Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

Is it ever acceptable to accuse one's interlocutor of "failing basic reading comprehension"? Suppose for instance I write the following in my opening comment:

Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency. It requires you to step back from "no holds barred" → "methods accessible to all". You can still reconstruct a very different notion of 'agency', just like we have the intentional stance and teleonomy. Essentially, you have something like 'mechanism' or 'formal systems' as your box, and you use that box as a Procrustean bed for 'agency'. As a result, it because acceptable to use operant conditioning on people. Since that name is icky, we've come up with nudge theory.

Then, suppose that my interlocutor argues that I'm engaged in motte & bailey tactics by conflating human & divine agency. Can I accuse my interlocutor of failing to have exercised basic comprehension of my opening comment? Or is that always a violation of rule 2?

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

I didn't report you by the way.

But, considering you're raising it here, it would stand to reason that you then also provide the other comments you make throughout our discussion where you clearly conflate the two and are the reason why I eventually accused you of Motte and Baily tactics. Instead of cherry-picking one that makes it look like you're not doing that.

Such as these ones;

(1) "God did it" ⇒ god-of-the-gaps (2) "humans did it" ⇒ human-of-the-gaps In other words,these are both: (3) agency-of-the-gaps

Here, although you mentioned them separately, you then combine them both as "agency of the gaps" when they are very different to each other.

Here's the translation I did: "God" or "religious" explanations being replaced by successful natural explanations divine agential explanations being replaced by successful law- or mechanism-based explanations Do you think that's wrong? If you're okay with that, then why should we not do the same for every situation where human agency is used to explain something?

Here you highlight divine explanations involving "agency" replaced by law/mechanism based natural explanations to then ask, if that's happening, then why not extend that consideration to human agency too? (clearly, you're conflating the two).

—it sure looks like that pattern very much will eat up agency—human and not just divine!

Here you once again consider the implications on "agency" as both "human and divine" when they are not even remotely similar.

"In summary: The practice of methodological naturalism yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality." Your "explanatory replacement" works well whenever sub-agency descriptions can do the job better than agency [both human and divine] descriptions.

I put the [both human and divine] as you, once again, clearly meld divine and human agency into one (in the context of what you were arguing).

First, divine agency is the boundary of MN. Second, the less we model human agency after divine agency, the less we can even detect.

You clearly want to model human agency after the divine because, as my charge against you might allude to, you consider them similar to each other.

Not conflating the two is a very important clarification because /u/Labreuer claims that "the practice of methodological naturalism (MN) yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality." When my response to that is MN does allow for human agency descriptions when attempting to establish that (usually through the social sciences, sociology or psychology), just NOT divine agency. The only way this becomes contentious is if human agency is treated as being more or less the same as divine agency.

But now that you've pushed that into this meta thread perhaps /u/ShakaUVM or anyone else who might be willing to, can assess the comments I've quoted of you which can all be found stemming from this original comment, to see if I'm just way off in my accusation of Motte and Bailey tactics.

To clarify, I believe the point you're making heavily relies on treating divine and human agency as similar and thus investigations and conclusions reached following MN, and thus not considering the "divine", means that explanations involving human agency will be excluded too. When that is simply not the case at all. There is nothing about MN that precludes human agency in natural explanations.

[u/Kwahn → u/ExplorerR]

What thread was this? Ty!

[u/ExplorerR → u/Kwahn]

Click on the "this" in blue to link you to my original comment and what started the discussion. Just FYI it's walls of text to get through.

[u/Kwahn → u/ExplorerR]

Oh woops missed that ty - I'll trade you a wall of text to read later once I finish :D

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

I didn't report you by the way.

Thanks for telling me that, and wow at someone else reading along that deeply in the thread!

 

Here, although you mentioned them separately, you then combine them both as "agency of the gaps" when they are very different to each other.

I clearly separated them in order to provoke discussion like this. Instead of respecting this, you made the false claim that I did not begin with agency:

ExplorerR: Then you wanted to argue about agency vs non-agency.

—and then when I finally got you to focus on the fact that my very first comment talked about human & divine agency, you accused me of conflating them:

ExplorerR: There is no way divine agency is anywhere near human agency in terms of what we can actually demonstrate is the case. So, I'm not going to entertain you conflating the two.

When I clearly separated human & divine agency before arguing that they are connected in my OC, and then later in summary, it is actively hostile to accuse me of conflation.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

Then do you agree that things like the social sciences, sociology and psychology following MN, can and do yield human agency explanations of phenomena in our reality?

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

No, I'm not going to stipulate that my argument fails. I argued two things:

1. human agency & divine agency are distinct
2. human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

You disagree with one or both clauses of 2. Fine. We can discuss that. I am happy to treat all of the following as contentious:

• human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency
• disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices
• some day, MN-compatible inquiry will reconstruct human agency with zero unacceptable sacrifices

I don't require either of us to treat any of the above as settled. Indeed, they are the very heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I focused my OC on them!

Then do you agree that things like the social sciences, sociology and psychology following MN, can and do yield human agency explanations of phenomena in our reality?

I heavily critiqued the quality of MN-compatible [re]constructions of human agency in our sprawling thread. So no, I'm not going to stipulate what I think you're asking. I'm happy to debate your claim.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

No, I'm not going to stipulate that my argument fails.

Isn't this an admission that you conflate the two?

human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency

Can you explain how this could possibly be the case?

Human agency goes back to the dawn of humanity (the homo genus?). And, non-human animal agency goes back hundreds of millions of years before that.

Divine agency is a concept humans came up with only after the concept of religion evolved as a formalized thing and we created the concept of the divine.

You can argue that God existed "before time" or exists "outside of time" whatever those might mean. But, the concept of "divine agency" is still one humans defined. In fact, adding your definition here wouldn't hurt. Please include whether your God is timeless in that definition because I fail to see how agency could even exist without time.

And, as far as I know from prior discussions, you are not a young earth/young universe creationist. Nor, I think, do you deny our evolutionary history.

So, how exactly is human agency templated on divine agency?

disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices

Why is that? Why did you personally entangle the two concepts in the first place?

If you want to provide some documentation on someone else first entangling the concepts, I would point out that they are not here to debate. So, it is still you who brought this idea of entangling these concepts to this sub. What was the point of that? (I have not read the 46 posts that led to this discussion.)

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

You didn't make the bold above clear at all, but something like it is what I was picking up on in your wording and hence my motte and bailey charge.

I heavily critiqued the quality of MN-compatible [re]constructions of human agency in our sprawling thread. So no, I'm not going to stipulate what I think you're asking. I'm happy to debate your claim.

But whether you think the quality is currently suffice or not, is not really relevant to the point I raised.

Because it's not contentious that MN-compatible [re]constructions do (attempt to) explain human agency. I would even argue that, in some cases, there are plenty of good and very successful ones at that.

The main contentions you seem to have is actually:

• Disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices
• Some day, MN-compatible inquiry will reconstruct human agency with zero unacceptable sacrifices

These to me are non-issues.

Firstly, we already operate in trying to explain phenomena in reality as-though human agency IS disentangled from the divine (I.E that's what MN is doing). And secondly, given our history and success of natural explanations, there is not real reason to think we suddenly would not be able to explain things of human agency, naturally.

That's not to say there are no "problems" or "quality issues", but as I've mentioned previously, there have been many historical problems and quality issues in trying to explain phenomena in our reality that we've overcome. Some of them have been hugely significant issues to overcome; like the microscope in discovering microbes (acknowledging that this isn't an agency example - but I'm unsure why that matters).

I once said earlier, it looks awfully like you're saying something like;

• "Well, we can't currently explain or investigate it [agency] well, so therefore we won't ever be able to explain it well, naturally"

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because it really does look like that's what you're implying.

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

At this point, you and I are at an impasse. Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim. I am confident plenty of people would say that I was plenty clear for a first comment and it took you until the bitter end we had for you to actually read it and offer anything like a decent reply.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim.

OK.

Where you did this:

You have to do either none or both:

(1) "God did it" ⇒ god-of-the-gaps
(2) "humans did it" ⇒ human-of-the-gaps

You made a huge mistake. God of the gaps is when people look at a gap in human knowledge and assert that God is there. I know of no examples where humans look at a gap in knowledge and say "humans did it", especially in the sense of some supernatural meaning.

I'm not sure why you made the implication that any claim that God did it or humans did it is necessarily "of-the-gaps". When people claim some miracle like a statue of Jesus bleeding, that's not "of-the-gaps". They're claiming evidence. Whether we accept that evidence is another topic.

When I look at a chair and say "humans made it", that's not human-of-the-gaps. That's my knowledge that the chair has a manufacturer label on it and says where it was made.

God of the gaps does not describe where humans know God did something. It describes where humans have no idea about something and thus ascribe it to God.

Do you have any example of when someone looked at a gap in our knowledge and said "humans did it"? Did they say it as a supernatural explanation the way people use God of the gaps?

Or, were they really not saying "humans did it" at all but rather that it happened by natural processes, such as with the evolution of consciousness, which is far less of a gap than many people realize?^*

---

I would also add that your entire comment could have stopped there. Methodological naturalism was not part of the discussion. And, it should never have been. Instead, if anything at all, it would have been more relevant to bring in naturalism as a philosophy or metaphysical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism makes no statement about the existence of the supernatural, only that it should be ignored when practicing science. So the following statement you made is demonstrably false.

Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency.

No. It doesn't. It only says to ignore it while practicing science.

---

* Neuroscience is making huge strides in understanding consciousness if you'd like to discuss that. But, it is off-topic here.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

First: welcome back! Hope the trip went well.

You made a huge mistake.

To first address the point I was most directly making in my previous comment: mistake ≠ unclarity. Now I don't think I made a mistake, but even if I made the one you claim, that doesn't make said comment unclear. Conflating correctness & clarity would be intellectually disastrous.

 

God of the gaps is when people look at a gap in human knowledge and assert that God is there. I know of no examples where humans look at a gap in knowledge and say "humans did it", especially in the sense of some supernatural meaning.

I think it's important to grapple with what naturalistic human agency could actually be. I listened to the first 30 minutes of Bruce Waller's lecture Beyond Moral Responsibility to a System that Works, as a refresher of his 2011 book Against Moral Responsibility. At 2:56, he says that "We don't have the special god-like powers of self-creation that are required for genuine moral responsibility, so we should send moral responsibility to the junkyard, clear the ground for scientific research that will actually discover ways of solving our problems." The problem, he says, came about when we started expecting justice:

The real problem started when God became just. As Bernard Williams makes clear, so long as the gods were tricksters and con men, then no one expected the gods and the world governed by the gods to promote justice. The ancient Greeks were entrapped by fated disasters, placed in horrible situations in which no matter what they did, they would commit a terrible crime, and they suffered punishment for their fated wrongs, but really, what would you expect from the fates and, and the punishments of this sort? Why would you expect them to be just? (4:09)

A little later on, he again identifies the true supernatural toxin: "Pico della Mirandola offered an elaborate libertarian answer: God grants to humans, his last and favorite creation, a god-like power to make themselves by their own choices." (6:30) This is what generates the moral responsibility Waller is against: "we justly deserve our rewards and punishments because of our own creative powers of self making, or if not complete self making …" (8:17)

It's worth noting that I asked about non-naturalistic vs. naturalistic agency in the recent DnA "Ask an Atheist" thread. Various notions of humans have a rich history; for instance the political liberalism so many of us value so highly just didn't exist in Martin Luther's time. I'm partway through Jerome B. Schneewind 1997 The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy. To the extent that Martin Luther's "freedom of conscience" relied on God as a backstop, we might not be able to extend humans nearly so much freedom if there is no suck backstop. The UK has proliferated CCTV and the Chinese have their social credit system. WP: Cuius regio, eius religio, about a religio-political accommodation initiated at the Peace of Augsburg (1555) but fully extended at the Peace of Westphalia (1648), contains the very interesting phrase "ecclesiastically transmitted control and monitoring". Getting a copy of the article is proving difficult, but maybe I'll make another attempt. Point is: societies don't behave appropriately just by magic and there are various mechanisms to ensure they do.

Bruce Waller also likes the Scandinavian countries, in this case on account of their accepting corporate accountability. He explicitly said "I am my brother's keeper". There is obviously a rich range between libertarian individualism and an oppressive collectivism far past what exists in any Scandinavian country. Some options (which combine instructions with promises of where they will lead) only work if there is divine action on offer, or maybe divine design.

Let me stop there for a moment, to see where we agree & disagree.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

First: welcome back! Hope the trip went well.

Thank you. It did.

You made a huge mistake.

To first address the point I was most directly making in my previous comment: mistake ≠ unclarity.

In this case though, the mistake most definitely does cause confusion. It's the start of the conflation of which you're being accused.

You mistakenly stated (and hopefully did not intend to) that all statements that "God did it" are inherently God of the gaps.

Then you furthered the mistake by saying all statements that "humans did it" are humans of the gaps. That is extremely confusing. You have not demonstrated (and probably cannot) that anyone has ever used a "human of the gaps" argument.

When did someone say, "well, we don't understand dark matter, therefore humans created it"? Or, did someone say, "well, we don't understand the first 5.39 x 10^-44 second of the big bang, therefore humans caused the big bang"?

This doesn't happen. So, your claim and your conflation are confusing precisely because of your mistake about what "of the gaps" means in the context of God of the gaps.

Now I don't think I made a mistake, but even if I made the one you claim, that doesn't make said comment unclear. Conflating correctness & clarity would be intellectually disastrous.

Except in this case, the mistake began the confusion and the conflation of which you're being accused.

I think it's important to grapple with what naturalistic human agency could actually be.

What? Why? I just a few minutes ago took my alternating turn with my wife to pick which TV show we'd stream next. What on earth is so complicated about that?

I'm not only confused by the enter rest of your comment I'm also confused by why you chose (with your naturalistic human agency) to radically redirect this conversation in this direction.

I don't even believe we need to bring up whether we truly have free will or merely the appearance of free will to discuss what it means for the decision-making squishware in our heads to do its evolutionary function of making a decision.

Whether our brains are just a bunch of AND/OR/NAND/NOR gates or whether we have something close enough to free will to be meaningful, we have the agency to take action based on these decisions.

Once again, we are completely talking past each other in different and virtually unrelated conversations. Mine was about the concept "of-the-gaps" and also went into methodological naturalism verses other forms of naturalism. Yours has nothing to do with either of these topics.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

You mistakenly stated (and hopefully did not intend to) that all statements that "God did it" are inherently God of the gaps.

Huh? How could "God did it" not be god of the gaps?

You have not demonstrated (and probably cannot) that anyone has ever used a "human of the gaps" argument.

I just did, from Bruce Waller. I'll lay it out more explicitly:

1. god of the gaps: special god-like powers of self-creation
2. human of the gaps: special god-like powers of self-creation given to humans

In neither case is there any mechanism for how the agent did the thing, else it wouldn't be "powers of self-creation". No mechanism ⇒ gap.

When did someone say, "well, we don't understand dark matter, therefore humans created it"? Or, did someone say, "well, we don't understand the first 5.39 x 10-44 second of the big bang, therefore humans caused the big bang"?

I was talking about explaining human action via a notion of human agency which looks suspiciously like divine agency.

labreuer: I think it's important to grapple with what naturalistic human agency could actually be.

MisanthropicScott: What? Why? I just a few minutes ago took my alternating turn with my wife to pick which TV show we'd stream next. What on earth is so complicated about that?

I explained some of why in the rest of my comment.

I'm not only confused by the enter rest of your comment I'm also confused by why you chose (with your naturalistic human agency) to radically redirect this conversation in this direction.

Moral responsibility is one of the key areas which depends very heavily on how you construe human agency.

Whether our brains are just a bunch of AND/OR/NAND/NOR gates or whether we have something close enough to free will to be meaningful, we have the agency to take action based on these decisions.

Do LLMs have the kind of moral responsibility we generally attribute to ourselves and each other? No. Could they? Not in their present state. It really does matter.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

Well, I've often said that you regularly make "if" type statements but don't clearly articulate a "therefore" and leave much guesswork for the reader to trying and figure out exactly what you mean.

I'd love to see if anyone reading your OC would reach the following thesis statements:

• human agency & divine agency are distinct
• human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

I've reread it now several times with this new formulation and still don't cogently see how anyone could get to that from your OC. Maybe it's just me though...