Does science have a cognitive privilege?

20121207-225414.jpg

Finding “self-evidence” and “self-justification”

You don’t often come across the term “cognitive privilege.” But  I did the other day – and knew immediately what it meant – or what was being implied by the term.

The theologian Brian Mattson used it in his blog post Does Scientific Materialism Deserve a Cognitive Privilege?  Its clear what he means, although his specific use of it is very confused. He accuses someone of, in effect, cognitively privileging “scientific materialism.”

(These theologians love to use words like “materialism” and “naturalism” when they critique science. The rarely bother defining the terms but they are usually stand-ins for scientific method or the implied scientific epistemological process.)

As he says:

“A “privilege” is a “right or immunity granted as a particular benefit, advantage, or favor.” The benefit, advantage, or favor being granted to scientific materialism is that it has the preeminent right to be the baseline. It is what we are to take for granted. There the edifice stands.”

He is supporting the complaints of Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Nagel about modern science:

“Their point (a philosophically ruthless and perhaps uncomfortable one) is that scientific materialism is not entitled to privileged status at all. It is not self-evident, self-justifying, an edifice that must be taken for granted as the baseline. It is precisely this sleight-of-hand they are challenging, a sleight-of-hand so effective it has largely produced the widespread privileging of its construct . . . . . It is simply not the case that scientific materialism must be taken as true and that the burden of proof must be passed on to any and all challengers.”

So these guys are upset by the widespread acceptance that science is generally a reliable way of getting to know reality? They think this reputation is “privileged? That it hasn’t been earned? That we have pulled the wool over the eyes of people all these years? We have an unearned “privilege?”

They obviously haven’t really thought this through, or even looked around at our modern society. At most they will childishly chant “You can’t logically prove scientific method or knowledge is reliable.”

Crickey, do they really think that humanity should have held back. Refused to even contemplate trying to understand its environment or solve the problems it faced until someone had come up with a watertight deductive proof that science would work? Something to make it “self-evident” or “self-justifying?”

And, seriously, do they think that people would have paid any attention to such a deduction? Or taken seriously the philosophers or logicians who has produced it?

The proof of the pudding

We haven’t allowed such mental gymnastics hold us back. Humanity just went ahead and did the best it could. Trial and error has taught us what works best. The proof of the pudding was in the eating.

People respect scientific method and knowledge because of their own experience. They know it works. So they aren’t particularly interested in these complaints of lack of deductive proof.

And guess what – even scientists, those using these methods are not particularly interested in those deductive proofs either. They are practical people – if the methods didn’t work they wouldn’t bother with them. They would look for something else.

So if science has a good reputation it’s well-earned. People know from experience that it works. That’s why it’s respected. That’s why society and governments turn to scientists when there are problems and we are looking for solutions.

Science has cognitive respect – not privilege, and certainly not the unearned privilege suggested by Plantinga, Nagel and Brian Mattson.

An attempt to demand privilege as a right

Mattson’s complaint about the “cognitive privilege” of science is, however, revealing. Both Plantinga and Nagel have been critiquing the high standing of science because they are arguing for an alternative. They are in effect demanding that religious or other “way’s of knowing,” revelation and philosophy of religion, should be more acceptable to humanity. That it should be given the credibility that science gets, perhaps even more. The more honest theologian may admit that there is no obvious reason for accepting religious and similar “ways of knowing,” but because scientific knowledge and method is no more “self-evident” or “self-justifying” than religious knowledge,  the two methods should be treated as “equally valid”

But where science has won cognitive respect through experience, through successful performance, these theologians and philosophers of religion seem to think they can demand cognitive respect as a right. Without earning it through deeds.

Actually they, not science, are the ones demanding cognitive privilege.

Similar articles

3 responses to “Does science have a cognitive privilege?

  1. Pingback: Does science have a cognitive privilege? | Open Parachute | Hippocampus

  2. I mean no disrespect, but I think you’ve misrepresented the idea of ‘cognitive privilege.’ Plenty of people–theists, agnostics, and antitheists–are willing to acknowledge that “science” means studying the external world, i.e., observing, measuring, and making predictions about empirical data. The “privilege” of which Plantinga and others speak is a particular attitude toward that study–one that, as Stephen Dilley has pointed out (in “As Above, So Below,” Salvo #32, pp 12-14), “boasts a self-correcting method, expansive, confirmation, massive technological application, unrivalled consensus-building power, and a clear record of historical progress.” This attitude he calls ‘scientism,’ which he goes on to explain is “at odds with” science itself (as defined above). Here’s a brief example of part of his argument: “One might use logic, physical facts, and the ‘scientific method’ to discover what is true, but these things don’t require you to respect the truth. The germ theory of disease? The periodic table? Water as H2O? These are mere intellectual curiosities unless scientists (and the rest of us) ought to follow the evidence where it leads. Without an obligation to the truth, empirical discoveries lose their power to command assent. Something beyond the data—love and respect for truth—makes these empirical discoveries worthy of belief.” Hopefully that makes some sense to you. It does to me. If nothing else, it tells me that as long as a scientist believes he ought to do this or that, he is holding to a view that is not strictly scientific; he’s bringing to his view something of philosophy or moral law. And that’s fine—in fact, it’s great! But, there’s no sense in pretending, as some scientists try, to make it appear that, BECAUSE they are scientists, they bring no philosophical or moral presuppositions to their experiments. “Hard” science, or science of a strictly empirical nature, cannot determine from their inquiries whether it’s right or wrong, better or worse, for governments to use nuclear weapons, to endorse gay marriage, to permit infanticide, etc.—any number of issues that many if not most citizens consider important. So sorry about the length!

    Like

  3. Ryan, this is a wild statement:

    “there’s no sense in pretending, as some scientists try, to make it appear that, BECAUSE they are scientists, they bring no philosophical or moral presuppositions to their experiments.

    Where is your evidence for such a claim? Where are your examples?

    Who is claiming hard science can determine right from wrong, etc?

    You produce nothing.

    I think you are throwing out straw men – but why?

    Are you unhappy that science wins, and deserves, cognitive respect?

    Do you oppose my conclusion:

    “But where science has won cognitive respect through experience, through successful performance, these theologians and philosophers of religion seem to think they can demand cognitive respect as a right. Without earning it through deeds.

    Actually they, not science, are the ones demanding cognitive privilege.

    Are you one of those people who are demanding an undeserved cognitive privilege for theology or similar anti-scientific approaches to investigating and understanding reality?

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s