8

I was reading Wikipedia through materialism and physicalism article and was unable to find, whether modern scientists largely subscribe to physicalism in natural sciences.

What is the scientific consensus on the metaphysical stances?

To particularize:

  • Does physicalism holds for mathematics and what is the mathematicians' consensus?
  • Do natural scientists subscribe to physicalism in their fields?
  • Do social scientists subscribe to physicalism in their fields?
Mirzhan Irkegulov
  • 946
  • 10
  • 29
  • 2
    My guess is that many hard scientists view mathematical objects as having a non-physical existence. – Xodarap Oct 21 '12 at 19:17
  • To continue on @Xodarap's comment: do you consider mathematicians as scientists? In that case, you will not have an answer as simple as physicalism. That being said, many (myself included; paradoxically I am a mathematician that mostly works on science) would not consider mathematicians as scientists, so you should clarify what you mean by scientists and how you stand on mathematicians and the weird border between the theory branches of hard sciences and math. – Artem Kaznatcheev Oct 22 '12 at 04:41

1 Answers1

8

The operational consensus of physical scientists is that physicalism holds. That is, experiments are planned and executed as if physicalism is true. The reasons are simple: no compelling evidence has been found to the contrary despite various attempts (e.g. intercessory prayer studies, psi studies, etc.); and it makes planning and interpreting experiments much easier (and it works).

Whether individual scientists hold different personal views is a sociological question to which I do not have a definitive answer. The overwhelming majority of theistic positions are not physicalist, and

the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study

(source). So at least 5-8% of scientists are apparently not physicalists, but this doesn't really answer how many actually are.

I am not sure what the rates are among social scientists, but I'm also not sure why they would be in any better of a position to judge the merits of physicalism than are lawyers or investment bankers. As their title says, they work in heavily social settings where whether something is physical or not is an implementation detail that they don't need to worry about.

Rex Kerr
  • 15,806
  • 1
  • 22
  • 45
  • 1
    +1, my only nitpick with this answer is that belief in God (Abrahamic or otherwise) doesn't necessarily entail a disbelief in physicalism. While in principle it may *ought* to, depending on the particular "God" we are discussing, it is not uncommon for people to (unknowingly or not) hold views which technically conflict each other... – stoicfury Oct 22 '12 at 02:19
  • This is a bit off the way, but I'm curious as to whether you (stoicfury) think that including a little bit about the recent Larry Krauss / David Albert unpleasantness could be relevant to the discussion: i.e., the question of "nothingness" having either a physical or nonphysical status. Or maybe that deserves it's own question? – Ryder Oct 22 '12 at 14:40
  • @RyderDain - Although I'm not familiar with the incident in question, I bet it deserves its own question. These sorts of issues almost invariably end up being about how we use language, not about the underlying nature of reality, and require more than an aside in a comment to resolve. – Rex Kerr Oct 22 '12 at 17:26
  • I am also not immediately acquainted with what you are referring to, but from your little excerpt it sounds appropriate to have it's own question, since it does seem to be quite the same topic. – stoicfury Oct 23 '12 at 07:06
  • For anyone interested a good overview of the Larry Krauss / David Albert unpleasantness is: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/ – FrankH Oct 26 '12 at 18:28
  • Thanks for the link, Frank - I'd read Piglucci's take and a few others when it happened, but I hadn't seen that particular response. – Ryder Oct 30 '12 at 10:33
  • 1
    -1 as the answer suggests a rejection of physicalism entails an acceptance of 'intercessory prayer studies, psi studies etc.'. It does not, and furthermore it is highly dubious that physicalism has anything to do with science. It is not testable, it makes no predictions, and offers no explanations. It is highly problematic. It is surely part of philosophy, and as such, scientists are no better qualified to make proclamations on the truth or falsity of physicalism than confused thinkers in any other walk of life are. – adrianos Nov 02 '12 at 14:22
  • @adrianos - What other positions are you thinking of that are not testably or predictably different from physicalism? Dualism doesn't look so hot in light of studies of brain damage, psychoactive drugs, etc.. Idealism doesn't either. Nihilism lacks explanatory power needed to do science. – Rex Kerr Nov 02 '12 at 16:42
  • @RexKerr Hi Rex, I don't think there are any metaphysical positions that are supported or refuted by science; they are in the main unrelated to scientific enquiry. That said, you can actually find philosophers who think that dualism (Popper/Eccles) or Idealism (Berkeley) are indeed compatible with science. That seems wrong to me (as it did Wittgenstein), but that's not what I object to in your answer. Its that you offer a false dichotomy: find evidence for spiritualism OR accept physicalism. Both can be rejected. For example, Arthur Fine's Natural Ontological Attitude seems a fine middle way. – adrianos Nov 02 '12 at 20:48
  • @adrianos - I gave spiritualism as an example of something that has been looked at and rejected as not explaining the data well; likewise with dualism vs. matter impacting mind so heavily. NOA is to a scientist indistinguishable from physicalism, so I agree that scientists are operational NOAists to the same extent that they're operational physicalists. I'm not sure why you're reading more than that into my answer. I'll edit in an umbrella term for physicalism if you have one, since that's what I mean. I am not aware of one, so I think physicalism is a good proxy label (esp. given "as if"). – Rex Kerr Nov 02 '12 at 21:26
  • 1
    @RexKerr I guess it depends what you mean by 'physicalism'. Is it some kind of ontological denial in regard to anything not deemed sufficiently 'physical'? If 'physical' means physics, physicalism is false, as there is lots of evidence for the claims of biology, history etc. If it means matter or substance or something like that, it is clearly false, as there is evidence for non-material things even in *physics*. My point is just what is the inference from science to physicalism supposed to be? I don't see what metaphysical conclusion is supported - I suspect none at all :) – adrianos Nov 03 '12 at 01:35
  • @adrianos - Try Wikipedia or SEP for a definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism – Rex Kerr Nov 03 '12 at 18:41