If I am understanding Paul Brandon's post correctly, his thesis is that the
universe is so complex that phenomena we might be tempted to ascribe to a
supernatural cause actually may have natural explanations of which we are
unaware or that are incomprehensible to us. Because of this, there is no way
to get evidence for a supernatural cause of a peculiar phenomenon by
eliminating possible natural causes. I am in agreement with him about this (at
least at this point). His post made me realize that I am not as bothered by a
belief in supernaturalism (because it could be correct) as I am about the
special "ways of knowing" that are thought by many to be necessary if one is
to know the supernatural realm.
Thus, the issue I need to address with my students is this: what is the best
way of knowing what we want to know about the universe? The ways of knowing
typically used to support supernatural claims depend upon personal
experience--anecdotes that often involve emotions and vague "feelings" as well
as intuitive forms of reasoning about these feelings. The intuition that
serves as the preferred method of reasoning for these claims is typically
based on a framework of beliefs instilled by various cultural institutions
(e.g., religion, the mass media). Does this "way of knowing" lead to valid
beliefs about either nature or supernature? The best test of the validity of a
belief is determining if it leads to novel and observable predictions that
allow us to rule out alternative beliefs. With this as our criterion, I need
to show my students that there is abundant evidence supporting the claim that
personal experience is an inferior way of knowing. I also need to show them
that the way of knowing referred to as the "scientific method" is a privileged
way of knowing because it allows us to develop beliefs that lead to novel and
observable predictions that rule out alternative beliefs. The evidence for
this claim forms an important part of my courses. In other words, it is an
empirical generalization that the scientific method is a better way to know
what we want to know: it allows us to predict and control phenomena better
than personal experience.
What about the naturalism assumed in my courses? Again, this is an empirical
generalization. Phenomena that had once been ascribed to supernatural causes
were, time and time again in the history of science, shown to be better
explained by natural causes. For example, with the emergence of a popular
spiritualist movement during the mid-nineteenth century in the United States,
many scientists became interested in obtaining evidence for supernatural
processes affecting the material universe. Time and time again, phenomena
originally ascribed to a supernatural set of causes were shown to be either
hoaxes or to have a natural explanation. In other words, supernatural
explanations were not required.
One last point with which I struggle in my courses involves the issue of
morality, which came up during this thread as well. In particular, we all
wonder if science can resolve moral issues. Several people (including me)
concluded what should be obvious: scientific findings can inform moral
decisions. But there is an even more fundamental moral issue that motivates my
promotion of a natural-science approach to psychology. Let me explain. We are
constantly taking action. At all times, we are trying to adjust ourselves in
appropriate ways to the situations in which we find ourselves. A major
influence on our actions in any particular situation is our understanding of
that situation--what we think we know about its various aspects. If our
actions are to be appropriate, it is important that our understanding of the
situation be as accurate as possible.
If I enter a situation with the belief that a supernatural realm forms the
foundation for what is happening in that situation, then my actions certainly
will be influenced by that belief. To take a trivial example, before eating
dinner, I will stop to say "grace" so that I can thank the supernatural being
to whom I give the credit for my meal. To take a less trivial example, I may
assume that the undesirable action of another is evidence for
demon-possession, and I may "smite him dead" in order to force the demon out
of him. If there is no good evidence for belief in a supernatural realm--if it
relies ultimately on personal experience (anecdotes and intuition influenced
by the pronouncements of authority)--the beliefs are more likely to be
inaccurate and, thus, any actions influenced by these beliefs are more likely
to be inappropriate.
Because of this, I think that it is unethical to give credence in our courses
to a set of beliefs for which the only evidence relies on personal experience.
Since the goal of psychology is to understand human nature--our natures--and
since the beliefs we have about ourselves are a major influence on the actions
we take in any situation, these beliefs need to be as accurate as possible. If
there is something about human nature that we cannot understand at present by
using a natural-science approach, and we then (with all good intentions)
suggest that there is room for a supernatural cause as a possible explanation
without at least suggesting a way to test this, we are merely substituting
another mystery in place of the original one. Instead, we should be honest and
say that we simply don't understand what is going on.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"No one can accept the fundamental hypotheses of scientific psychology
and be in the least mystical."
Knight Dunlap
