Predicting by way of an explaining causation

One way to reform the love-affair with the past is to predict its down fall. This work of prediction is mostly done by a deductive logic that extends physical laws or known principles. Deductive logic evaluates a range of future possibilities and tries to come up with a firm prediction or forecast.

In order to come up with physical laws or principles, science must work from experience by looking backward into the past. This way of looking is the reverse of what deduction tries to do. This looking backward is better described by inductive logic, where past experiences are summarized and generalized and abstracted into principles. Bayesian statistics contains a strong inductive instinct with its attempt to summarize all past data and by its building a posterior distribution, but even Bayesian statistics can be adapted for the purpose of making a forecast.

When science explains phenomenon it does so by applying generalizations, and by representing the phenomenon as the output from a chain of causation. Therefore, the explained is a reflection of the love-affair with the past that went into inductive hind-sight. To test that the explained has in fact been explained is to turn to deductive logic again where our affection is now put to the test of possible refutation; trust but verify. If the explained is completely explained, then there can be no residual causation remaining that went undeclared.

Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain human behavior from the workings of natural selection. With our hehavior explained, are we free to choose? A gene that permits authentic freedom is not an explanation for freedom. A presumed gene can only support an authentic freedom away from the explanation itself (a strange-loop that cannot be mechanized). Therefore, for explanations to be complete (in the classical sense) there can be no free choices that make themselves available to the deductive menu, and all such behavior must be the product of a genetic determinism (excluding a presumed gene for freedom). The explanations are complete only when the behavior is automatic and no longer in need of insights. The explanation can be complete only when everything is accommodated by hindsight, even the insight itself that is said to come with a gene for insight, or freedom. And this is the problem for science, because such a science can offer us little when we struggle with something new that requires an ethical choice.

Since when did it become established that survival of the fittest explains its opposite, salvation by cooperation? And what good would such an explanation be if it was assumed true? We could argue both sides of the steet with equal validity!

Ethical choice implies the authentic freedom to select from the deductive menu, and this implies that our need for freedom must oppose the love-affair with the past where everything is explained. Science-aided inquire returns only its explanations, but unless our goal is to excuse objectionable behavior then these explanations necessarily offer us little when looking at choices to be made in the future. There must be freedom to make ethical choices, otherwise we are on autopilot. If we are free then the so-called explanations are necessarily incomplete and evolutionary psychology becomes a pseudo-science that is unable to demonstrate its assumed genetic determinism without pointing to strange-loops thereby conceding the Trinitarian facts. If we are not free then we are on autopilot, or sleeping, and the explanations coming from evolutionary psychology can give us nothing to awaken us. Either way, evolutionary psychology loses without a revision to bring it into agreement with Trinitarian philosophy.

The belief, that science shows that freewill is an illusion, is now revealed to be ridiculous. Freedom and volition to permit selection from the deductive menu is self-evident, and necessary. If freedom is supported by a material reality, then strange-loops are also necessary. Science cannot prosper without the deductive thinking that permits a flight from over-generalizations. And if there is an autopilot to return to as we sleep, it must be God`s will that is followed if our sleep is authentic and can withstand the deductive menu that necessarily exists.

For more like the above, see my essay:

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: