A Reaction to Kelly Smith's Attribution of Reason to the Universe
By Scott Cherry—
...Who made the rules?! you demand. They did, someone proffers. Who’s they? You know, the ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato. Or, did they exist even before the philosophers who merely became aware of them and wrote them down? Hmm. Whatever the case, we know them now, and you’d better not get caught breaking them or the ‘reason police’ will probably come after you. So be careful. And even if nobody catches you, there seems to be ‘somebody’ out there enforcing them. That’s why I can appeal to ‘the rules’ when I analyze the following article, which I see as an example of circular reasoning and unsubstantiated claims.
But you can be the judge.
A few years ago I enrolled in a fascinating course on Philosophy of Science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn. Our very first assignment was to choose a scientific problem, find and read some articles on it, and then write a short paper reviewing the problem and the methodologies that scientists have employed to work on the problem. It was a great assignment designed to help students identify the interdependence of philosophy and science, or reason and methodology. We were to give special attention to the philosophical underpinnings of various methodologies. All of science, we were taught, rests on scientists’ assumptions, or presuppositions, going into their research and the methods they choose to explore problems. For example, all sciences (and all other disciplines) rest on the assumption of reason and intelligibility—that information and knowledge are accessible to the human mind through the intrinsic tools of reason and the methods of investigation they produce.
Another example is the assumption of uniformity in nature, or reality. That means that nature is essentially uniform to the extent that information that is gathered and confirmed using certain methods at one time and place will be repeatable. And I have just named two more vital assumptions: confirmation and repeatability. Then it occurred to me that all five of these assumptions are actually rules, or principles of reason that we normally employ not only in science but in everyday life. This intrigued me and fueled my thinking on the subject.
What determines principles, and why are there any at all? A principle is more than just a rule. What is it exactly? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary it has both a moral and a rational sense: 1) A moral rule or belief that helps a person know what is right and wrong which influences our actions; 2) A basic [rational] truth or theory, e.g. an idea that forms the basis of something like a law or fact of nature that explains how something works or why it happens. Apparently, logic has a lot in common with nature: Both have ‘forces’ that we call laws. In the realm of good reasoning, these laws become principles that are a lot like laws.
Take ‘circular reasoning’, for example. It is universally understood as a logical fallacy. But why? Because a circular argument presupposes the very thing it attempts to prove. Critical thinking textbooks call this a law of logic—a principle or rule of sound reason that applies to everyone, everywhere. But who made up this rule? The customary naturalistic answer is that, well, nobody made it up, it just is. In a sense, that’s true. There seems to be no human being or any system to which we can attribute it. As far back as we can look, this law seems to have been in place as an inviolable principle. Sure, a violation is not always easy to detect, but when it is detected it is called out, and should be. In the natural world it seems to have no origin at all, and yet it dictates how we reason with each other, how we govern arguments, and how we do science.
Reason fascinates me. So this article in Science Daily captured my attention because it had “reason” in the title: “How does the universe create reason, morality?”1 On the surface it claimed to offer a scientific explanation for the origin of reason, which for me was irresistible. But this article was way too short to be considered scholarly, so I dug deeper. I found that it was based on a much longer, peer-reviewed article that did qualify as ‘scholarly’ entitled “Manifest Complexity: A Foundational Ethic for Astrobiology?”2 In it author Kelly Smith attempts to explain how reason, morality and complexity have emerged. Not surprisingly, he attributes them to evolution—‘cosmic evolution’ by which he and so many of today’s scientists believe that everything in the universe came into existence. It recognizes rationality as one of the essential human attributes. To the last point I heartily agree.
In his actual study Smith explores the biological origins of reason and ethics in living things including human beings and E.T.’s. He attempts to do so through the lens of astrobiology, which is his field of expertise. His big question is: When we discover life in other parts of the universe, can we expect it to have systems of reason and ethics similar to ours? Yes, he thinks. That’s partly because he presupposes that 1) all living things are in some sense ‘rational’ (which they are not), and 2) all rational entities have ethical systems (which they do not). His argument is premised on his prior assumption that the universe naturally produces complexity and rationality. However, this is precisely what must be proved.
Smith’s articles both have fatal flaws. In the short one, the title itself assumes the conclusion: “How does the universe create reason, morality?” To the point of this piece, that is what we call circular reasoning, and it is precisely what we are examining.3 This is also what I call blind faith—in the universe.4 It is all just presupposed.5 So it is neither good science nor good philosophy. Smith assumes the truth of evolution to argue that of course the universe ‘creates’ complexity with reason and ethics, which it distributes liberally to all life on Earth. And it must obviously extend to extra-terrestrial life as well.
Foul! This was supposed to be Science, so I expected to see scientific methods and evidence for his claims, but there was none. There were no reported experiments and no data. Smith relied entirely on assumptions that remain unsubstantiated to-date. I realize this assumption is widely accepted in institutional science, but that does not make it science, or even good philosophy. For some mysterious reason, circular reasoning (circulus in probando) is a fixed law that everyone must obey to make a valid argument. It is universally appealed to, but only theists know why.6
*This is condensed version of the prologue to Scott Cherry’s new book, The Reason of Reason, which can be purchased from Amazon.com. https://cutt.ly/TheReasonofReasonbyScottCherry
_______________________________________________________________________
Footnotes
1 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150123102221.htm.
2 Philosophy and Religion, Kelly C. Smith. Clemson University Tiger Prints. tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=phil_pubs
3 In the first paragraph we read, “…Recent developments in science are beginning to suggest that the universe naturally produces complexity. The emergence of life in general and perhaps even rational life…may be extremely common…” (underscores mine) Here my reason threw down a red flag. It may be? At best it is interesting speculation labeled as science.
4 “Whatever ethical [and rational] rules we adopt, they are inexorably influenced by the ways in which our brains have evolved.”
5 “One obvious basic property of all life on Earth is that it is gloriously, ostentatiously negentropic [which means that]…Life seems to be characterized by increasing complexity and decreasing entropy, which goes against the overall thermodynamic tendency of the universe in which it finds itself, though there is some debate on this point…Evolution clearly produces more and more complex organisms over time.”
6 As a basic syllogism Smith’s argument might look like this:
Premise 1 There is observable complexity in nature that is distinguishable from non-complexity. It is apparent in both non-living and living things, especially human beings.
Premise 2 Complexity (reason + morality) is something that demands an explanation.
Premise 3 Biological evolution is an ‘established fact’ that provides an explanation for complexity.
Premise 4 [It is understood as a given that there is no intelligent mind responsible for producing it.]
Premise 5 Assuming the above, extrapolating ‘cosmic evolution’ from biological evolution is logical.
Premise 6 The universe must be the source of all rational and ethical complexity everywhere.
_______________________________________________
Conclusion: The universe creates all complexity, including reason.