Topic: The King of the Hill argument

[Ralphy J]

@lumberjohn

An evaluation of the scientific worldview as superior is made in reference to the values of the scientific worldview*. There's no transcendent position among which competing frameworks can be evaluated; any evaluation is done within one of those very frameworks to begin with.

The best example of this is when you say "It is entirely appropriate to insist that believers agree to such a framework." To agree that it is 'entirely appropriate' is to already assume the values of a particular worldview, one which moots the necessity of testing non-falsifiable claims made on faith. If you have consensus on a framework, then your interlocutor becomes just another scientist. A framework/worldview precedes the testing of claims; it's not the testing of claims which vindicates a specific framework vis-à-vis another, because they measure validity and success of tests through terms relative to those very worldviews.

Every system we have in society (i.e., law and science) that evaluates truth claims has such a framework for doing so, and these frameworks are generally non-controversial.  You don’t hear anyone arguing, for example, that our legal system is flawed because it requires evidence to prove that someone committed a crime.

When you say the above I believe it is a bit of special pleading. Religion is a social institution alongside law, science, art, medicine, and so on. It has a framework for evaluating truth claims and what constitutes evidence. None of these institutions have equivalent standards for evaluating evidence (otherwise they would all be scientific institutions, or legal institutions, etc.). At the points where evidence actually matters, there is a warranted lack of consensus (that is to say, science, medicine, religion, and the law have very significant internal controversies about what evidence counts and how to interpret it).  Those standards are not the same across institutions.

When you say "The real argument should be over which framework to use.  We have by far the better position on this and should not so easily concede it" I don't see how someone who occupies a religious framework would not say the exact same thing.

Do you disagree with what I am saying?

*values about the point of inquiry, what counts as evidence, what constitutes a better explanation, etc.

[lumberjohn]

When you say the above I believe it is a bit of special pleading. Religion is a social institution alongside law, science, art, medicine, and so on. It has a framework for evaluating truth claims and what constitutes evidence. None of these institutions have equivalent standards for evaluating evidence (otherwise they would all be scientific institutions, or legal institutions, etc.). At the points where evidence actually matters, there is a warranted lack of consensus (that is to say, science, medicine, religion, and the law have very significant internal controversies about what evidence counts and how to interpret it).  Those standards are not the same across institutions.

When you say "The real argument should be over which framework to use.  We have by far the better position on this and should not so easily concede it" I don't see how someone who occupies a religious framework would not say the exact same thing.

Do you disagree with what I am saying?

I do.  And here's why.  The framework of science is superior to the framework for religion for evaluating truth claims because it works.  Science and the methods it employs have given us the cure for polio and men on the moon.  They allow us to accurately plot the orbits of planets millions of light years away.  They allow us to predict the future based on the observations of the past. No religious framework can make such a claim.

If using the king of the hill analogy, the scientific method has a right to sit atop the hill because it has earned it: experiment by experiment, test by test.  Every observation that confirms the theory of evolution or relativity validates the scientific method.  So step by step, the scientific method has ascended the hill and earnd its rightful place at the top.  Provide even one religious framework that say as much. It's not special pleading if you can back it up with hard evidence, and we can.

And I disagree with you about science, law and medicine having a "lack of consensus" or "significant internal controversies" about what evidence counts and how to interpret it.  The standards in all three fields are amazingly consistent.  The standards for the admission of scientific evidence in legal proceedings is, for instance, completely consistent with the scientific method.  Your argument sounds like intelligent design advocates trying to argue there are "significant internal controversies" among scientists regarding evolution.  There may be minor disagreements among disciplines, but in all major respects, they agree. 

Religion is a social institution, but it has never been good at telling us anything useful about how the world works.  Virtually every such belief has been overturned by science and science can prove that it is correct - again, and again, and again.  It is infuriating to hear skeptics even suggest that the religious and scientific evidentiary frameworks are in any way comparable in terms of results.  Science works.  Religion doesn't.  It is as simple as that.

[Ralphy J]

You've said that 'science works at giving scientific answers' or 'science achieves its ends'. But religious practice also achieves its ends. It's not like religious explanation and scientific explanation are pursuing the same thing, with religion falling short. They are incommensurable practices. The conclusion 'science works' is presumably in answer to the question 'does science work or not?'. But this question can be evaluated only with reference to standards of a particular framework. To say 'religion doesn't succeed from a scientific vantage' doesn't demonstrate the superiority of the scientific position, one has to import a set of values in addition to those of science to make that claim.

So you're right, religious explanation hasn't put a man on the moon. Was religious inquiry attempting to do this? Judging the success of religion by scientific standards is like judging the success of science by religious standards - it's a literal waste of time.

As for "The standards for the admission of scientific evidence in legal proceedings is, for instance, completely consistent with the scientific method." But what about the standards for the admission of legal evidence in legal proceedings? What about the standards for what sorts of argument are legitimate? What about the objects of law - the ontological assumptions which gird the legal framework? I'm not saying this to pull rank, but have you worked in, or worked with, any legal theorists? Done some contemporary work in jurisprudence? It's not comparable to science in the way you present it, yet is still perfectly legitimate. And evolution is settled, but this has nothing to do with current work in the sciences. People on the cutting edge of physics, biology, statistics (and just about every domain imaginable) are involved in debates over how to determine what evidence counts, why, and how to measure and interpret it. It's not the case that all social institutions save religion tacitly share the same über-position in relationship to evidence and evaluation.

"It is infuriating to hear skeptics even suggest that the religious and scientific evidentiary frameworks are in any way comparable in terms of results." Who did this? I certainly never said they were comparable in terms of results. Perhaps you should read my comments when you are less enraged.

EDIT: Here's the short version. Are you saying that all social institutions ('every system we have in society'), except for religion, share the same standards of evidence, metaphysical commitments, and are generally noncontroversial?

EDIT 2: I re-read the thread - if someone thinks that all social institutions are occupied with the same objects and goals, asking the same questions (or asking them in the same way), all trying to get at the Truth, they are mistaken. That's the very reason why distinct institutions exist in the first place. These institutions don't agree; they don't even disagree, because they use incompatible languages. Some of the most significant problems in jurisprudence are at the intersection of these disparate institutions, such as when psychiatry and the law encounter each other.

EDIT 3: I hope this isn't bad form, but I want to be clear. lumberjohn, you wrote "Every observation that confirms the theory of evolution or relativity validates the scientific method.  So step by step, the scientific method has ascended the hill and earnd its rightful place at the top." Was 'predictive power' or 'curing disease' a standard put in place at the dawn of time that all social institutions were competing to satisfy? If not, it's like a triple tautology or something: Science succeeds by the standards science sets for science.

[lumberjohn]

Ralphy,

If I correctly understand you, you're saying that you can't compare the scientific framework with the religious framework because they don't claim the same goals or ask the same questions.  My response?  Of course they do.

All religions make scientifically verifiable claims, and those claims are very often central to their doctrines and worldviews.  For over a thousand years, Orthodox Christianity claimed that the Earth was either flat or the center of known universe.  It also claimed that man was created in his present form in the image of God.  These claims were made based upon scripture rather than evidence.  If scientific evidence had ultimately confirmed a flat earth or geocentric universe, I assure you that the churches would all cite that evidence as confirmation that their religion is the correct one.

There is enormous overlap between the claims of religion and those of science.  The existence of God is itself a scientific claim to extent the proponent of the "God hypothesis" is willing to put some meat on the bone and agree to specific characteristics of his or her deity. 

You say that you never claimed religion and science were comparable in terms of results.  But aren't results all that matter?  If religious scripture predicts a flat earth and geocentric universe and these predictions are found to be demonstrably wrong, then does that not work to invalidate religion as a competitor to science on other factual claims?  If an evidentiary framework can't provide accurate results, what good is it?

Yes, religion might be concerned with metaphysical issues such as that old chestnut "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and I would agree that science has nothing to say on such matters.  But such matters have no relevance to the world we live in and so I believe can be safely ignored.  On all issues of any real import to our daily lives or the working of our world, science does have something to say and it is far more likely to be correct than religion.

As for your reference to "pulling rank," I am a practicing attorney and have been one for approximately twenty years.  A large part of my practice has been medical malpractice and products liability involving scientific experts.  I am very familiar with legal, medical, and scientific standards for evidence and I can tell you they are consistent.  There are no serious "debates" going on in these professions regarding the broad principles involved just as their are no serious debates in the scientific community over whether evolution or the big bang occurred.  If you believe otherwise, please provide an example, for I am aware of none.

[Ralphy J]

I think you do not understand me correctly. I will try to summarize what I've been asking and my substantive points.

If your point is 'when it comes to making scientific claims and testing them science is better than religion according to scientific standards' then I grant that point, but I don't see how it matters to the thread or to what I've written. I've never said 'religion is better at science than science'.

Every institution (the family, science, art, law, religion, medicine, etc.) make scientifically verifiable claims. Only one of these institutions says 'the merit and reason for our institution is to test those claims scientifically'.

If the point is religion and science are competing explanatory institutions, we might say "How should I assess the worth of their explanations?". One worldview might answer 'well, a good explanation is one which is parsimonous, and doesn't entertain contradiction, and has predictive capacity [etc.]'. Another worldview might answer 'well, a good explanation is one which is faithful to scripture, or what my religious leader says is best through access to our creator'. If one commits to either of those frameworks, then a positive assessment of the worth of the explanation can't itself be the reason for demonstrating the merit of the evaluative framework. Thus the OP.

The merit of a scientific framework (a merit I recognize) can't trump a position which values things differently - if one prizes religious devotion over pragmatics, 'science works' is meaningless. The merit of a scientific framework, conversely, is obvious to people who value useful explanations of the natural world, but this doesn't say anything because it's tautological. Thus, the 'king of the hill' argument isn't much use. It only convinces people who already occupy the relevant framework, and has no leverage with people who have different values about what is important.

The previous paragraph and my other posts sum up what I'm saying. The rest is if your interested but is tangential at this point.

There is no debate in the legal community over scientific questions, but there is debate in the legal community over legal questions, just as there is debate in the art community over aesthetic and artistic questions, just as there is debate in the religious community over religious questions. There is no extra-institutional arbiter of these questions. What constitutes evidence (and the construct for which evidence stands) is much different when a scholar in The British Journal of Criminology makes claims about exceptionalism vs. when the JAACAP does factor analysis for schizophrenia. If they had the same metaphysical frameworks then there would not be separate disciplines or institutions at all.

(If it is unclear, when I say 'metaphysical' I mean ontological and epistemological assumptions. Science has metaphysical commitments, as does law, as does art, as does religion.)

[IrishJazz]

Who is declaring victory and challenging believers to prove we have not won?  I agree that would be a stupid approach, but it seems like a strawman.  When people use the term “king of the hill” argument, it is used derogatively to describe an argument that meets that description, but I have never actually seen a skeptic take this approach.

What I have seen is skeptics require proof of evidentiary claims through established frameworks for demonstrating the validity of such claims, which is not the same thing as declaring victory.  Every system we have in society (i.e., law and science) that evaluates truth claims has such a framework for doing so, and these frameworks are generally non-controversial.  You don’t hear anyone arguing, for example, that our legal system is flawed because it requires evidence to prove that someone committed a crime.  It is entirely appropriate to insist that believers agree to such a framework.

People don't talk about the "king of the hill" argument, but thank you for saying they do.  It is a term I made up. 

I totally agree that logical processes and physical proof are required for criminal conviction.  For this reason, notoriously, some people commit crimes and get away with them.  I also agree that if someone makes a physical claim- that God designed the flagellum or that the flow of Chi is the foundation of health, that claim is subject to proof.

But when people say that the default position should be the non-existence of gods and the supernatural- in the absence of specific claims- then they are the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended.  The statement "I have faith in God" translates to "I believe in God in the absence of proof."  Demanding proof in response is making the argument that faith is not a valid reason for belief. 

I fully believe that argument can be made, just not by climbing up the hill and demanding to be knocked off, because the believer has his own little hill that he can climb up and challenge you back.  No matter how fairly science has earned its position at the top of the mound, it is an ineffective approach to argument. 

(BTW, using the flat earth/center of the universe argument is a bit disingenuous since the views of the church at that time reflected accepted scientific belief.  Of course they were a bit behind the curve when it was disproved. The inflexibility of revealed truth is the ultimate weakness of the traditional religious worldview.)

[worldslaziestbusker]

I fully believe that argument can be made, just not by climbing up the hill and demanding to be knocked off, because the believer has his own little hill that he can climb up and challenge you back.  No matter how fairly science has earned its position at the top of the mound, it is an ineffective approach to argument. 

A demonstration would be appreciated.  Otherwise it just sounds like a reiteration of Gould's call for NOMA, taken back a step to cover the burden of evidence as well as scientific methods of enquiry.


Logic tests
Your syllogism
But don't apply
To catechism

Noma Shave

(for best results, use Occam's Razor)

[IrishJazz]

I fully believe that argument can be made, just not by climbing up the hill and demanding to be knocked off, because the believer has his own little hill that he can climb up and challenge you back.  No matter how fairly science has earned its position at the top of the mound, it is an ineffective approach to argument. 

A demonstration would be appreciated.  Otherwise it just sounds like a reiteration of Gould's call for NOMA, taken back a step to cover the burden of evidence as well as scientific methods of enquiry.


Logic tests
Your syllogism
But don't apply
To catechism

Noma Shave

(for best results, use Occam's Razor)

Ah Busker.  Allow me to extend my sincere warm greetings, indifferent to whether you accept them or not.   Good post and fair point.  (I am a bit more sympathetic to NOMA than you, but view it as an inconsistent intellectual strategy.)  There are alternative arguments against religion, for example...

Theism, as a broad category, is impervious to disproof.  Sorry, the formulation is just too vague, hence the resort to FSM mockery. 

Fortunately theists do not limit their claims to the simple existence of God/gods.

Deists are pretty close to the starting vagueness.  But if the non-existence of their vaporous God cannot be proven, the relevance of it can.  It is a completely unnecessary variable in the equation of existence, an explanation that explains nothing.  There is always a gap for the God of the gaps, but it is the Incredible Shrinking Deity, giving way to knowledge like a shadow to the light.  What is the utility of a belief without consequences?  Maybe a Deist can answer this, but I haven't met that particular individual yet.

When you delve into Christianity, the opportunities for deconstructing specific beliefs are legion.  The more someone holds to the Bible as literal truth, the easier it is to deconstruct the books' myriad inconsistencies and contradictions.  This is the playground of superficial atheism, and far be it from me to detract from the joy of romping in it.  But most Christians are not slavish Fundamentalists- the Catholics, for example, are not Bible literalists.

For me the most effective argument against Christianity is the historical Jesus.  Not the "Jesus Myth- He was really Horus" bullshit, but the man as he is recorded in the book itself.  A solid case can be made that his message was essentially anti-religious.  His parables emphasized action rather than belief as the key to redemption.  "The Good Samaritan" was about how the priestly caste would not help a bloodied man because it would ruin their ritual purity.  The key rituals of Christianity- baptism and communion- were originally understood as alternatives to Temple baths and altar sacrifice meals.  His sermon about the Sheep and the Goats was about how the pious who did not aid the sick, feed the poor and visit the prisoner would be judged wanting- that charity mattered more than dogma. 

Of course all of this went out the window with Paul, who manufactured a structured religion around the crucified "savior" that involved a novel interpretation of the Eden story.  God wanted to stop keeping people from immortality so he came back as a mortal and had himself horribly punished to open the gates of heaven to those who could recognize this surpassingly odd gesture.  I guess it made sense to a first century Greek.  The Romans eventually caught on to the advantages of "render unto Caesar" - and the value of having a large group of people dedicated to public charity without government involvement- and made it a state religion.  Priests- unnecessary in Jesus' opinion- became the intermediaries who would turn wine to blood in a bizarre recasting of Jesus' anti-Temple gesture. 

In any case, prevailing in argument often requires a knowledge of the basic material.  There are challenges in arguing with Hindus, because at the highest level theirs is a religion without gods, who are all part of Maya, the illusion of existence.  Buddhism is also atheistic.  Arguing with Muslims is a bit dangerous, but their religion is an obvious pastiche of Judaism, essentially idealistic, but practically challenging due to the failure to separate the secular from the political. 

The challenge is to meet the believer on their own ground.  Know their arguments, and be able to counter them.  With fundamentalists, if you can get them to call you Satan, their anti-god of intelligent trickery- without raising your voice or calling them stupid or their superstition evil, then you are on the right track.

[lumberjohn]

If your point is 'when it comes to making scientific claims and testing them science is better than religion according to scientific standards' then I grant that point, but I don't see how it matters to the thread or to what I've written. I've never said 'religion is better at science than science'.

If the point is religion and science are competing explanatory institutions, we might say "How should I assess the worth of their explanations?". One worldview might answer 'well, a good explanation is one which is parsimonous, and doesn't entertain contradiction, and has predictive capacity [etc.]'. Another worldview might answer 'well, a good explanation is one which is faithful to scripture, or what my religious leader says is best through access to our creator'. If one commits to either of those frameworks, then a positive assessment of the worth of the explanation can't itself be the reason for demonstrating the merit of the evaluative framework. Thus the OP.

The merit of a scientific framework (a merit I recognize) can't trump a position which values things differently - if one prizes religious devotion over pragmatics, 'science works' is meaningless. The merit of a scientific framework, conversely, is obvious to people who value useful explanations of the natural world, but this doesn't say anything because it's tautological.

Ralphy,
I’m afraid you’ve lost me.  The best explanation of something is the explanation that is correct.  There is no value judgment here.  My point is that when it comes to making any claims (other than purely metaphysical) about the nature of the universe we live in, science is better than religion. 

You have recast my point as follows: “when it comes to making scientific claims and testing them, science is better than religion according to scientific standards.”  All claims regarding the nature of the universe, other than purely metaphysical ones, are scientific claims.  Accordingly, all such claims must be judged by scientific standards as those are the only standards that have ever been determined to be effective in evaluating them.

Using your example, you have a scientific claim that the universe is over thirteen billion years old versus that of a young earth creationist claiming it to be only 6,000 years old.  You appear to be saying that the religious claim is superior to the scientific one within the religious framework because it is, for instance “faithful to scripture.”  But you can’t ignore that this is a claim about objective reality and that one is objectively true and the other is not. 

You say that the merit of a scientific framework is only obvious to people “who value useful explanations of the natural world.” Well, doesn’t that cover everyone?  Who doesn’t value useful explanations of the natural world? You posit that religious people only care about adherence to scripture with no concern over what is objectively true.  While there may be a very small minority of religious people that feel that way, it mischaracterizes the vast majority of the religious. Just look at the great efforts made by the religious community to co-opt science and to explain things in terms that appear consistent with scientific observations.

So what about metaphysical claims?  Is religion any better at evaluating such claims than science?  I would say no, because there is no standard within the religious framework for determining which such claims are true.  So religion is no better or worse than science at evaluating such claims. 

[lumberjohn]

People don't talk about the "king of the hill" argument, but thank you for saying they do.  It is a term I made up. 

. . . But when people say that the default position should be the non-existence of gods and the supernatural- in the absence of specific claims- then they are the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended.  The statement "I have faith in God" translates to "I believe in God in the absence of proof."  Demanding proof in response is making the argument that faith is not a valid reason for belief. 

I fully believe that argument can be made, just not by climbing up the hill and demanding to be knocked off, because the believer has his own little hill that he can climb up and challenge you back.  No matter how fairly science has earned its position at the top of the mound, it is an ineffective approach to argument. 

IrishJazz,

I was referencing the way the people in this thread have employed the argument you identified as well as the way I’ve seen similar arguments used by others.

I don’t agree that the default position is the positive claim.  The default position is basically that what we can see and observe is all there is.  There is no reason to “prove” this as the evidence is all around us and continuously subject to all of our senses and instruments of measurement.  That is why it is the default.  If someone wants to demonstrate otherwise, he or she is making a positive claim that must be supported by evidence.  If it were any other way, we would all have to acknowledge the existence of invisible dragons and Leprechauns because their nonexistence can’t be proven.

Faith in the way you define is simply isn’t a valid reason for belief.  If you break down your proof, it boils down to “I believe because I just believe,” which is falacious on its face.  Only evidence is a good reason for belief.

If you wanted to demonstrate this to a believer, it would be relatively easy to do.  Just take two groups of people.  Allow one to enter a room and observe it, but not the other one.  Ask each group questions to determine their beliefs about what’s in the room.  See which group is more accurate. 

As I’ve said before, I don’t think standing on the hill and asking someone to knock you off is a persuasive approach to argument.  For the reasons I’ve stated, however, I do believe you would be entirely justified in taking that approach if it were.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Ah Busker.  Allow me to extend my sincere warm greetings, indifferent to whether you accept them or not.   

The last time we corresponded you told me I was wrong because I was wrong.  In light of that statement, I find your greetings insincere.  Syrup of ipecac in written form.

The challenge is to meet the believer on their own ground.  Know their arguments, and be able to counter them. 

I think that's the problem with ceding the hard won high ground.  You have to go through the same process for all comers, when simply asking for evidence is simpler while still intellectually honest.  You don't have to put in the hard yards on the minutiae of other people's ideas, just assess the bits they offer up as a strongest case.
Example: I asked you for evidence of your approach.  You provided evidence.  I assessed the evidence on its merits and found it wanting because it requires intimate knowledge of every belief system people are trying to foist on you.

Shibboleth has previously suggested that to dispute a claim of a faith you have to do so from within the framework of that faith, and I didn't find it convincing when he served this idea up either. 

Do you accept that pointing out that the burden of evidence lies with the party making positive claims is valid in dealing with homeopaths and psychics?  How are the delusions of these people distinct from religious beliefs?  How would your approach apply in conversation with someone who refuses to vaccinate their children because they think the government is keeping us all ill deliberately and using the needles to inject sub-dermal mind control microchips?

[jomike]

But when people say that the default position should be the non-existence of gods and the supernatural- in the absence of specific claims- then they are the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended.

Oh, bullshit.  Those who assert that the default position should be the nonexistence of orbiting teapots are hardly "the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended."

[uolj]

What is the purpose of a discussion with someone on a topic in which you disagree? If it's to explain why you hold the position you hold, then it certainly makes sense to explain and argue from scientific principles.

However, if the purpose is to come to a common understanding, or to convince the other person why you think their position is wrong or why you think your position is better, then entrenching yourself in the foundation of the use of those principles does little to achieve that goal when the other person does not share that foundation.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me.  The best explanation of something is the explanation that is correct.  There is no value judgment here.  My point is that when it comes to making any claims (other than purely metaphysical) about the nature of the universe we live in, science is better than religion.

The problem is that we cannot know (or at least know we know) what is correct with certainty. There is no objective source of truth that everybody can agree on to query. So while we all agree that the best explanation is the explanation that is correct, the differences of opinion come when people disagree on which is correct. And often that occurs because people disagree on how to determine what is correct. And that is what we're talking about here.

You (and I and probably everybody in this thread) believe that science is better than religion when it comes to making claims about the nature of the universe. But if you assume that as fact and argue it against someone who does not hold the same belief, then your argument is invalid. I think that is the entire point of this thread. Unless you are merely trying to describe your own reasoning as I mentioned above, you can't hold as a truth anything that isn't also held as a truth by the other person, or it would be logically valid for them to dismiss the rest of your argument.

[uolj]

But when people say that the default position should be the non-existence of gods and the supernatural- in the absence of specific claims- then they are the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended.

Oh, bullshit.  Those who assert that the default position should be the nonexistence of orbiting teapots are hardly "the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended."

Of course they are. The only reason that positive statement doesn't have to be defended is that everybody already agrees with it. But if there was somebody who didn't hold that position, then it would have to be defended.

[jomike]

Of course they are. The only reason that positive statement doesn't have to be defended is that everybody already agrees with it. But if there was somebody who didn't hold that position, then it would have to be defended.

But not all claims are equally plausible.  The burden of proof lies with those who make the "positive statement" that invisible orbiting teapots exist, not with those who make the "positive statement" that they do not.