An Ode to Skepticism: Elder Gods of the Gaps

"In truth, the God of the Gaps concept says much more about prevailing paradigms of belief than it does the gaps themselves. In a Church-dominated culture, God and the paranormal were unjustly used to fill in these gaps. In today’s society, Materialism steps in, but seems immune to similar criticism in scientific discussion."

I don't understand this statement. It appears to suggest that scientists say "Materialism did it" and then drop the entire field of study, thinking that they have just given a complete explanation. I've never heard a scientist say this.

~~ Paul

That's not at all how I interpreted the quote.  Seems a straightforward point regarding the "faith" many materialists articulate; that science will ultimately explain as yet understood phenomena in materialistic terms.

Great article. On the Occam’s Razor angle - it’s only the simplest explanation which explains all the facts/observations. It’s often misapplied IMHO where large amounts of inconvenient data are simply ignored because they don’t fit the argument. 

Also how about “Skepsplaining”?

"In truth, the God of the Gaps concept says much more about prevailing paradigms of belief than it does the gaps themselves. In a Church-dominated culture, God and the paranormal were unjustly used to fill in these gaps. In today’s society, Materialism steps in, but seems immune to similar criticism in scientific discussion."

I don't understand this statement. It appears to suggest that scientists say "Materialism did it" and then drop the entire field of study, thinking that they have just given a complete explanation. I've never heard a scientist say this.

~~ Paul

I think this is yet another case where the purported object of the attack would find the description of themselves unrecognizable.

And yet another mangling of Occam's Razor. Although, to be fair, I see Skeptics mangle it fairly regularly as well.

Linda

That's not at all how I interpreted the quote.  Seems a straightforward point regarding the "faith" many materialists articulate; that science will ultimately explain as yet understood phenomena in materialistic terms.

Then why did the author compare that to God as an explanation for the unknown? The God explanation was (and is) supposed to be the permanent explanation. In science, unexplained problems are acknowledged as such.

~~ Paul

 In science, unexplained problems are acknowledged as such.

No, in science, unexplained problems are filled in with a theoretical model which quickly becomes believed in as a literal reality.  Black holes and dark matter are two good examples.

No, in science, unexplained problems are filled in with a theoretical model which quickly becomes believed in as a literal reality.  Black holes and dark matter are two good examples.

I'm not sure that I'd group black holes and dark matter together in the same category. Black holes are a prediction of the existing theory. On the other hand, dark matter was invented because observations didn't match existing theory, it was not a natural prediction arising from theory alone.

I'm not sure that I'd group black holes and dark matter together in the same category. Black holes are a prediction of the existing theory. On the other hand, dark matter was invented because observations didn't match existing theory, it was not a natural prediction arising from theory alone.

I can't remember if it was neutrinos or anti neutrinos that were invented out of this air to explain other observations in particle physics but if I recall they did actually find them later.

In science, unexplained problems are acknowledged as such.

Perhaps by many scientists, yes.  However, a vocal minority interject promissory notes when unexplained problems crop up; promissory that science will certainly explain the problem at some point.

Perhaps by many scientists, yes.  However, a vocal minority interject promissory notes when unexplained problems crop up; promissory that science will certainly explain the problem at some point.

I'm not sure why this is interesting. They do expect science to explain the problem eventually, even if the nature of scientific explanations changes over time. What else could they say? Nope, I don't think science will ever explain this?

~~ Paul

No, in science, unexplained problems are filled in with a theoretical model which quickly becomes believed in as a literal reality.  Black holes and dark matter are two good examples.

So then scientists stop working on those problems? Ooh, it's dark matter. We're done. Let's get a beer?

~~ Paul