Radical Behaviorism and How We Believe by Michael Shermer Season Almason Western Michigan University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Believing Where We Cannot Prove Philip Kitcher
Advertisements

It Takes More Faith to be an Atheist.
Anthony Flew and A. J. Ayer
In the Beginning: Science and Genesis 1-11 “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?“ Psalm 11:3.
Science and Christianity Dave Scott and Daphne Brenner.
Post-Positivist Perspectives on Theory Development
Scientific Enquiry Since the 18 th c, science has replaced religion as the means of answering questions about the universe. The scientific method was formulated.
HOW CAN WE TELL SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE? Identify The Characteristics Of Science Make a list for yourself.
Why Philosophy? Myron A. Penner. Overview I.How + What = Why II.Scholarship: Research Areas III.Scholarship: Teaching.
The tripartite theory of knowledge
Is there a rational basis for the belief in God..
Misconceptions of Philosophy
PSYC512: Research Methods PSYC512: Research Methods Lecture 4 Brian P. Dyre University of Idaho.
PHILOSOPHY 101 SPRING 2010 INSTRUCTOR: WILBURN Lecture 1: Introduction and Problems 6/26/20151.
Philosophy 251: Introduction to Philosophy Dr. Stephen H. Daniel Get a syllabus before or after class Get a textbook Locate your graduate instructor Ty.
The Problem of Knowledge. What new information would cause you to be less certain? So when we say “I’m certain that…” what are we saying? 3 things you.
Challenges of Big Bang Theory to Religious Belief & Responses to those Challenges!
Ludwig Wittgenstein EARLY: PICTURE THEORY LATER: LANGUAGE GAMES.
What is science? Matt Jarvis. What is science? The word ‘science’ From the Latin Scire meaning ‘to know’ The subject matter of all science is the natural.
What is the Purpose of Science? Science is about questioning. Asking questions Searching for answers Discovering new questions Science is ONE of many.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE P H I L O S O P H Y A Text with Readings ELEVENTH EDITION M A N U E L V E L A S Q U E Z.
Key Concepts & their explanation the view that human beings cannot know for certain whether or not God exists.
Christianity, Belief & Science. Strengths  The scientific method is rational, and objective.  It is a logical process which can be repeated by others.
PHL 201 Problems of Philosophy March 25 th Chapter Five, ‘God’
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research By Adelaide Collins Maori Development Research Centre.
TOK: Natural Science Fatema Shaban & Fatema Shaban & Omaymah Tieby.
Philosophy People Hunt 1. Find someone who can tell you what philosophy means. 2. Find someone who can tell you something about a particular philosopher.
Evidence for Evolution Story: Where did we come from? You may be tested on all the material in this powerpoint.
Philosophy and Religion Can an atheist be religious? Can a theist be unreligious? Is humanism a religion?
Science, Intelligent Design Metaphysics, and Methodology John Wickham Earth & Environmental Science University of Texas at Arlington.
Chapter 3: Divine Gift and Human Response Religion
A Conversation Between an Agnostic and a Christian.
WHY ARE YOU HERE? Yes ….. You! IB SEHS STUDENTS?.
Science Knowledge Survey. Instructions: There are 25 statements. Read and understand each statement. Write A if you agree with it. Write D if you disagree.
Philosophy BY Mr. Anand Christi.
Sociology of Scientific Knowledge week 5 Economic Methodology.
Belief in God’s Testimony Lamont, J. Faith in God’s Revelation in the Bible 2011 pp.1-7.
Mormons do not feel threatened by science. They are not enemies of the rational world. They are not creationist. On human conduct, they tend to stress.
David Hume By Richard Jones and Dan Tedham. Biographical Details Born in 1711 in Scotland. Major work: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) Contains.
Issues and Alternatives in Educational Philosophy Philosophic Issues in Education Chapter 2 Philosophic Issues in Education Chapter 2.
Review of the Scientific Method Chapter 1. Scientific Method – –Organized, logical approach to scientific research. Not a list of rules, but a general.
Scientific Method Science philosophy involves itself in the methodology of science. Empirical knowledge – by observation - The Enlightenment (16-17 th.
A Conversation Between an Agnostic and a Christian (Con’t)
Religion and Philosophy Understanding the connection between religion and philosophy.
Spinoza vs. Nietzsche How to handle the collision between ancient religion and modern science.
The World View. A world view is how you see everything around you and how you relate to your environment. It effects how you feel about things and make.
The Nature of Science and The Scientific Method Chemistry – Lincoln High School Mrs. Cameron.
Give definitions Give an opinion and justify that opinion Explain religious attitudes Respond to a statement – 2 sides.
Name three man-made objects Name three natural objects For example: Man-made object: Mobile phone Natural object: Sunflower.
By Jagrav and Rahul.  Theist - A person who believes in God  Atheist - A person who believes there is no God  Agnostic - A person who believes we cannot.
Chapter 2 Section 1 Conducting Research Obj: List and explain the steps scientists follow in conducting scientific research.
What is Scientific Knowledge?. What is “knowledge”? 1. A person must hold a belief. 2. This belief must be true. 3. There must be evidence that the belief.
Chapter 1: The Science of Biology Section 1: What is Science?
Objectivism Ayn Rand’s Philosophy.
Religious language: cognitive or non-cognitive?
Matt Slick debating techniques: part 2
What is Science?.
Ethical Theories.
Philosophy of Education
Ψ Welcome to Psychology
What does the word ‘box’ mean?
Philosophy People Hunt
Philosophy Sept 28th Objective Opener 10 minutes
Epistemology What is knowledge? and How do we know things?
Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
Branches of Philosophy
What is Science?.
What is Science?.
Philosophy March 2nd Objective Opener
Presentation transcript:

Radical Behaviorism and How We Believe by Michael Shermer Season Almason Western Michigan University

Overview The purpose of this presentation is to present some of the issues discussed in the book How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael Shermer and relate them to the philosophy of radical behaviorism and the science of behavior analysis The purpose of this presentation is to present some of the issues discussed in the book How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael Shermer and relate them to the philosophy of radical behaviorism and the science of behavior analysis

Why is it important to understand why we believe? The philosophy of science is concerned with epistemology The philosophy of science is concerned with epistemology –How we come to believe and justify our beliefs is the main concern of epistemology The philosophy of science is also concerned with truth criteria The philosophy of science is also concerned with truth criteria –How we come to tact our beliefs as “true” is, therefore, also a concern of the philosophy of science

Why is it important to understand why we believe? (cont.) Scientific behavior involves believing Scientific behavior involves believing In order to understand scientific behavior it is important to understand why we believe In order to understand scientific behavior it is important to understand why we believe

Science & Religion “Claims that religious tenets can be proved through science require a response from the scientific community. Making evidentiary claims puts religion on science’s turf, so if it wants to stay there it will have to live up to the standards of scientific proof” (p. xxvi). “Claims that religious tenets can be proved through science require a response from the scientific community. Making evidentiary claims puts religion on science’s turf, so if it wants to stay there it will have to live up to the standards of scientific proof” (p. xxvi).

Question: If religious scientists are operating in a different paradigm or under a different world theory than other scientists, are those other scientists justified in judging the questions the religious scientists ask or the methods and truth criteria they use? If religious scientists are operating in a different paradigm or under a different world theory than other scientists, are those other scientists justified in judging the questions the religious scientists ask or the methods and truth criteria they use?

Answer: According to Kuhn (1962) and Pepper (1942) scientists from one paradigm or world theory are not justified in judging the work of scientists from another paradigm or world theory based on the criteria of their own paradigm or world theory According to Kuhn (1962) and Pepper (1942) scientists from one paradigm or world theory are not justified in judging the work of scientists from another paradigm or world theory based on the criteria of their own paradigm or world theory However: “O, ye of little faith. Why do you need science to prove God? You do not. These scientific proofs of God are not only an insult to science; to those who are deeply religious they are an insult to God” (p. 123). However: “O, ye of little faith. Why do you need science to prove God? You do not. These scientific proofs of God are not only an insult to science; to those who are deeply religious they are an insult to God” (p. 123). –Are we not supposed to believe by faith, not by sight?

Scientific Proof for God “ID [intelligent design] theorists also attack scientists’ underlying bias of ‘methodological naturalism.’ That is, they feel it is not fair to forbid supernaturalism from the equation as it pushes them out of the scientific arena on the basis of nothing more than a rule of the game. But if we change the rules of the game to allow them to play, what would that look like? How would that work? What would we do with supernaturalism?” (p. xxxi). “ID [intelligent design] theorists also attack scientists’ underlying bias of ‘methodological naturalism.’ That is, they feel it is not fair to forbid supernaturalism from the equation as it pushes them out of the scientific arena on the basis of nothing more than a rule of the game. But if we change the rules of the game to allow them to play, what would that look like? How would that work? What would we do with supernaturalism?” (p. xxxi). “If science is the art of the soluble, religion is the art of the insoluble. God’s existence is beyond our competence as a problem to solve” (p. 7). “If science is the art of the soluble, religion is the art of the insoluble. God’s existence is beyond our competence as a problem to solve” (p. 7).

Question: Have we really rid science of the supernatural? Have we really rid science of the supernatural?

Answer: It was the goal of the logical positivists to move philosophy and science away from the study of the metaphysical (Smith, 1986) It was the goal of the logical positivists to move philosophy and science away from the study of the metaphysical (Smith, 1986) –Their solution: operationism Skinner (1945) points out, however, that operationism has not resulted in the removal of the supernatural from science Skinner (1945) points out, however, that operationism has not resulted in the removal of the supernatural from science

Another Question: If scientists are still going to fill gaps in the causal chain with hypothetical processes, why should an appeal to God be rejected? If scientists are still going to fill gaps in the causal chain with hypothetical processes, why should an appeal to God be rejected?

Answer: If a mechanistic world theory is to be used there is no reason that God cannot be used to fill gaps in the causal chain if other hypothetical constructs are acceptable If a mechanistic world theory is to be used there is no reason that God cannot be used to fill gaps in the causal chain if other hypothetical constructs are acceptable This is not an issue in radical behaviorism because mechanism and all appeals to supernatural entities are rejected (Chiesa, 1994) This is not an issue in radical behaviorism because mechanism and all appeals to supernatural entities are rejected (Chiesa, 1994)

How do we believe? Selectionism Selectionism –Shermer’s hypothesis of how religion and belief in God evolved is consistent with a selectionist account –Shermer proposes that pattern-seeking evolved into storytelling, storytelling evolved into mythmaking, mythmaking evolved into morality, morality evolved into religion, and religion evolved into a belief in God –Basically, religion evolved out of a community’s need for individual behavior to be controlled even when no one is watching