Thinking, Morality, Science, and Homosexuality
Hypothesis
It is a curious phenomenon in modern society that anyone who
opposes homosexuality on purely moral grounds must be an ignorant, uneducated,
unthinking, anti-science bigot. Is this
conclusion warranted and/or true?
Philosophical
Categories
The thinking person will immediately realize that morality
and science belong to two distinct philosophical categories. While these categories often interrelate, and
often lead to the same conclusion; these categories don't always interrelate,
and often lead to different conclusions, even diametrically opposed conclusions.
Choices
In this last case the thinking person faces a choice.
Consistent
Morality
The thinking person may choose to believe the science; yet
keep the morality, acting consistently with that morality. They are distinct categories. Science never compels moral action.
Inconsistent
Morality
Alternatively, the thinking person may choose to believe the
science; and doubt the morality, acting inconsistently with that morality. Such a person is, at least temporarily, an
immoral person. Unless a new morality is
constructed, this person will always be immoral.
Since the original morality has been so easily torn down, it
is fair to ask, what was the authoritative base for that older morality? Exactly how did that that original authority,
cease to be authoritative? Was authority
misdirected and placed in a wrong object?
From a thoughtful philosophical perspective, authorities don't simply
disappear. All morality is based on
authority: whether that authority is self, someone else, or something else.
This construct gives every evidence that a rebellion took
place against the older authority, and replaced it with the authority of
self. This leads to the inevitable
conclusion that every person must be an authority of self, in which case
morality becomes so diversified that it ceases to exist. My opinion is as authoritative and valid as
yours. You cannot impose your morality
on me. At this point there is no longer
any right or wrong. Law ceases to exist. Self-morality always decays to amorality.
Abandoned
Morality
Another alternative for the thinking person is to reject the
idea of other authority and morality completely and embrace the science itself
as the ultimate final authority of all that is moral and good. This, however, leads to the same conclusion
as the previous alternative; except that, now there is a pseudo-rudder
authority that will lead us through the tangle of every moral decision.
How good is this pseudo-rudder? Hypothetically speaking, there is, after all,
a 75% probability that a particular medicine will cure your disease. The same medication also has a 25% chance
that it won’t cure your disease, it might even mask all of the disease
symptoms, hiding it from further diagnosis and discovery. Moreover, it might also have other
significant side effects. For example:
it might have a 25% chance of causing blindness.
Every scientific experiment carries with it the risks of
true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives (Tp, Fp,
Tn, Fn), side effects, and the like. That is good science. There are also things like scientific error,
which is another topic for discussion. What’s
more, there is also bad science: namely fad based, fraudulent, poorly tested,
inaccurately verified, or simply wrong thinking posing as science. There is even such a thing as no science at
all. This is the sort of stuff that old
wives fables and urban legends are made of: as well as many TV ads, especially
those that contain the words, “but wait, there is more.”
Additionally all of science begins either with an abduction
(blind guessing) or an induction (educated informed guessing). Once the abduction or induction is stated[1], the scientist now sets
out to prove that the abduction or induction is either true or false. The conclusion is never probability 0 or probability
1. There is always a probability, 75%
for example, that the original proposition is true; and an attendant probability,
25% in this example, that the original proposition is false.[2]
Is this the sort of conclusion upon which we may build a new
morality? Is it 25% permissible to
commit murder? Why not?
Concomitant with all such probabilities is a statement of
experimental error: for example, + or – 5%.
When science is used to draw conclusions, often presented as absolutes,
without stating all the probabilities involved (Tp, Fp, Tn, Fn) and each of
their corresponding errors, we may be sure that real science is being
abused. The conclusion must make a
complete statement of all findings to be scientific.
One might fairly ask for a complete scientific explanation
of beauty, history, love, music, personality, or thought, for which science has
no real solutions. The usually response is
that these things correspond to the release of endorphins in the brain. Very well, what are all the probabilities and
errors that a particular release of endorphins must be identified as
beauty? How is the endorphin release
associated with beauty, distinguished from the endorphin release associated
with love? Form a scientific hypothesis
and experiment that produces the definition of any word. The final lethal injection to this line of
thinking is, “Prove the scientific method, using nothing but the scientific method.”
Conclusion
Having expended a great deal of thought, and not a little
logic in exploring this question we are forced to conclude[3] that there is no good
reason to support the original hypothesis, “It is a curious phenomenon in
modern society that anyone who opposes homosexuality on purely moral grounds
must be an ignorant, uneducated, unthinking, anti-science bigot.”
This conclusion is neither warranted nor true. Many credible scientists would far rather
retain their morality, looking to an authority outside of themselves, in humble
recognition of the fact that they are mere men, with very fallible powers of
observation, induction, and experimental verification.
Indeed, it is scientific foolishness to abandon a moral idea
on the 3% plus or minus 1% chance that it might be wrong.[4] Science has to roll with the best available
bet, especially when it exceeds 90% or 95% odds. Below 90%, depending on the size of the error,
the risks and costs of failure may be too great. Sometimes scientists are simply forced to
give it their best shot.
Mind you, we are not now discussing the genetic
probabilities linked with homosexuality.
We are discussing the probabilities that we have erred in understanding
authority, which is neither an abduction nor induction, but rather a
deduction. We are exploring the
probabilities that either the authority is wrong, or we have misinterpreted or misunderstood
that authority. It is mindless
foolishness to abandon a 97% plus or minus 1% moral shot.
Nevertheless, people will continue to believe what they wish
to believe. Frequently this has little
to do with science, thought, education, knowledge, or morality: sometimes this is
even contrary to all of these things.
This discussion is based on the premise that the genetic
relationship or link with homosexuality is good science. This is far from proved. To begin with, what is the size of the
experimental error, what are the risks of confounding?
We conveniently and readily overlook the fact that genetics
is still an infant science. We are far
from unraveling all the mysteries locked in DNA code and structure. Because every TV drama is resolved by
immediate reference to DNA testing; because DNA testing produces precisions far
above 99.99% probabilities: we assume that such testing is easy and that such
probabilities apply to every result. The
reality is that the testing itself is both expensive and difficult: this is
even true of blood typing. When it comes
down to identifying the function of a single chromosome or chromosome pair, the
task becomes daunting. Difficulties
increase exponentially as the number of chromosomes in a correlation increases. It takes much more than the discovery of a
supposed correlation to establish a genuine relationship. Relationship takes rigorous application of
logic, and vast amounts of cross checking to establish, and even this is
associated with its own probability and error.
Even if finally established as “true”, what should this say
about morality? Nothing. On the basis of nothing, are you really going
to abandon your morality? It is not
accidental that many of the greatest mathematicians, philosophers, and
scientists of history were all highly committed Christians, firm in their
faith, living under the absolute authority of God, committed to the morality
which God commanded.
[1] The
best such statements are called null hypotheses, which the scientist sets out
to disprove. The conclusion often takes
the form, “There is no good reason to believe that….”
[2] Scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers may not always state this negative probability,
since all of them understand its necessarily implied existence, as the
inevitable result of the first positive probability. This understanding is as old as Aristotelian logic. The correct negation of one lemma is always
its contrapositive, not a new object.
The correct opposite of light is not-light, rather than darkness. Darkness may create a new category, unless
darkness is defined as the absence of light.
Such a definition ignores the possibility that forms of darkness may
exist which are not the absence of light: black holes, and anti-matter, for example. The absence of something, logically implies
0. The whole field of the mathematics of
negative numbers was invented to explain things that do not end in 0.
[3] Not
scientifically; that would be jest: for we have conducted no verifying
experiments.
[4] This
is a gross understatement, inserted to provide a gracious benefit of doubt. The real probabilities of falsehood are
around 0.00001% or less, making the probabilities of truth 0.99999% or better,
with errors approaching 0.000001% or less.
[5] If
you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment