Can We Empirically Detect "Agency"?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jongarvey

The teleology is that we see wired to read ambiguous stories in a way that echoes the deeper meaning and truthful ways.

But we’re also wired to perform the logical operations on which science depends, especially theory choice. If logical reasoning is properly basic (yet capable of error), and teleology is properly basic (yet capable of error), then it seems to be merely convention which of our faculties is permitted to operate within science.

Yup, we can think both ways at the same time, and both might be valid at the same time too. That is a classic example of paradox.

@swamidass

So several people there perceived God’s providential governance over this situation. It is the timing that seems to signal meaning, not any notion of laws being broken. A question for @rcohlers, how could empiricism even in principle tell us if this was special divine action or not? What evidence could tell us if it was divine protection or not? And theologically speaking, why do these question of mechanism matter even the slightest?

And look at an equally valid interpretation, chance,

“The most important piece of the rescue was good luck,” said Maj. Gen. Chalongchai Chaiyakham, the deputy commander of the Third Army region, which helped the operation. “So many things could have gone wrong, but somehow we managed to get the boys out.”

[Guy_Coe]

Sorry, Lord --You’ve been pretty much written out of the headlines, once again. Not very empirically astute, we humans, when it doesn’t suit our purposes.

[Philosurfer (Daniel Deen)]

@rcohlers

Their empiricism was moderate for many of the very reasons I think “rational” would be better here: what they observed from the five sense was understood within their larger rational thought, which included theological and philosophical thought (e.g., the noetic effects of sin, cosmological arguments from a first cause).

Which, at least by the time of John Locke, seemed to require an ethics of belief. How many different and contradictory ways can “larger rational thought” be fleshed out? For instance, I think you mentioned Peter Harrison in the main thread of this conversation, his book, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, is a great historical case study of what happens epistemologicaly when you have different accounts (broadly, Catholic vs. Protestant) of the noetic effects of sin.

I’m with you on some form of moderate empiricism as the correct view of rationality. However, I’m not sure it helps get us closer to recognizing a miracle “in real time.”

@rcohlers

e.g., versus a fideist position that would take miracles as credible solely on the grounds they are contained in scripture;

Hmm… I’ll need to think about this one. I’m usually charging others with being fideists, not the one charged! Assuming that this was directed at me regarding my view of scripture and miracles, which, by the way, I do not take as an insult. I tend to view the historical investigation of scripture and its claims via biblical archeology and textual criticism as scientific and empirical. Thus when I say I trust the scriptural record it is due to reasons, usually more drawn out in apologetic conversations, that scripture testifies to Christ reliably and that Christ testifies to miracles reliably. I’m not sure that aligns with most positions of fideism, but I could be wrong on that one.

[Philosurfer (Daniel Deen)]

@jongarvey

Not only that, but by definition, every event would be the result of direct agency, so detecting the event would be to detect the agency. The only way of refuting this is to put a different metaphysics before your empiricism, such as naturalism, which cannot detect agency because it too has an unproveable assumption built into it, ie that there is no agency to detect in events.

I love this thought as it reminds me of why I focused on epistemological issues and not metaphysical in grad school. That might sound weird coming from a Christian, but I think that metaphysics leads us into these questions that are impossible to answer beyond table thumping for metaphysical principal A vs B.

However, I do understand the value in contemplating such issues for personal reflection and mental training. I’m just not sure turning toward the metaphysical conversation has much value in helping bring closure to such questions as divine action as it tends to solidify walls rather than break them down. However, this is from someone who has been jaded by years of philosophical training and realize that perhaps it is more valuable for public discourse than what I’ve been exposed to.

[Philosurfer (Daniel Deen)]

@swamidass

It is my understanding that science largely ignores realtime events.

This is a point often ignored in discussing the epistemology of science. We usually think that science is forward looking, and it is in terms of preparing lab experiments, but, even in the absence of historical sciences such a paleontology, the data collected in labs always becomes part of the historical record. Thus any conversation regarding the epistemology of science must take into account testimony and memory as part of its experimental makeup, points largely ignored by philosophers of science. I think it also plays into relating science and religion, although I have not formulated clear thoughts on that yet…

@swamidass

That is why I’m finding a lot learn from Lutheranism. I’m confident that God could be working in these places, and I believe we can rationally discern God’s providential governance. However, discerning special divine action in particular independent of revelation? That is hard to imagine.

@rcohlers and I do not think necessarily a form of fideism.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

There is plenty of validity for finding teleology in the universe around you… but at a subjective level.

Teleology is not reducible to controlled variables.