnate, willful spirits certainly creates such challenges, but as long as their interaction with the physical universe is subject to lawful limits the challenge, though perhaps large, is not, in principle, insurmountable, and though naturalism might need to be revised its essential role could be retained. Only if we are talking about an omnipotent being -- one unrestricted in its interaction with the physical universe -- would the concept of naturalism truly break down.

As for "trickster spirits" that also can be dealt with, in principle, as long as they have limits -- it might not be easy if those limits are well above our own.

Of course, among Creationists, and some pure IDers, the assumption appears to be that creation is performed by just such an omnipotent trickster. All the immense amount of evidence strongly consistent with evolution and contrary to a rational designer is dismissed -- when forced to confront it -- with the argument that the Creator deliberately wished to make things appear as if evolution had created biodiversity. I've never been able to figure out how Fundamentalists can be comfortable with presenting God as a deceiver (or alternately, that Creation as we see it was the work of the Devil -- how Manichaean).

[dey]

"The Nazis were heavily influenced by Darwinism; see From Darwin to Hitler, by Richard Weikart. This is not to say that Darwinists are Nazis, but Darwinian theory did offer the Nazis an intellectual justification for the Holocaust"

It's true. Richard Weikart wrote an article titled "Darwin and The Nazis" where he summarized his views on the influence of darwinism ideology in nazism:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13061

[Ross W]

"alternately, that Creation as we see it was the work of the Devil -- how Manichaean)"

This is not a mad idea. If God is perfect when in His infinite, nonmanifest state, then any Creation at all implies limitation of the Infinite into separate, finite forms. Separation implies self-centredness, and self-centredness in a limited state leads to “evil” selfishness. I would like to know how, in fact, it could be otherwise, Topher?

[qedm!intelligent]

I've found it hard to discuss intelligent design because every one has their own definition.

I think it is reasonable to ask, "if the universe and life on eart were created and or modified by an intelligence could we detect it?" We can tell an flint arrow head was not created by an avalanche. Are there any indications that life was not created by unintelligent natural forces?

I think this is an interesting question and I wish that scientists who agreed with my interest could pursue this question free from persecution. Unfortunately they cannot.

[Ross W]

"Are there any indications that life was not created by unintelligent natural forces?"

It depends on what level you wish to discuss this point. Ultimately, it can be argued that all natural forces are intelligent, or at least derive from intelligence. How does an electron, an atom, a molecule or a cell know how to behave? The laws underlying nature are orderly. Order implies intelligence.

[Tony S]

my personal idea of intelligent creator is similar to the way our software developers work, the create, revise, revise, revise to improve on the designs. Each revisions is an incremental improvment on the last. Want to create a new species? Start with one that already works and modify from there, Funny that this would leave a fossil record similar to what we have now :)

Suppose that we were able to create intelligent machines, and these machines were capable of self improvement. Then some tragedy happened, the human race was lost, but our intelligent machines survived. History was lost, but these machines did some digging and found remains of cars, dishwashers, etc. they might be able to assemble a 'fossil record' that shows progression from simple machines, to complex ones. They might even argue that no intelligence was required for the advancement. It was completely natural, but they just don't understand all the mechanisms at work yet.

[Ross W]

Sounds like the plot of a Steven Spielberg film, Tony. I agree about Intelligence working (like software engineers) by "Incremental improvement", though from what I have read, the Cambrian explosion seems to lack some of the increments! So this would be Quake, not Quake 2 or Quake 3...

[Ross W]

...and so there is genius and that Eureka moment, too...

[pmprescott]

“The screaming and yelling about Creationism and ID is not about God or Faith it's about the literal interpretation of the Bible, what is referred to as Bibliolatry, making the Bible your God.”

Kind of like making science and our intellect our God. I.e. Scientism.

I never said God was intellect or even my intellect. I don't try to merge science and religion. I'm a Baptist minister capable of understanding the Bible symbolically instead of literally. Since Science answers one set of questions and faith answers a different set of questions they are not in opposition, and can be separate.