An Ode to Skepticism: Elder Gods of the Gaps

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

~~ Paul

Is that what he said? Is it even implied by what he said? No, not at all. You're trying to act as if promissory materialism is not a thing that scientists who choose to opine on the topic take part in. Sure, lots of scientists don't focus on these debates. Many of those who do, who fall on the skeptical side of things, fall back at every turn on the notion that science will figure it all out. That is a faith-based assumption, and appealing endlessly to the scientific method's successes thus far does not effectively sidestep the issues surrounding what we might actually able to discover or not in the future using it. 

It is entirely fair to characterize such a reliance on scientism as functionally a form of a god of the gaps argument, which seems to be what Brian was saying (apologies if that's not correct, Brian). Denying that this is happening is an exercise in complete and willful ignorance or blatant disingenuity.

What else could they say? Nope, I don't think science will ever explain this?

Yes, actually, some indication of humility would be refreshing. There are scientists out there who aren't so consumed by the normal scientific paradigm that they are able to acknowledge that there are some areas of reality that may be difficult to understand via the scientific method. Is consciousness one of those things? I'm not really sure, nor is anyone else. I will say that at this point it's ridiculous to say that a tradition reductive model is any more likely to be correct than one that is totally different than such a model. And of course, it's possible that something could be understood or studied using the scientific method without that thing being physical as currently (poorly) understood. 

So it's fallacious from the get go to conflate the ability to "use science to study some thing" with that thing being explicable in totally reductive, currently-understood materialistic terms. Saying "science will figure it out" doesn't in any way mean that whatever science ultimately figures out will be exactly what modern reductionists or materialists would say that thing would be like.

Yes, actually, some indication of humility would be refreshing. There are scientists out there who aren't so consumed by the normal scientific paradigm that they are able to acknowledge that there are some areas of reality that may be difficult to understand via the scientific method. Is consciousness one of those things? I'm not really sure, nor is anyone else. I will say that at this point it's ridiculous to say that a tradition reductive model is any more likely to be correct than one that is totally different than such a model. And of course, it's possible that something could be understood or studied using the scientific method without that thing being physical as currently (poorly) understood. 

So it's fallacious from the get go to conflate the ability to "use science to study some thing" with that thing being explicable in totally reductive, currently-understood materialistic terms. Saying "science will figure it out" doesn't in any way mean that whatever science ultimately figures out will be exactly what modern reductionists or materialists would say that thing would be like.

I don’t think anyone argues that. If it is argued that there isn’t any particular reason, yet, to think that some less developed areas of understanding will not involve any of our current findings with respect to interactions of matter and energy, it is probably in response to the unwarranted speculation offered up by idealists and apologists as though it were fact.

Linda

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

~~ Paul

https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/beer/dark-matter/

Yes, actually, some indication of humility would be refreshing. There are scientists out there who aren't so consumed by the normal scientific paradigm that they are able to acknowledge that there are some areas of reality that may be difficult to understand via the scientific method. Is consciousness one of those things? ...

Indeed ...

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27017

By leaps, steps, and stumbles, science progresses. Its seemingly inexorable advance promotes a sense that everything can be known and will be known. Through observation and experiment, and lots of hard thinking, we will come to explain even the murkiest and most complicated of nature’s secrets: consciousness, dark matter, time, the full story of the universe.

But what if our faith in nature’s knowability is just an illusion, a trick of the overconfident human mind? That’s the working assumption behind a school of thought known as mysterianism. Situated at the fruitful if sometimes fraught intersection of scientific and philosophic inquiry, the mysterianist view has been promulgated, in different ways, by many respected thinkers, from the philosopher Colin McGinn to the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. The mysterians propose that human intellect has boundaries and that some of nature’s mysteries may forever lie beyond our comprehension.

Is that what he said? Is it even implied by what he said? No, not at all. You're trying to act as if promissory materialism is not a thing that scientists who choose to opine on the topic take part in. Sure, lots of scientists don't focus on these debates. Many of those who do, who fall on the skeptical side of things, fall back at every turn on the notion that science will figure it all out. That is a faith-based assumption, and appealing endlessly to the scientific method's successes thus far does not effectively sidestep the issues surrounding what we might actually able to discover or not in the future using it. 

It is entirely fair to characterize such a reliance on scientism as functionally a form of a god of the gaps argument, which seems to be what Brian was saying (apologies if that's not correct, Brian). Denying that this is happening is an exercise in complete and willful ignorance or blatant disingenuity.

That's exactly my position Dante.  Thank you for clarifying.

Is that what he said? Is it even implied by what he said? No, not at all. You're trying to act as if promissory materialism is not a thing that scientists who choose to opine on the topic take part in. Sure, lots of scientists don't focus on these debates. Many of those who do, who fall on the skeptical side of things, fall back at every turn on the notion that science will figure it all out. That is a faith-based assumption, and appealing endlessly to the scientific method's successes thus far does not effectively sidestep the issues surrounding what we might actually able to discover or not in the future using it. 

It is entirely fair to characterize such a reliance on scientism as functionally a form of a god of the gaps argument, which seems to be what Brian was saying (apologies if that's not correct, Brian). Denying that this is happening is an exercise in complete and willful ignorance or blatant disingenuity.

It seems to me it's implied by what he said, which was "No, in science, unexplained problems are filled in with a theoretical model which quickly becomes believed in as a literal reality." If believing it doesn't result in stopping work on the problem, then what is the issue and what is Brian's point?

~~ Paul

Yes, actually, some indication of humility would be refreshing. There are scientists out there who aren't so consumed by the normal scientific paradigm that they are able to acknowledge that there are some areas of reality that may be difficult to understand via the scientific method. Is consciousness one of those things? I'm not really sure, nor is anyone else. I will say that at this point it's ridiculous to say that a tradition reductive model is any more likely to be correct than one that is totally different than such a model. And of course, it's possible that something could be understood or studied using the scientific method without that thing being physical as currently (poorly) understood. 

So it's fallacious from the get go to conflate the ability to "use science to study some thing" with that thing being explicable in totally reductive, currently-understood materialistic terms. Saying "science will figure it out" doesn't in any way mean that whatever science ultimately figures out will be exactly what modern reductionists or materialists would say that thing would be like.

I agree, so what's the problem with saying "science will figure it out"? No one is saying "Science will figure it out and, by God, that won't require any changes to the way science does business!"

Does anyone actually know any scientists who behave the way some of you suggest they do?

~~ Paul

That's exactly my position Dante.  Thank you for clarifying.

Here is the definition of "scientism":

2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

That's not what we're talking about, right? We all agree that the scientific method might not work on some problems in the soft sciences and humanities. The question is whether scientists reach some conclusion about a particular problem and then give up working on it, thus declaring a god of the gaps solution.

~~ Paul

I agree, so what's the problem with saying "science will figure it out"

Clearly you don't agree or you wouldn't ask the question.

Does anyone actually know any scientists who behave the way some of you suggest they do?

Well, define "know".  If you mean "know" in the sense that we have listened to them speak then the answer is yes.  Start with Lawrence Krauss.
Can't help but feel like you are trying to obfuscate the overarching point here.  Its pretty straightforward and rather easy to see by listening to some of the more vocal representatives of "science".