Metaphysical Interpretations of Reality as Analogous to Pseudo-Sciences: The Inherent Irrefutability and Subjective Resonance

(1)

I am working on a longer piece. I will put it in this journal in installments - first drafts of course. 

Introduction

Metaphysical interpretations of reality are strikingly analogous to pseudo-sciences like astrology or Freudian psychoanalysis: they resist direct refutation by objective, factual evidence. They can always adapt to avoid the appearance of contradictions. These belief systems gain their force from the inherently metaphysical nature of human existence and our fate to have to make sense—genuinely or falsely—of our lives. Metaphysical frameworks, such as traditional theistic beliefs and modern constructivist or existentialist views on gender and existence, are like pseudo-sciences in their irrefutability and adaptability. To show this I draw on the critical thinking tools and insights of Karl Popper, Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.V.O. Quine, Alasdair Macintyre, and Nelson Goodman.

   For this I want to work with abstract sets of core propositions taken from complex belief systems and investigate how they function in our thinking and our lives in general. Some like these recognizable belief systems:

·        God created the world. God is Goodness. God is love. God is omnipotent. God is not 'in' space and time; God created space and time. God is not a material object in the universe; God created material objects. All creations stem from an Idea in the mind of God and tend to strive for the perfection of that Idea. All morality is the conforming of the mind and the heart to the reality of creatures – as measured by the Idea and by God’s love for creatures. The perfection of Man is virtue, reason, and love, through which alone Man can be in harmony with himself, with other human beings, with Nature (Creation), and with his Creator. [a version of Catholicism]

 

·        God is a construct only. Nature and reality are constructs. There is no nature or nature does not determine values. Gender is socially constructed, and it is not an inherent or natural attribute. An individual's behavior conforms to societal gender norms, and they are performing a gender identity. Subverting gender norms exposes their performative nature and reveals the instability of gender categories. Gender identities are produced through repeated acts, and they depend on their continual performance for existence. Power relations shape discourse, and discourse constructs social reality, including gender. [A version of Foucauldian philosophy, Judith Butler functioning as a kind of prophet.]

 

·        Existence precedes essence, meaning humans exist first and then define their essence through actions. Humans are condemned to be free, bearing the responsibility for their choices without preordained essence or purpose. Individuals create their own values and meaning in life through their actions and choices. Authenticity involves recognizing and embracing one's freedom and responsibility, rather than conforming to societal expectations. Bad faith is the act of denying one's freedom and responsibility by conforming to external pressures or self-deception. The human condition is characterized by angst and absurdity, arising from the inherent freedom and lack of inherent meaning in life. In the absence of inherent meaning, any sense of purpose or value in life must be individually created or assigned, as it is not inherently present. The self is the ultimate creator of the Good and the Real (autonomy). [A version of Existentialism]

 

·        Life involves suffering (dukkha), and this suffering is an inherent part of existence. Suffering is caused by desire and attachment (tanha), which lead to a cycle of rebirth and continued suffering. It is possible to end suffering by eliminating desire and attachment. The path to ending suffering and achieving enlightenment (nirvana) is the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes right understanding, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. All things are impermanent (anicca), and recognizing this impermanence is crucial to understanding the nature of existence. There is no permanent self or soul (anatta), and understanding this helps in letting go of attachment and desire. [A version of Buddhism]

 

·        Science provides the key to reality. Reality consists of matter-energy in space-time. It is a closed, deterministic system. There exists a reality independent of human perceptions, beliefs, or descriptions. The universe operates according to consistent, discoverable laws (absolutely determined regularities). All events in the universe (reality) have strictly determined causes and effects. The laws of nature are consistent across time and space; there are no dimensions or levels of reality. Human beings are capable of understanding the universe only through science. Human sensory experiences and logical reasoning provide accurate information about the world. When presented with competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions mirrors reality.  Mathematical objects and the validity of mathematical reasoning accurately reflect real-world structures. Scientific theories must be internally consistent and adhere to the rules of logic to mirror reality. Life has no inherent meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value as these concepts are not part of the system. Moral values and truths are thus subjective and not a part of the fabric of reality. There are no ethical standards grounded in reality. The universe is indifferent to human existence and lacks any inherent meaning or purpose. Traditional beliefs and established social structures – like the Church – are often baseless and should be critically questioned or rejected when they interfere with science. Human existence and endeavors are insignificant in the grand scope of the universe. [A version of the scientism of people like Carl Sagen and Richard Dawkins]

 

I could have added many more: Marxism, aestheticism, Perennial philosophy, etc.

 

. . .

  Science is not the only form of rationality – the legal system is another example – but it has been a paradigm for rationality in the society I grew up in. I can’t get into the deep and fascinating issues of philosophy of science. But in a rough-and-ready way, the actual practice of science does feature well-known features that make it rational (i.e. truth-oriented). Science is characterized by its commitment to rationality, which manifests through several key rules (like a constitution of science): falsifiability, observability, data-driven inquiry, intersubjective testability, reliability and precision, and law-like generalizations subject to empirical testing. Falsifiability, as emphasized by Karl Popper, ensures that scientific hypotheses can be tested and potentially disproven by empirical evidence.

     This criterion demarcates science from non-science, providing a robust for distinguishing between justified knowledge and subjective projection – and giving us confidence that airplanes don’t crash or that greenhouse gases in sufficient amounts can lead to global warming. Observable data forms the foundation of scientific inquiry, allowing hypotheses to be empirically validated through rigorous experimentation and observation. Intersubjective testability further strengthens scientific rationality, as independent verification by multiple researchers ensures the objectivity and replicability of findings. This collective scrutiny is enabled by reliability and precision, making possible the formulation of hypotheses that can be generalized into laws, which predict and explain natural phenomena with a high degree of accuracy.

    In stark contrast, pseudo-science and superstitions lack these hallmarks of rationality. Pseudo-sciences often employ unfalsifiable claims that cannot be empirically tested or disproven. For example, astrology posits vague and adaptable predictions that can accommodate any outcome, avoiding direct refutation. This lack of falsifiability undermines the credibility and reliability of pseudo-scientific claims. Additionally, pseudo-sciences frequently rely on anecdotal evidence and subjective validation rather than observable, data-driven research. Superstitions, similarly, are grounded in irrational beliefs and practices that are not supported by empirical evidence. They thrive on cognitive biases and the human tendency to perceive patterns where none exist, rather than on systematic observation and experimentation. The absence of intersubjective testability in pseudo-sciences and superstitions means their claims cannot be independently verified, leading to inconsistencies and a lack of precision. Consequently, pseudo-scientific and superstitious beliefs fail to generate reliable, law-like generalizations, remaining deficient in rationality compared to the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry.

    The solar eclipse experiment of 1919, which confirmed Albert Einstein's hypothesis of general relativity, exemplifies the rationality and robustness of the scientific method. Einstein predicted that massive objects like the Sun would bend the light from stars passing near them, an effect that could be observed during a solar eclipse when the Sun's light is obscured, allowing the stars' positions to be measured. This prediction was a direct challenge to the established Newtonian physics, which did not account for such an effect. During the solar eclipse on May 29, 1919, astronomers Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson conducted precise observations that showed the light from stars was indeed deflected by the Sun's gravity, matching Einstein's predictions. This empirical validation provided compelling evidence for general relativity and refuted the Newtonian model's predictions regarding light and gravity.

     This experiment highlights several aspects of scientific rationality. The hypothesis was falsifiable: it made specific predictions that could be tested through observation. The experiment provided observable, data-driven evidence, and the results were subject to intersubjective testability, as other scientists could independently verify the findings. The precision of the measurements and the reliability of the experimental method reinforced the credibility of the results. Furthermore, the successful confirmation of Einstein's theory led to a law-like generalization that significantly advanced our understanding of gravity and the cosmos.

    In contrast, pseudo-sciences lack such rigorous methodologies and fail to provide empirical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of objective testing and validation, underscoring their deficient rationality. For example, Freudian psychoanalysis, often cited by Karl Popper as a quintessential example of pseudo-science, starkly contrasts with the scientific rigor exemplified by the solar eclipse experiment that confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity. Popper critiqued Freudian psychoanalysis for its lack of falsifiability. Freud's theories, such as the Oedipus complex and repression, were formulated in ways that could explain any possible human behavior, making them immune to empirical refutation.

    For instance, if a person exhibited symptoms Freud predicted, it was taken as confirmation of the theory; if they did not, Freud would introduce auxiliary explanations such as repression or denial. A psychoanalyst may have an axiomatic belief – equivalent to a scientific law – that if a child grows into an adult with mental issues, it must be the mother’s fault. If the mother is around too much, she is overprotective. If she is not around the child enough, she neglects her. If she is around sometimes but not others, she is inconsistent. If the psychoanalyst starts with the a priori truth that it is always the mother’s fault, he can find a way to make his explanation of the mental issue fit this law. This oversimplified example indicates how this approach would have no explanatory power at all. The adaptability to any possible outcome renders Freudian theories unfalsifiable and untestable, key characteristics of pseudo-science according to Popper.

     In contrast, Einstein's hypothesis regarding the bending of light by gravity was a bold, precise prediction that could be and was subjected to rigorous empirical testing during the 1919 solar eclipse. The results of this experiment could potentially have refuted Einstein's theory, but they instead provided strong support for it, thereby advancing scientific knowledge. Unlike Freudian psychoanalysis, which accommodates any contradictory evidence without altering its core claims, the solar eclipse experiment adhered to stringent scientific criteria, including falsifiability, observability, and intersubjective testability. This commitment to empirical evidence and the potential for refutation is what distinguishes genuine science from pseudo-science, highlighting the deficient rationality of Freudian psychoanalysis.

        Question: Do not our core convictions – and all metaphysical propositions – function analogously to the psychoanalyst’s a priori conviction that the mother is always the source of neurosis? And disanalogous to Newton’s and Einstein’s tentative hypotheses about the effect of space and gravity on light?