Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)

A fellow Polanyi-ite!! This is an excellent summary of Polanyi, Murray, and
Polanyi was exactly what I was thinking of when I first pushed back on the
"ALL the evidence" statement.
Leslie Newbiggin did some outstanding work appropriating Polanyi for
Christian theology -- see his "Proper Confidence," which I think is one of
the best non-technical books on religious epistemology out there. Also, see
Esther Meeks Lightcap, "Longing to Know." In addition, Roy Clouser's
"Knowing With the Heart" and "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" are
Polanyi-esq and bring in Hermann Dooyeweerd as well. Dooyeweerd is another
Christian philosopher anyone dealing with religious epistemology should
know.

I think a grounding in religious epistemology is essential in light of the
common assertion that we should "follow the evidence wherever it leads." We
should indeed try to do that, but at the same time we need to be clear about
what we mean by "evidence" and about the relative values we place on
different types of evidence. Too often, "follow the evidence wherever it
leads" is code for positivism.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>wrote:

> Hi Burgy,
>
> Very nice to have Polanyi introduced into the discussion!
>
> However, I hope you won't mind if I offer some minor correction to your
> remarks on Personal Knowledge?
>
> Strictly Polanyi doesn't offer "Personal Knowledge" (PK) as a third
> category alongside the objective and the subjective. Rather he considers
> that it is a category which embraces these two and so goes beyond the false
> "objective / subjective" dichotomy.
>
> In respects of science Polanyi would argue that there IS no knowledge apart
> from that held by persons AND that this knowledge is not so simply connected
> with "facts" (or "evidence") as the early twentieth century positivists
> (Polanyi's major target) would have us suppose. In the context of the
> current discussion, I'm pretty sure that Polanyi would answer Moorad's
> question "what does "consider ALL the evidence" mean?" with the obvious: "it
> depends who you ask". But this is not to reduce the answer to a battle of
> subjective opinions as Polanyi would argue that whether one gets an
> intelligent answer also depends upon who you ask!
>
> Actually, Polanyi would appeal ultimately NOT to what people SAY about
> science, but to how they DO science: and it's simply not a simple case of
> accumulation of facts followed by construction and testing of hypotheses -
> scientists are simply far too intuitive and creative for that. And the
> reason? Because their science is firstly a personal pursuit albeit guided by
> their understanding of and engagement with public discourse and data. To
> appropriate an old adage in a somewhat paradoxical way: Polanyi would insist
> that Science is an art and not a science.
>
> Thus, to be a scientist is to possess a skill which, like being able to
> play the violin, is not reducible to a set of rules which one could follow
> without guidance and experience. One has to learn how to do science by doing
> under the supervision of those who already know how to do. It's exactly the
> same process one follows in order to learn how to play the violin - the rare
> self-taught individual or child prodigy notwithstanding.
>
> In respects of Christian faith, one can appropriate Polanyi's epistemology
> to argue that just because one's experience of God is personal it doesn't
> follow that such knowledge is "subjective" - after all, individuals
> experience scientific evidence and discourse as individuals so such
> experience is therefore "personal" by definition. But we don't thereby
> relegate it entirely to the category of the subjective. Now, to be clear, I
> don't say that Polanyi took this view of Christian faith: he may well have
> considered that religious experience in whole or in part has no connection
> with any objective external reality. I only say that if one takes Christian
> faith as primarily concerned with the knowledge of God, and if one takes God
> as an objective external reality, then one will consider that Christian
> faith is not (contra liberal theology) concerned primarily with the
> subjective but with the objective.
>
> There are, of course, clearly elements of the subjective and objective in
> the Christian's knowledge of God. And we are always challenged to make a
> personal appropriation of objective truth, to offer subjective response to
> objective reality, thus recognizing and embracing "fact" in our own personal
> "experience". But it's precisely because both fact and experience, the
> objective and subjective, are involved that any schemata which contrasts
> these categories is necessarily inadequate.
>
> Returning to Polanyi, it's only in realizing that his notion of PK is a
> claim about the individual's response to both objective "fact" and
> subjective "experience" that one can see that his category of PK is not a
> third option over against the objective and the subjective, but one which
> embraces and even transcends them.
>
> The really interesting thing is that whilst this sort of discussion has
> very interesting applications in religious epistemology, Polanyi himself was
> primarily concerned with philosophy of science. He formulated the idea of PK
> precisely because he saw no connection whatever between the theory and the
> reality of scientific method as it had been propounded by the early
> twentieth century positivists. So Polanyi's notion of PK is PRIMARILY
> formulated in conscious reference to the practice of the physical sciences.
> So, Burgy, your fear that PK is concerned more with metaphysics than with
> science is actually entirely contrary to Polanyi's stated purpose. Personal
> Knowledge is FIRST a theory about scientific knowledge BEFORE it is a theory
> about any other field of knowledge.
>
> Incidentally, Polanyi would dismiss the rule "consider ALL the evidence" as
> hopelessly naive. He would point out that nobody has "all" the evidence,
> most people don't even know where to look to find it, if they did know where
> to look they probably wouldn't see it, and even if they DID see "all" of it
> they would have no ability to bring it into any sort of coherent
> relationship. THESE are the sort of abilities Polanyi considered marked
> one's ability to do science: not some trifling ability to jump to an obvious
> conclusion AFTER the data were identified, collected and collated. Think,
> for instance, how OBVIOUS biological evolution becomes AFTER a genius like
> Darwin actually does the REAL scientific work of identifying, collecting and
> collating the relevant data.
> Finally, If Polanyi were to criticise the data selection of YECs I don't
> think it would be simply on the basis that they cherry-picking the data -
> after all, being able to sort the relevant from the irrelevant is one of the
> marks of good science in Polanyi's view. His criticism (again, if he was to
> offer one) would rather be that they know so little about science that they
> not only pick the wrong cherries, but also that they have no grasp of what
> to do with them afterward. At least, that is how I think Polanyi would
> structure a response IF, indeed, he were to object to YEC.
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Would someone tell me what "Consider All the evidence" really means? What
>>> evidence? How acquired?
>>>
>>> A fair question. When I learned those two principles, I had the
>> concept that there were only two kinds of evidence, objective and
>> subjective, and that -- in science -- only the objective could be
>> used, IOW it had to be data that was available to anyone.
>>
>> Polyani has suggested a third category -- "personal knowledge," which
>> I am favorably disposed to. I certainly have personal knowledge that
>> is mine alone, not even in principle available to you, which I must
>> use in ascertaining the probable truth of some matters. But that
>> cannot be "science." Perhaps it is a form of metaphysics, but that
>> does not do the concept justice either.
>>
>> So "Consider all the evidence" means objective evidence. And one "sin"
>> of some scientists, including at least some YECs, is that they don't
>> follow that principle. Some people call that cherry-picking, which is
>> as good a term as any, I guess.
>>
>> As I understand Timeous, he seems to adhere to both principles.
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 29 09:19:06 2008