This video was very interesting, thank you for sharing! What caught my attention was the headline in the thumbnail of the video, "Is the scientific method dogmatic?".
Dr. Bentz seems to agree with my own assessment (1:09:18). "I don't think that the enlightenment was not dogmatic. The enlightenment was as dogmatic as you may want to say, you know, medieval papacy was." https://youtu.be/SsG3bPXHG9E?t=4158
Two examples of how this dogmatism plays out in practice are the use of excommunication to protect the dogma, and the way it is simply thrown in the garbage when it faces critique.
2. When confronted with the idea that evolution itself should face the same scrutiny of the scientific method as creation, prominent disciple Michael Shermer denied the scientific method faster than Peter denied Jesus in all four of the gospels.
"There is nobody that set out the rules of, the methods of science; in fact, there is no such thing as the scientific method, like if you walk into a lab you're going to see a big chart on the wall that says,
step 1, collect data, step 2, form a hypothesis, step 3, test the hypothesis. There is nothing like that, because that's not how it works...the reason they’re not invoked is because they don’t do anything, it doesn’t lead to anything, there’s no testable hypothesis, its the end of the line." - Michael Shermer https://youtu.be/5zXSyBFH6HM?t=1938
Jerry Coyne's PHD advisor, Richard Lewontin, was also honest enough to admit the dogmatic nature of the scientific community.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/
Also, how is your statement (42:01), "metaphysics has just no interest to me anymore, like literally a negative interest. I'd rather look at a wall than think about that stuff", not indicative of doxastic closure? https://youtu.be/SsG3bPXHG9E?t=2521
Thanks for your extremely thoughtful comment. NB, I often ask questions of my guest to try and understand their reasoning. This, in turn, helps me understand my reasoning.
Peter! Be sure to catch me and a child of a father who still in late age ideates a female persona next week on Megyn Kelly! I'll be sure to mention that you said I and the other trans widows are not as important as the children being lured into this cult, not remembering that those men are fathers of children. Emma, the daughter, is quite eloquent. Be sure not to miss.
Definitely agree with Dr Bentz on the issue of learning through stories and movies.
Just curious, have you seen The Good Place? It's a TV show that actually had philosophers on staff to help them with topics discussed in the show. They get pretty deep into the weeds on philosophy and ideas.
You definitely should. As a philosophy professor you will probably love it. One of the main characters is a philosophy professor and he gives a lot of advice.
It’s basically the entire premise of the show. Yet it’s still a compelling story with interesting moral dilemmas.
This video was very interesting, thank you for sharing! What caught my attention was the headline in the thumbnail of the video, "Is the scientific method dogmatic?".
Dr. Bentz seems to agree with my own assessment (1:09:18). "I don't think that the enlightenment was not dogmatic. The enlightenment was as dogmatic as you may want to say, you know, medieval papacy was." https://youtu.be/SsG3bPXHG9E?t=4158
Two examples of how this dogmatism plays out in practice are the use of excommunication to protect the dogma, and the way it is simply thrown in the garbage when it faces critique.
1. "If you promote creationist ideologies, you are excommunicated and defined as outside the boundaries of science" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22163
2. When confronted with the idea that evolution itself should face the same scrutiny of the scientific method as creation, prominent disciple Michael Shermer denied the scientific method faster than Peter denied Jesus in all four of the gospels.
"There is nobody that set out the rules of, the methods of science; in fact, there is no such thing as the scientific method, like if you walk into a lab you're going to see a big chart on the wall that says,
step 1, collect data, step 2, form a hypothesis, step 3, test the hypothesis. There is nothing like that, because that's not how it works...the reason they’re not invoked is because they don’t do anything, it doesn’t lead to anything, there’s no testable hypothesis, its the end of the line." - Michael Shermer https://youtu.be/5zXSyBFH6HM?t=1938
Jerry Coyne's PHD advisor, Richard Lewontin, was also honest enough to admit the dogmatic nature of the scientific community.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/
Also, how is your statement (42:01), "metaphysics has just no interest to me anymore, like literally a negative interest. I'd rather look at a wall than think about that stuff", not indicative of doxastic closure? https://youtu.be/SsG3bPXHG9E?t=2521
Thanks for your extremely thoughtful comment. NB, I often ask questions of my guest to try and understand their reasoning. This, in turn, helps me understand my reasoning.
Peter! Be sure to catch me and a child of a father who still in late age ideates a female persona next week on Megyn Kelly! I'll be sure to mention that you said I and the other trans widows are not as important as the children being lured into this cult, not remembering that those men are fathers of children. Emma, the daughter, is quite eloquent. Be sure not to miss.
URL?
Definitely agree with Dr Bentz on the issue of learning through stories and movies.
Just curious, have you seen The Good Place? It's a TV show that actually had philosophers on staff to help them with topics discussed in the show. They get pretty deep into the weeds on philosophy and ideas.
No, I've not seen it. Should I?
You definitely should. As a philosophy professor you will probably love it. One of the main characters is a philosophy professor and he gives a lot of advice.
It’s basically the entire premise of the show. Yet it’s still a compelling story with interesting moral dilemmas.