Is Sufficiently Compressed Thinking Indistinguishable from Magical Thinking?

Last updated on: September 11, 2012 at 10:33 pm by Leah Libresco

Is Sufficiently Compressed Thinking Indistinguishable from Magical Thinking? 2012-09-11T22:33:06-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Andrew Brown is in The Guardian claiming any sufficiently interesting theory of the world is indistinguishable from religion. There’s a lot to debate there, but do you mind if I put the broader issue aside for a second to come to the defense of science! Brown writes:

And atheism can be just as theologically incorrect: today’s paper told me that: “our bodies are built and controlled by far fewer genes than scientists had expected“. The metaphors of “building” and “controlling” have here taken a concrete form that makes them palpably untrue. Genes don’t do either thing. It seems to me that a belief in tiny invisible all-controlling entities is precisely a belief in the supernatural, yet that is the form in which entirely naturalistic genetics is widely understood in our culture. Religion can’t really be about doctrine and heresy either, because these concepts don’t make sense in pre-literate cultures. You can even ask whether the concept of “supernaturalism” makes any sense in most of the world without a developed idea of scientific naturalism, and scientific laws, that would stand for its opposite.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all, the conceptual errors and simplifications of science journalism (that linked quote comes from a reporter) are not a guide to the blind spots of science as an epistemology. But I also take some issue with the idea that using agent-language is necessarily an error mode in science.

Science is a model-making endeavor. It’s never possible to prove that your model is in one-to-one correspondence with the World-as-it-is, so you evaluate different theories by seeing how good they are at anticipating data collected from the world.

(Notice that I used a colloquialism there and let ‘theories’ take an active verb instead of saying something wordier and more precise like “there is a high degree of correlation between the outputs of your theory’s algorithm and previously unobserved observations, and it didn’t mean I literally believed that theories were immaterial actors or otherwise supernatural).

Your model may look different at different scales, because the most accurate model may be more granular than needed. We can use a lot of Newtonian physics for human scale predictions, even though we know it’s not true. It’s true enough for the problem at hand. The trouble is, that if you’re making a habit of using an easier way but sloppier way of answering questions, you want to make sure you’re also setting aside time to practice recognizing the moments when precision matters enough that you should dust off your more accurate model and get out the instruction manual for all the little levers and bits that go boink.

Most of us, scientists or not, don’t spend enough time auditing our cached thoughts and heuristics, and the one that Brown flagged is a pretty persistent problem. I think a better word than “supernaturalism” would be “agent-seeing.” (Ok, better in the sense that it’s more accurate; I’m open to catchier substitutions). Ascribing purpose or agency to inert matter or abstract concepts doesn’t necessarily lead to belief in the supernatural, though it may produce weird theories of consciousness or an increased expectation that other intelligent life exists.

The main problem when people talk about genes acting or wanting isn’t the use of shorthand. It’s that once we use the word want, we assume genes must want what we want since we want the best things. The map is supposed to reflect the territory, but you have to be careful about which way you’re letting the data flow. The existence of fold lines on a map should not cause you to expect very regular divots in the landscape (Bryan Caplan terms this the metaphorical fallacy).

Don’t lose hope! Shorthand makes life go a lot more smoothly, and if you take the time to check in on yourself, you can spot and correct for error modes. So, if you notice that everything in the world has the same purpose and desires as you, that’s a good way to notice you’re slipping into error. Pause, take a breath, and repeat to yourself: “Camelot! (It’s only a model).”

Atheism

Epistemology/Philosophy

map and territory

Previous Post

September 11, 2012

Patheos Went a-Headhuntin'

Next Post

September 12, 2012 How Big a Hit are You Willing to Take?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How long did Persian empire rule?

Select your answer to see how you score.

180 years 200 years 150 years 250 years