YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Alex Rosenberg on Scientism, Truth and ‘Nice Nihilism’ [2016]

Alex Rosenberg on Scientism, Truth and ‘Nice Nihilism’ [2016] — Transcript

by Fadi Akil (Untimely Thoughts) · 6,888 words · 1,061 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Alex
0:01can you tell us what you mean by
0:04scientism right so
0:06scientism as the word is normally used
0:09is a term of abuse and what it means is
0:12the unreasonable and unwarranted uh
0:15crediting of science with powers to
0:18explain that it is by many people not so
0:22credited and uh the exaggerated respect
0:26for science's methods and Sciences
0:28findings now take that definition and
0:32remove the word exaggerated and you've
0:34got my definition of scientism scientism
0:38is the view that science is our best
0:41guide to the nature of reality its
0:42methods and its findings are our best
0:45account of the nature of reality
0:47um
0:49I've taken the word scientism and tried
0:51to turn it into a
0:54non-pejorative expression in the way
0:56that we're familiar with from the way
0:59the uh the LGBT community and others
1:03have taken words like queer and made
1:06them into Badges of Honor instead of
1:08terms of abuse
1:10do you think that um the scientism the
1:13way you view it is that a common view in
1:16the University I think it's not a common
1:19view in the university and even among
1:21those who embrace it there's a certain
1:24amount of trepidation about going public
1:26because when you do so you tend to step
1:29on the feet of those who think there are
1:31many ways of knowing
1:33and that science already has such
1:37imperialist pretensions as to threaten
1:40other disciplines and
1:43for that reason those who embrace it
1:46even in the comfort and privacy of their
1:47own minds are reluctant to be publicly
1:51associated with it because you're not
1:52afraid to be no no why why is that well
1:56I was a physics student as an
1:58undergraduate and I made a conceptual
2:01mistake which drew me into philosophy
2:04and by the time I had figured out the
2:05mistake
2:06it was too late to go back into physics
2:08but the kinds of questions that have
2:11held my attention throughout my entire
2:13academic life are these questions that
2:16are raised
2:17by The Sciences and which I think the
2:20Sciences can can ultimately answer and
2:23are now especially as a result of what's
2:25happened in the last 30 or 40 years in a
2:28position to take away from philosophy
2:30and give answers to them do you think it
2:32was a you said you made a mistake moving
2:34into philosophy a conceptual mistake
2:37that led me away from physics and into
2:39philosophy so that's what was that
2:41mistake
2:42I don't know that I should say in public
2:44okay no no um the mistake the mistake is
2:49one I think that is not uncommon it's
2:52twofold one demanding of science
2:55especially physics that it show not only
2:57the nature of reality but that reality
2:59somehow
3:00the way it is necessarily that it
3:03couldn't have been otherwise that the
3:04inverse Square law of gravitation
3:06couldn't have been the inverse Cube law
3:07the demand that physics say why things
3:11are the way they are to a level of
3:13determination and necessity that no
3:17science is capable of is a mistake but
3:20it leads you to be dissatisfied with
3:21scientific explanations and to try to
3:23seek deeper ones or at least acknowledge
3:26the existence of deeper ones and that
3:28was my mistake to suppose that there
3:30were deeper explanations than those that
3:32the Sciences provide so you so you
3:34basically realize that there are no
3:35deeper explanations exactly right okay
3:38that's what scientism says there are no
3:41deeper explanations than those that
3:42science provides and science provides
3:46explanations for a broad range of
3:49questions that many people might look to
3:51philosophy or to religion for answers to
3:54us
3:55as science pushes back its frontiers of
3:59course the bigger the frontier the more
4:01unknowns there are but in some respect
4:04we begin to be able to answer questions
4:06that had long been held as the
4:09privileged domain of philosophy so what
4:12are some of these questions that you
4:14think people say Oh we must look to
4:15other things for which now we think
4:17science can oh well consider the the
4:20list after you know does God exist the
4:23questions about it does the universe
4:25have a meaning what's the purpose of
4:27life what's the nature of right and
4:29wrong how does how does the brain relate
4:31to the Mind do we have free will what it
4:34what does moral responsibility consist
4:37in I mean that's a whole list of
4:39questions that constitutes the The
4:42Lion's Share of philosophy and I think
4:45all of them have answers that are given
4:47by science so is there a god of course
4:50not
4:51um what is the meaning of the universe
4:53it doesn't have any what is the purpose
4:54of life ditto is there a difference
4:57between right and wrong good and bad
5:00there's not a moral difference between
5:02them what is the nature of the
5:04relationship between the mind and the
5:06Brain they're identical the mind is the
5:08brain is there free will not a chance
5:11does the lessons of the past have any
5:14particular bearing that would help us
5:16cope with the future less and less if it
5:18ever had any at all so that's a nice
5:20list
5:22reduction isn't determinism
5:25um
5:26do they when you put them together a lot
5:29of people say ah what that means is we
5:30see ourselves as as machines which I
5:33think people are quite happy to look at
5:35an ant and go yeah it's a little machine
5:36with legs is that what those two parts
5:39of modern science
5:41Force us to think well yes unless you're
5:45going to put too much weight on a
5:46machine because a machine is an artifact
5:48and an artifact requires a designer and
5:51the designer in our case was Mother
5:54Nature operating through the principle
5:55of blind variation and natural selection
5:58so I think we I think there's no there's
6:00no ambiguity we believe that the
6:02machines but the machine includes our
6:05brain and therefore our minds
6:09and we're descending all of us from the
6:11same okay that's the one of the key
6:13ideas of Darwin's Discovery so maybe
6:15someone would say so we differ by so
6:17we're animals I think nobody just we're
6:19you know without a Divine spark without
6:22a Divine spark but we're we're animals
6:25but there's nothing
6:27if we're looking in that category
6:29there's nothing beyond the fact that
6:30we're animals we're no different from
6:31animals yes
6:33but unlike a lot of animals we have
6:35thoughts
6:37there are yes unlike a lot of animals
6:39but like a lot of animals yes but
6:42there's a qualitative difference in the
6:45thinking which is we are capable of than
6:48most of the rest so in other words I
6:49think yes we're we're animals but
6:50there's something has emerged in our
6:52people I don't think I'm going to grant
6:54that if you want to use the word
6:55emergent or irreducibly complex or
7:00valuative then I think these are
7:03placeholders for questions on the agenda
7:07of science at this point we don't have a
7:10good handle on the details of the answer
7:14to this question that I favor yeah and
7:18you holding an alternative view have
7:21probably even less grounds for
7:24confidence so yeah David doesn't believe
7:26in God at all no no but but he does
7:28believe in the existence in emergent
7:31properties
7:32you think that's something you should
7:34let go of he wrote your properties yeah
7:36she why why alternatively I think you
7:39should treat emergent properties as a
7:41signal or a flag that indicates a domain
7:45or a Terrain in which science has some
7:47work could then not be a proper science
7:49which did include emergence such would
7:52be scientific so why couldn't that I
7:54feel open-minded about it I don't feel
7:56like confidence here is based on
7:59induction and I could be wrong because
8:00inductive arguments are arguments that
8:02are not truth preserving their arguments
8:04from a finite body of data to
8:07expectations about the future yeah it's
8:09been true to now and so when I look at
8:11the history of
8:13the history of people drawing lines in
8:15the sand and challenging signs to
8:18transcend them and science successively
8:20doing it and the most famous example is
8:23this Kant the great German philosopher
8:25who wrote the critique of pure reason
8:26proved or purported to prove in that
8:29book that the only possible way to
8:31conceive of the universe was in the way
8:33that Newton had he was a total
8:35determinist and mechanist and
8:37reductionist about the physical world
8:39but then he said there will never be a
8:42Newton for the grain of for the for the
8:44blade of grass and what he meant by that
8:47was when it comes to the biological
8:49domain we will have to employ
8:52teleological or purpose-driven Theory
8:55because the properties of life and of
8:58the means and ends economy of biological
9:01nature are
9:03impervious to physical explanation and
9:0622 years later in Shropshire England the
9:09Darwin the Newton for the blade of grass
9:11was born Charles Darwin okay and it's a
9:14perfect example of how people say
9:19reduce this I dare you and science
9:22eventually finds a way to do it
9:25do we have souls of course not okay not
9:29only do we not have cells but I think
9:31that that contemporary uh cognitive
9:34Neuroscience suggests that we don't even
9:36have cells well that's disturbing
9:38because I was sure I had a cell phone I
9:39walked in right you you did have a self
9:42but it may well be different now a
9:44different self in your body and science
9:47is telling us this
9:49well I think that yes I think that a
9:51good deal of Neuroscience is telling us
9:53this now David uh you were pretty
9:57confident you had a cell phone you
9:58walked in and you're still confident
9:59that you had a self and you will be
10:01confident tomorrow and we all of us are
10:06victims of a vast range of
10:09Illusions foisted Upon Us by conscious
10:12introspection
10:14um of which the belief in an enduring
10:17self is probably one of the most
10:20difficult to undermine or dislodge why
10:23would I want to undermine it though
10:25oh
10:26in fact you probably wouldn't want to
10:28undermine it and it is the result most
10:31probably of a a process that uh is
10:36highly adaptive in our species okay but
10:40if you now go on to say since I have
10:43this firm conviction it must be true
10:48right you then begin to worry about
10:50questions to which the answers are
10:53either negative or
10:56they turn out to be pseudo questions it
10:58looks like it's troubling you David if
10:59you don't have a self
11:01well I mean no but wait wait look I mean
11:04what does that mean we've got this word
11:06yeah okay and we've got this continuing
11:09stream of of memories it's fairly
11:12defective broken up and out of this we
11:15Cobble together a conception that we
11:17call the self okay this conception has
11:20important use for us in our daily lives
11:23but it doesn't have a foundation in the
11:26nature of psychological reality it's
11:28another one of those confabulations
11:31of introspection that
11:35have a payoff in in uh adaptation but
11:40which don't have a grounding in reality
11:43there are many things that we believe
11:44and that humans have believed since we
11:46began to have beliefs about the nature
11:49of reality that are highly adaptive and
11:51quite false one obvious one is that
11:54things are colored
11:56color only comes into existence
11:57somewhere in our visual cortex but that
12:00doesn't make it unreal it doesn't make
12:02the sensation unreal but it makes that
12:04belief false and our beliefs about
12:07ourselves and the world are
12:10widely Falls in that way adaptive useful
12:14but based on mistakes I get the sense
12:18that you're saying look
12:19what's real is the stuff that's out
12:22there and the stuff that's in here is
12:24somehow not true no the stuff that's in
12:26here is composed of the same
12:28constituents as the stuff that's out
12:30there everything is just fermions and
12:32bosons including the Neurology of our
12:34brains but I have thoughts yes I'm
12:37fairly convinced I do yes and so I feel
12:40that those thoughts that they have a
12:42reality as well so my thoughts my
12:43feelings my ideas they seem real as real
12:46as this stuff just real in a different
12:48way well they're real in the sense that
12:50they are represented in your brain in
12:54complex neural circuitry which fires in
12:57a way that produces behavior in you
12:59including the verbal behavior that you
13:01just engaged in and so of course it's
13:03real
13:04yeah the the spin
13:07that we put on those neural circuits
13:09that's been pretty consistently mistaken
13:12ever since people started thinking that
13:15there were mines and that they were
13:17distinct from brains
13:18so there are thoughts that are quite
13:21constrained like mathematical thoughts
13:23right so I say one plus one equals two
13:26but the fact that one plus one equals
13:30two is independent of whether or not my
13:33brain does those things right so the
13:36mathematics is true regardless of
13:38whether bosons or fermions exists
13:42isn't that is that right yes and and
13:44there I think you have the the major
13:47problem on the research program of
13:49scientism the scientistic worldview I
13:54think has very good answers to a huge
13:56range of the questions that really
13:58trouble
13:59human beings when they can't get to
14:01sleep at night and they're looking up at
14:02the ceiling and wondering about
14:04themselves and their place in the
14:06universe The Domain in which we have the
14:09most trouble is not a domain that most
14:11people are interested in it's the nature
14:13of mathematics and our knowledge of
14:14mathematical truths as you just said it
14:17looks very much like mathematical truths
14:19are true independent of anybody's ever
14:22having thought them many people are
14:24inclined to think that mathematics is
14:26just you know ideas in the head but it
14:28can't be for a lot of reasons and we've
14:30recognized this ever since Plato okay
14:32and the one thing that we scientistic
14:35philosophers don't yet have a good
14:37account of is how we can have knowledge
14:39of mathematics because we think that
14:41knowledge is a causal process that
14:43involves an interaction between us and
14:45the objects of knowledge and to and
14:48equals and prime number these are
14:51abstract objects that do not exist in
14:53space and time and that therefore we
14:55can't have a causal connection to and so
14:57our knowledge of mathematics is a deep
14:59mystery doesn't it trouble you that you
15:02need mathematics so much to do something
15:04yeah so it's not just when I said it's a
15:06deep mystery I meant it's not just to
15:08fly in the ointment it's a big project
15:10on the agenda of naturalistic philosophy
15:14we need an answer to this question now
15:16I've been you know wrapping my head
15:18around this problem
15:21um a bit not as much as the philosophers
15:24of mathematics who are much more deeply
15:27steeped in the difficulties of the
15:30subject but
15:32um the interesting thing is as often the
15:35case in science what really troubles the
15:38people who are at the frontiers of the
15:40discipline is so Arcane and so
15:44alien to the interests of most people
15:48that it's even hard to keep them awake
15:51long enough to explain the problem so
15:53would you say but it's a big problem so
15:55there's not just a few clouds on the
15:56horizon
15:57well I'm inclined to say that it is a
15:59cloud on the horizon uh a cloud no
16:01bigger than your hand okay but you know
16:03how these problems have a tendency to
16:05grow the way the cloud no bigger than
16:07your hand ends up being a thunderstorm
16:09yeah now I don't think it's going to
16:10become a thunderstorm but it's a problem
16:13it's a very interesting problem also yes
16:16A friend of mine once said that this is
16:18a a problem on which two Millennia of
16:21geniuses have labored with great
16:24intensity and made no progress at all so
16:26if if let's say when they did wrap their
16:29heads around it they discovered you know
16:30it is the way it seemed there are
16:32certain ideas which just exist in the
16:34universe and we somehow can find so
16:37there's an agenda but that wouldn't that
16:38wouldn't undermine science would it I
16:40mean I can't imagine how it would well I
16:41don't think it would there's an agenda
16:43of problems that face
16:46the philosophy of science metaphysics
16:48epistemology which are generated by The
16:52Sciences questions that the science is
16:55at least not yet can answer and
16:57philosophy is in many ways the the
16:59guardian of those questions now uh there
17:03are some philosophers who hold and some
17:05theologians who hold that these
17:07questions will never be answered by The
17:09Sciences and therefore they provide
17:11Good Grounds
17:13for supposing that science is somehow
17:15incomplete and and that there are truths
17:19of a non-scientific kind that in
17:22competition with scientific truths
17:24somehow may win out and among these
17:26there might well be religious truths now
17:29here's the thing when I weigh
17:32the philosophical puzzles
17:34that remain like the nature of our
17:37knowledge of mathematics against what
17:39science has accomplished over the 400
17:41years since Galileo and Newton when I
17:44weigh those in the balance right it
17:46seems to me that the balance is so
17:48heavily tipped towards science and its
17:51accomplishments by way of explaining and
17:54enabling us to understand
17:56nature and ourselves that I cannot take
18:00these puzzles
18:02seriously now at the end of the 20th
18:05beginning of the 21st century there's
18:07still a package of problems that the
18:10Sciences can't yet answer of which I
18:12think as I said you know the nature of
18:14our knowledge of mathematical truths is
18:17one do I think that science will never
18:19answer them no that's what scientism
18:22consists in it's the prediction that
18:24eventually we're going to successfully
18:26answer these questions and so to
18:27summarize your argument what you're
18:29saying is science has shown us so many
18:31advances that we should essentially
18:34trust it to answer all questions
18:37the inductive evidence favors that
18:39conclusion more strongly than the
18:41conclusion that there's some domain of
18:43questions real questions as opposed to
18:45pseudo-questions to which it can give no
18:47answer great why don't you believe that
18:49then
18:51look I think that the clouds on the
18:54horizon like mathematics but I think
18:56also moral knowledge is
19:00true
19:01I think science has power derives
19:03precisely from its limitations to
19:05certain types of
19:07questions
19:08that I think there are many questions I
19:11think we've actually we both agree there
19:12are questions Anna you cannot allow the
19:15fact that science would give disobliging
19:17answers to those questions to rule them
19:19as out of bounds for science yeah can I
19:22put something to you that one of our
19:24other interviewes said he I think took a
19:28very different view from you he said
19:30look we're the only animals that once
19:31you've fed us and watersed and given us
19:33a house
19:34this there's still a a restlessness and
19:37that restlessness is
19:39I think probably a search for meaning
19:43so he he felt that once you dealt with
19:45all of the the physical reality this
19:48left unaddressed something very
19:50important to human beings and felt that
19:52that's why
19:54um a purely sort of material scientific
19:56view wasn't enough
19:58I don't think that follows at all I'm
20:00I'm just sort of amazed at this science
20:03is in a position to explain why it is
20:06that human beings once you feed us and
20:08clothe us and shelter us should begin to
20:10worry about the nature of reality it
20:13suggests strongly that this concern is a
20:17consequence of byproduct of the kind of
20:20cognitive equipment that we really
20:21needed in order even to begin to survive
20:24at the bottom of the food chain on the
20:25African Savannah one of the other
20:28consequences of that cognitive Machinery
20:29is that many of us engage in these kinds
20:33of
20:34concerns about the meaning of
20:38our lives about moral value about
20:41aesthetic issues but that's
20:45seems to me no reason at all to think
20:47that either there's no good explanation
20:50for why we do so in the Sciences or that
20:54what we come up with
20:56simply as a result of the feeling of
20:59discomfort the itch
21:00curiosity that we scratch in all the
21:03ways we
21:05scratch represents anything like the
21:08truth about the reality that produced it
21:11yeah so what you're saying is
21:13we have this desire to look Beyond
21:16ourselves but science has explained that
21:19as a kind of a a misfiring of our this
21:24firing is the wrong word science
21:26explains it and what it produces is a a
21:29set of cultural institutions of
21:32tremendous
21:33value of that produce the enjoyment and
21:37the satisfaction and the happiness and
21:38the grief of human life that move us to
21:41action okay but which
21:45can't be taken seriously as descriptions
21:47of what's really out there but when you
21:50use the word you say they're made of
21:52great value
21:53what does that mean I mean they're fun
21:55they're entertaining they're enjoyable
21:57it's like when you listen to Beethoven's
22:00Ninth and you hear the Ode to Joy it it
22:04makes you cry okay nobody can deny that
22:08it makes you cry scientism doesn't deny
22:10that it makes you cry but to think that
22:13there's some World historical meaning
22:16beyond the emotional impact
22:19of a great work of art on us that's what
22:22I think is the mistake and the mistake
22:24that science reveals to us and science
22:26tells us that that if we were moved by
22:29Beethoven's Ode to Joy
22:31there's nothing more than
22:33an emotional response it's it's the
22:35acoustical disturbance uh produced by
22:39the condensation and verification of
22:41oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the
22:44atmosphere pushing on our eardrums and
22:46and that when you say value the value
22:49that it has is it's for example its
22:52ability to emotionally give us Pleasant
22:54experiences yes right but nothing beyond
22:57that now and now I'm not a utilitarian I
22:59don't think that moral value consists in
23:01happiness or pleasure or satisfaction
23:04the thesis is more radical
23:07these great works of art produce such
23:10feelings in us but there's nothing
23:11morally special about those fields and
23:13that's what science tells us that's
23:15right yeah can I ask you what about you
23:17this wonderful phrase nice nihilism what
23:20do you mean by nice nihilism what is it
23:23nihilism is the thesis which you forced
23:26me to admit to embracing that there are
23:30no fundamental moral values
23:32up but
23:34the nihilism which I embrace or endorse
23:37is nice in this sense of how it is that
23:39we human beings could have evolved to be
23:41cooperative empathetic and altruistic
23:44creatures in fact we would never have
23:46survived having been thrown out of the
23:48rainforest into the African Savannah on
23:51the bottom of the food chain we never
23:53would have survived let alone moved
23:55ourselves right up to the top of the
23:57food chain in only a matter of a couple
23:59hundred thousand years if we hadn't had
24:02certain features
24:04the tendency to cooperate with one
24:08another that's required by the division
24:10of labor and by the coordination of
24:13activities of people with one another
24:16and those behavioral dispositions are so
24:21deeply written into our evolutionary
24:24history that now we are all except for
24:27the small number of psychopaths Among Us
24:30pretty nice people easy to get along
24:32with we can be trusted even us nihilists
24:35can be trusted with the family
24:36silverware to take care of the children
24:38if there are other adults gone and not
24:42to cut moral Corners because we are
24:44driven like everybody else by the same
24:46emotions of guilt and shame and anger
24:49and fear which make us all
24:53pretty decent moral people so do you
24:56think that's the nice part that's the
24:57nice part so you think cooperation is
24:59part of the evolutionary story
25:01absolutely yeah and you you we
25:04interviewed Martin Nowak who has very
25:06excited about cooperation
25:09coming out of Game Theory do you have
25:10any thoughts on those yeah I think that
25:12one of the great advances in
25:14evolutionary anthropology and
25:17experimental economics that has enabled
25:19us to understand
25:21human Origins is what we now know about
25:26various kinds of cooperative and
25:27zero-sum games inevitably it turns out
25:30that people's behaviors are not narrowly
25:34short-term economically self-interested
25:37rational they're always Cooperative we
25:40are playing games and Game Theory is
25:42probably the the worst name for the most
25:44important theory in social science we're
25:47playing games we're interested we're
25:48engaged in strategic interaction all the
25:51time and the optimal ones are the ones
25:54that produce niceness what you also say
25:56is one of the ways that it does this
25:58that we feel shame and other guilt which
26:02prevents us from behaving in ways that
26:04people might call immoral but don't you
26:08worry that once you've explained this
26:11away that people will think no the
26:15difference between Shane McGill we know
26:16the difference between enchantment kill
26:17shame is uh is when you're caught yeah
26:20and guilt is when you're not caught and
26:22these are so hardwired into our
26:25psychological makeup that even knowing
26:28that they are evolutionary
26:32adaptations has no tendency to weaken
26:36their hold on us learn that
26:39pulling your hand away from a fire
26:41because of the pain is an evolutionary
26:43adaptation isn't the slightest reason to
26:45stop doing it sure it's easy to think
26:48well we're all nice and we're
26:49cooperating but you know when you're in
26:52a difficult situation where
26:55um you know life is a lot harder and the
26:57payoff that you get by cheating is a lot
27:00bigger of course there will be
27:01circumstances environments in which
27:03today's adaptations become tomorrow's
27:06male adaptations are we likely to face
27:09such circumstances we certainly have in
27:11the past yeah okay I think that the
27:14explanation the adaptational explanation
27:16for these moral Norms helps us unravel
27:20them and reduce their uh grip on us
27:24given the actual environment that we're
27:27in which is so different from the
27:28environment in which they evolved but if
27:31they're and and
27:33of course I'll have to be honest in
27:35answer to your question if the
27:36environment changes over the Long Haul
27:38in such a way as to make Cooperative
27:42altruistic empathetic be motivated
27:45Behavior maladaptive it's going to
27:47disappear of course
27:49what does science tell us about
27:50questions like uh euthanasia or
27:54abortion or
27:56War so
27:59um
28:01science can answer a lot of empirical
28:03factual questions about these matters
28:06okay but what science can also do is
28:08explain why the debates about these
28:11issues between two people who
28:12fundamentally disagree are intractable
28:15okay and it's a mistake to look for
28:18resolution of these disputes and those
28:23who hold one side or the other aren't
28:26either morally
28:29right or morally wrong okay that the
28:34search for this more fundamental basis
28:37on which we could absolutely adjudicate
28:39these questions as a mistake so what we
28:41should what should we do then
28:43given that let's say that David and I
28:45really disagree with us I think it's an
28:46important it's an important
28:49factor for for moral Toleration okay oh
28:53of these disputes and
28:56um at least in some cases we can come to
28:58understand why people have held them
29:00over time why cultures have held uh to
29:05very radically incompatible mores and
29:08Norms okay and even identify how the
29:13environmental circumstances in which
29:15these mores emerged have changed in a
29:17way to make them no longer
29:21uh ones we ought to support
29:24you know foot binding uh is a nice
29:27example and a lot of the disputes that
29:31we have cross-culturally about uh uh
29:34differences in moral Norms uh are to be
29:38unraveled and understood in the way that
29:41we Now understand foot binding as a a
29:46practice which at its start was adaptive
29:49for individuals and by the end was
29:52maladaptive for everybody and so you say
29:55so your argument is to say we shouldn't
29:58do foot binding anymore because it's not
30:00adaptive
30:02foreign
30:05science is in a position to tell you
30:07what we ought and ought not to do it is
30:10in a position to tell you why we've done
30:13it yeah and what the consequences of
30:16continuing or failing to do it are okay
30:19but it can't adjudicate ultimate
30:21questions of value because those are
30:24expressions of people's emotions and
30:26dare I say tastes and we understand now
30:30what the basis of those differences are
30:33from what we understand from
30:36Neuroscience or at least we're beginning
30:37I mean when I say what Neuroscience or
30:41cognitive Neuroscience can teach us I'm
30:43talking about what my projections and
30:46hopes are for the future of a science
30:48which is only just begun
30:50so maybe a different so I think what we
30:52both agree on is that science does not
30:54answer questions like what is the value
30:56of a human being
30:57I think where what Alex says is thus
31:01that question what is the value of human
31:02being is in fact not very a well-posed
31:06question which I would say to some
31:09extent these questions are ill posed to
31:13some extent they are pseudo questions
31:14and to some extent they can be answered
31:16by science that's what I hold and
31:18there's no residue left after those
31:20three categories are exhausted
31:24so what is the value of a human being if
31:26you're using the word value to mean some
31:29ultimate intrinsic value then the answer
31:32is there's no such thing as ultimate
31:34intrinsic value and so either the
31:36question is ill posed or the answer is
31:39none
31:40so I think where Alex and I agree
31:43and we probably disagree with you is
31:45that we both think that if the world is
31:50made of nothing but atoms and molecules
31:52and such conclusions are inevitable I on
31:56the other hand believe that there is a
31:59Transcendent reality a God and that
32:01these kinds of values like the intrinsic
32:03value of the human being comes from
32:05outside the natural world but I believe
32:07that if you don't believe that's true
32:09then you're I think Alex's logic is
32:11impeccable now I think that if you use
32:13the standards of reasoning which you are
32:16accustomed to employing in The Sciences
32:18okay that you cannot come reasonably to
32:22the conclusions that you just identified
32:24unless you can provide a good reason why
32:27you should cease to employ the
32:29principles of logic and the standards of
32:31evidence and reasoning that you employ
32:33in doing empirical science when you
32:36raise these questions about the nature
32:38of value of your engaging either in
32:41sophistry or self-delusion and I don't
32:44think that appealing for example to the
32:46existence of a Supreme Being even if
32:47there were one would help us in any way
32:50understand the nature of value and
32:52that's something that has been
32:53recognized in philosophy since the
32:55earliest and simplest of Plato's
32:57dialogues the Youth of fro in which he
33:00specifically argued against this View
33:02so this is self-delution
33:05so basically what you're saying is if I
33:08use my logic I should let go of the idea
33:12of God and even if I have God the idea
33:14that somehow that it doesn't help it
33:16doesn't help me explain why human beings
33:18so even though I will believe that God
33:19created human beings and therefore their
33:22value comes from that you're saying that
33:24doesn't actually help I don't see how
33:26even if that Sunday School Story were
33:28correct it would help us ground moral
33:31value okay
33:32I think I disagree
33:34I thought you might yeah no so give us
33:36an argument look the argument would be
33:38that the morals that we have or the
33:41value that we have I think the idea that
33:42we're created by God gives us value
33:46um and that value is partially linked to
33:50the the
33:53the goals that God has for us which are
33:55a good goals so a lot of the moral
33:57things that we have are linked to wow
33:58this is like this is it's hard it's
34:01I don't know where to start to deal with
34:04the with true theism you know that I can
34:08deal with deism yeah because it's not a
34:10serious competitor but to to the
34:13scientific worldview but theism is
34:15actually logically incompatible with a
34:18lot of Science and by theism you mean I
34:21mean that God that there is an
34:22omnipotent omniscient omnipresent and
34:24benevolent agency who's responsible for
34:28our presence here in the universe right
34:31so he says classic theism is
34:33incompatible with science but obviously
34:35it's not in some sense because you you
34:37know you can keep both ideas in your
34:39head but that's because we all keep
34:41contradictory ideas in our heads we're
34:43not logically omniscient and these two
34:45happen to be particularly obvious
34:47examples of incompatible so I think it's
34:50dangerous many people keep in their
34:52heads yeah how do they deal with it
34:54cognitive dissonance
34:55uh being a bit schizoid in their
34:58personality maybe that's a good thing I
35:01mean
35:02maybe if that's what we do and maybe
35:04that's the way we're evolved then maybe
35:07it's a very good thing that oh it might
35:08be adaptive but that doesn't make it
35:09true any more than so many other beliefs
35:11that we have that are adaptive are not
35:14true
35:15you you seem to take issue well you do
35:17take issue in your book about narrative
35:18about the stories we tell
35:20surely the ability to tell ourselves
35:23stories is a is a good thing it gives
35:25people a sense to it it makes sense the
35:28ability to tell stories as you just said
35:30is a is a good thing
35:33um in that
35:34one of the devices that we require in
35:37order to and and have since the
35:39pleistocene since we began to need to
35:43cooperate with one another in order just
35:45to survive
35:46one of the things that one of the tools
35:48that we've needed is telling stories
35:50okay and telling stories motivates and
35:54coordinates actions and those are the
35:57kinds of things that are required when
35:59you're a puny little relatively weak
36:02slow and short creature operating on the
36:05African Savannah and having to deal with
36:07hyenas and tigers and lions and
36:10things like that
36:12um
36:13and this this device of stories which
36:16coordinates and motivates
36:18okay and has great adaptive value
36:22continues to persist and become and to
36:24bulk larger and larger in our culture
36:27from that time to the present that's the
36:30problem though is it well let me finish
36:32so you get Homer and you get
36:35um the stories of the wisdom literature
36:39of our religions for example but now we
36:43reach the end of the 20th and the
36:46beginning of the 21st century and we
36:48need guidance
36:50about how to cope with global warming
36:52how to cope with fundamentalist Islam
36:55how to cope with the misconduct of
37:00investment bankers and here stories
37:04tempt us into thinking that we
37:06understand and that we know on the basis
37:09of the stories that we tell how to deal
37:12with these problems and they never do
37:15and we Now understand why they don't
37:18because we know about the false
37:21assumptions about ourselves and about
37:23the the world on which these stories are
37:27based and we have a good account of the
37:30nature of the processes in human culture
37:33and otherwise that drive the evolution
37:37of our culture and those processes have
37:40nothing to do with the causal factors
37:42that are actually mentioned in these
37:44narratives and so we have to stop
37:46thinking about these narratives as
37:48having any other function in our society
37:50than Beethoven's Ninth Symphony matters
37:54that give us pleasure and enjoyment and
37:57that move us but now we know when we
38:00compare those stories with what what
38:02what game theory for example tells us
38:04about the actual nature of human
38:07interactions we should begin to
38:09recognize that for all their emotional
38:11value and for all their artistic Beauty
38:14they are not to be relied upon in the
38:17way science can be relied upon in order
38:20to order and arrange human institutions
38:23and cope with the vicissitudes of the
38:25future
38:26but a lot of the Sciences we've talked
38:29to have said look
38:30science tells stories narrative is is is
38:33essential for science there's a reason
38:35why scientists tell stories and it's a
38:38reason that every science writer knows
38:40as far back as Paul De Cruz and micro
38:42Hunters the first of the great
38:43popularizations of the history of
38:45Science and it's because people only
38:48want stories every editor will tell
38:51every science writer if you're going to
38:52tell us about the nature of reality you
38:55have to package it in a story because
38:56it's the only way people will pay
38:59attention and that even goes for us
39:01scientists the great thing about the
39:03best books in in science is they manage
39:06to actually avoid stories and so really
39:10communicate the science
39:11we know that psychologically stories are
39:14unavoidable but it doesn't make them
39:17cognitively
39:19significant any more than our conviction
39:22that colors are out there in the world
39:24well it does make them psychologically
39:25significant in the sense it's
39:27cognitively significant I meant
39:28significant as a matter of identifying
39:31the true causal processes that drive
39:33reality
39:35was it psychologically significant of
39:37course oh right but but psychologically
39:39is reality
39:41it like you said it's it's it's it's
39:43it's a it's as much as part of reality
39:46as my shoes it's made of atoms and and
39:49things moving around so if I have a
39:51thought and it drives me psychologically
39:52that is reality yes but what it tells
39:54you about yourself and the world might
39:57be quite mistaken in fact often is so
40:00many of the scientists that we speak to
40:02in fact I myself
40:05um in my own research
40:09think that beauty is a guide to truth
40:13and science so historically many of the
40:15Great scientists like the rock very
40:16famous elegance elegance and Truth well
40:18the rock case is quite interesting if
40:20you're thinking about the positron but
40:22go on they were just doing so and we
40:24interviewed Frank will check who has a
40:25whole book on this topic yes so
40:28and the it's a classic argument that
40:32beauty is some sense a guide to truth
40:34what do you make of these arguments so
40:36to begin with where does our sense of
40:38beauty come from it actually it's very
40:40interesting there's been some very nice
40:41studies about this and our sense of
40:43beauty and of symmetry actually comes
40:45from the very bucolic pleasing character
40:48of the sunset on the African Savannah or
40:51something rather like that but for me
40:53Beauty like Simplicity and other uh
40:57features of scientific theory are
40:59important and their importance is
41:04Justified largely by our inductive
41:07practices that is to say it has turned
41:10out in the past that those theories that
41:12are the simpler have proved to have been
41:15more well confirmed than the more
41:17complicated theories and so we have a
41:19conviction in science that simpler is
41:22better than complicated and we seek
41:24simpler theories beauty alone is not
41:28going to be a substitute for or treat it
41:30as an invariable guide to truth it's
41:32just a general feature of many of the
41:35best scientific theories now ask
41:37yourself why that's going to require an
41:39explanation and that explanation may or
41:41may not be beautiful
41:43yeah that's I'm wondering why what do
41:45you think why I don't know the answer to
41:47that question probably because the
41:49Universe I I'm inclined to think it's
41:51because of reductionism it's because the
41:53universe is simple at its basement level
41:55and because the principles of
41:56aggregation of of of uh putting things
41:59together are relatively simple and so
42:01the outcomes tend to be simple why is
42:04the universe simple that's a question
42:05for science too we don't even have a
42:07good metric for SIM for Simplicity still
42:10less a good metric for beauty for us to
42:13actually be confident that more
42:15beautiful theories are in fact
42:17more well confirmed
42:20and do you think this question of why is
42:22Universe simple
42:24leads quickly to the kind of famous
42:26questions about why is there something
42:29rather than nothing I don't think that
42:32it does but that's an interesting
42:33question to which I think the science
42:35has given answer which is what no reason
42:37at all no reason at all quantum
42:38mechanics okay it tells us that at
42:41constantly in this room at every sure at
42:45every fire detector in this room events
42:48are happening with no cause whatsoever
42:50but with millions of times a second why
42:52shouldn't the universe have come into
42:54existence on the same basis so you're
42:56saying why we shouldn't call the
42:57mechanics itself will come into the
42:58existence on the same basis
43:01quantum mechanics doesn't come into
43:02existence it's a set of laws about
43:05reality
43:06are they the set the only set of laws
43:08about reality are they the set of laws
43:10that this universe as opposed to other
43:11universes in the Multiverse well let's
43:13wait until we have established uh super
43:17string theory Sure and then we'll be
43:19able to answer these questions and until
43:21we do anything else is just theology or
43:23speculation

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Alex Rosenberg on Scientism, Truth and ‘Nice Nihilism’ [2016] by Fadi Akil (Untimely Thoughts), generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,888 words across 1,061 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.