Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
...So in answer to your question, I'm not even going to start trying to explain why those statements are wrong.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Thank you. Scientism is a word that I have met only recently, so am wary of using it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I used the term scientism for a reason - because 'scientism' is a philosophy, whereby the person believes that science is the only place where mankind can get answers, even to questions which have nothing to do with science.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding? Making up cumbersome neologisms for already-existing terms seems pointless, but maybe I'm just being a grammaratarianismist about it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
quote:Thinking back to some of the things Richard Dawkins (you knew it wouldn't be long!) has said, it seems that he is allowed these fancies, but his disciples have to believe and hang onto his every word - that's what he calls "thinking for yourself."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you not allowed the occasional intuition or irrational fancy?
quote:My problem is that "scientism" is usually only trotted out as whipping boy (how's that for a mixed metaphorationism?) whenever science has something particular to say about someone's pet issue. (e.g. heliocentrism, descent with modification, climate change) It's usually a tactic to avoid discussing the specifics of a particular case and instead argue "all science is stupid and subjective".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Being a scientist does not indicate scientism at all. Many scientists would accept that science only describes part of reality.
quote:No, the answer is in your question - I've even italicised it for you. Science isn't a belief at all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding?
quote:Ah, semantic games. Gotcha.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:No, the answer is in your question - I've even italicised it for you. Science isn't a belief at all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding?
Nb. A "theory" isn't a belief.
quote:Well I agree that scientismist is a cumbersome (and IMHO unattractive) neologism. Scientism, though, as a word to describe the view that (broadly speaking) the only proper kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge, is a useful term. Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding? Making up cumbersome neologisms for already-existing terms seems pointless, but maybe I'm just being a grammaratarianismist about it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
quote:What do you mean by "accept" Scientism? Do you mean accept the usage of the word, or believe it?
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
quote:Yes, I'm not convinced that Prof Dawkins actually advocates scientism. I know that he is pretty sniffy about philosophy, but of course, he puts forward various philosophical arguments himself, which are not scientific in nature.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Thinking back to some of the things Richard Dawkins (you knew it wouldn't be long!) has said, it seems that he is allowed these fancies, but his disciples have to believe and hang onto his every word - that's what he calls "thinking for yourself."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you not allowed the occasional intuition or irrational fancy?
quote:I mean that they don't accept the view that (broadly speaking) the only proper kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:What do you mean by "accept" Scientism? Do you mean accept the usage of the word, or believe it?
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
quote:What we really need a catchy word for is those dingbat assholes who keep talking about "debating the controversy" and the like. I saw on the news last night that North Carolina political cretans are trying to pass a law that would require the state to ignore climate change in any of their official planning and the like. Apparently, the real estate biz has a bunch of asshats who are afraid that talk of the rising sea level will depress the ocean-front property market. Do you really think that folks putting too much stock in fact-based reasoning is the great problem we face as a society?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
quote:That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
quote:Yes, but the trouble now is that the concept of explanation is ambiguous. The idea of 'describe and explain' is supposed to be a hallmark of science in relation to its own observations, hypotheses, and theories. It does not mean 'explain' in a wider philosophical sense.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's a view that science will eventually describe everything; I'm not sure about 'explain'. I suppose so.
quote:While I agree with your major point, my understanding (per Kuhn) is that a theory is (or once was) definitely a belief. A scientist tries to make sense of observations by forming a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has attracted the support of a fair number of other scientists, it is called a theory. Belief in the theory grows as experiments confirm its predictive power. But sometimes observations are noticed which the theory cannot explain. Then belief becomes strained and scientists look for a new explanatory hypothesis-- either a conflicting one or a more comprehensive one. Sometimes theories must be discarded, i.e. we don't believe them anymore.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Nb. A "theory" isn't a belief.
quote:I think scientism has already decided that for one to enquire about the meaning of life is a pointless (I think I've heard someone say "stupid") question. They believe there is no meaning to anything - it just happened.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
quote:That's a good example of the scientistic fallacy.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
He is arguing that the laws of Physics we currently have rule out things like astrology , life after death. Any teleological description of nature and so on.
Why is he wrong? assuming he is, which I doubt.
quote:I wish you would - I'm drowning here... help!!!
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
...So in answer to your question, I'm not even going to start trying to explain why those statements are wrong.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Like trying to decide if rain is caused by the hydrologic cycle or Zeus pissing through a sieve. Most objectications to scientism I've come across read not so much as appeals to ignorance as appeals for ignorance. The idea that any kind of scientific explanicationing for anything is an assault on everyone else's inalienable right to believe falsehoods.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
That's a good example of the scientistic fallacy.
Thus, there's no such thing as life after death because it would contradict basic laws of physics.
Intelligent design is wrong because science has proven that evolution proceeds by natural selection.
And so on.
quote:I think the "meaning of life" that they believe in is in fact the "meaninglessness of life". Science can describe and explain how things work, but it can not say whether anything has "meaning" because that is not the point of science. Life may be "meaningless" but science can not say one way or the other.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:I think scientism has already decided that for one to enquire about the meaning of life is a pointless (I think I've heard someone say "stupid") question. They believe there is no meaning to anything - it just happened.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
That is probably the nub of this thread, is scientism a belief that science can ultimately give us "meaning", however stark or cold that meaning may be, or a belief that science will just give us a jolly good description of how everything works.
quote:This has been my experience as well: the only time I have come across the term is when it appears to be used a straw man used to attack Science in general because the scientific data contradict a person's pet beliefs in an area that is well within the realm of Science rather than outside of it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...It's usually a tactic to avoid discussing the specifics of a particular case and instead argue "all science is stupid and subjective".
quote:And wouldn't the acceptance of scientism be scientismism? Where will the wordification end?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:What do you mean by "accept" Scientism? Do you mean accept the usage of the word, or believe it?
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many scientists don't accept scientism, and many who do accept it are not scientists.
quote:Nope. "Scientism" is a term, not a Straw Man.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
There is a good example in this thread. I pointed to a concrete example of what a scientist actually said and the answer was that "scientismists" believe in the omniscience of Science. And that "scientimsts" claim the self-evidence of scientific arguments.
Something which neither myself or the source I quoted claimed. Carrol just speaks about what we have learned from decades of very careful and clever experiments. Nothing "self-evident" about that. Scientism is a straw man argument.
To answer the arguments of people like Carrol you actually have to deal with what they actually say.
quote:That is generally because any evidence to the contrary - of past lives, spirits, or whatever - is automatically discarded - as 'unscientific'.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Carrol could answer by expanding on his argument in his talk. We have no examples of human intelligence in the real world that acts or exists independently of their physical bodies. No neurons firing, no mind. No Biochemistry, no life.
quote:What would we measure it with? So if it can't be measured by any of our existing instruments, then it doesn't exist. Scientism.
If you then propose a non-physical "ghost in the machine". He or she would have to interact with the physical body in some way. We would be able to measure that.
quote:The 'real world'... You mean those phenomena which are observable by our current scientific instruments. Of course not, how would they? So even if we could observe the results of telekinesis (let's say, someone can move a candle flame by thought alone), then it hasn't really happened, because there is no scientific mechanism for it to happen. Again, that's scientism - genuine science proceeds from actual observations, and attempts to form and prove hypotheses to explain them. Scientism starts with current scientific theory, and proceeds to ignore or supress any fact or observation which contradicts it.
If you follow his talk he is not saying that Science already can explain or describe in detail everything we see. It might in the future. He is saying that from what Is already known there is no place for telekinesis, astrology, life after death etc in the real world.
quote:I'm tempted to suggest that an inability to read is another symptom of scientism, but perhaps that's rather overgeneralizing.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
There is a good example in this thread. I pointed to a concrete example of what a scientist actually said and the answer was that "scientismists" believe in the omniscience of Science. And that "scientimsts" claim the self-evidence of scientific arguments.
Something which neither myself or the source I quoted claimed...
quote:You haven't understood at all what Mark wrote. Scientism is a perfectly good term that describes the belief that the empirical, naturalistic scientific method can - and indeed ought to - describe and explain everything, whereas science is limited in its scope. I am very surprised that you haven't grasped this really quite obvious distinction.
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding? Making up cumbersome neologisms for already-existing terms seems pointless, but maybe I'm just being a grammaratarianismist about it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
quote:And yet, people still buy books by Matt Ridley on economics.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Scientism is a straw man argument.
quote:What you present as "scientism" sounds an awful lot like religious fundamentalism: I don't have to entertain any alternative theories, arguments or apparent evidence to the contrary of phenomenon X because my Holy Scriptures and/or tradition say otherwise, and it's plainly obvious that they're right because they're from God.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ikkyu:
[qb]The trouble is, like the atheist, the believer in the omniscience of science is so convinced of the self-evident truth of his position, that he thinks he can argue his way out of any argument to the contrary, before he has even begun. So he wouldn't even question the validity of the statements above, because to him they are self-evident truth.
quote:I suppose you could liken it to religious fundamentalism, but I think I would tend to think of it more as a kind of socio-political ideology, which acts a an underpinning, not to science per se, but to modern society. After all, a lot of decisions and criteria as to what should or should not be investigated by respectable science are basically societal decisions, when it comes down to it - society decides not to give official credence to reports of certain phenomena, and thus respectable scientists (who value their careers and reputations) do not investigate them. But then that is society's perogative, and perhaps there are good reasons for her choices.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
What you present as "scientism" sounds an awful lot like religious fundamentalism: I don't have to entertain any alternative theories, arguments or apparent evidence to the contrary of phenomenon X because my Holy Scriptures and/or tradition say otherwise, and it's plainly obvious that they're right because they're from God...
quote:Give me an example of objective evidence for those things that has been “automatically discarded”.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
That is generally because any evidence to the contrary - of past lives, spirits, or whatever - is automatically discarded - as 'unscientific'.
quote:So you are claiming that some “ghost in the machine” could affect a physical body made of protons neutrons and electrons in a way that affects their behavior and not be measurable with our existing detectors?. (If It does not affect behavior its irrelevant.)
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What would we measure it with? So if it can't be measured by any of our existing instruments, then it doesn't exist. Scientism.
quote:What is your evidence for this suppression? What evidence is being ignored?
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Scientism starts with current scientific theory, and proceeds to ignore or suppress any fact or observation which contradicts it.
quote:No. "Scientist" is the genus of which the species are physicist, chemist, biologist, botanist, and so forth. People who undertake scientific research and theorification and so forth. To put it crudely, people who "do" science.
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:Isn't "scientist" an already-existing word for someone who believes in the explanatory power of science and works to expand that understanding?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One thing I have noticed is that anyone I think of as (possibly) a scientismist will never acknowledge this - to them it is all science.
quote:Well you show me examples of serious investigations of these subjects - past lives, ghosts, spiritual manifestations - in mainstream scientific journals. That's what I mean by 'supressed'.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Give me an example of objective evidence for those things that has been “automatically discarded”.
quote:Nice argument, but it's still scientism. Real empirical science would start with the observation, and then try to construct an explanatory hypothesis, not start with the theory, and try to disprove the observation. Or it would take the observations as empirical evidence which refutes quantum field theory.
So you are claiming that some “ghost in the machine” could affect a physical body made of protons neutrons and electrons in a way that affects their behavior and not be measurable with our existing detectors?...Our experiments cover the range of distances and magnitudes we are talking about. If the force you said was undetectable it would not be able to do what you claim it could do, that is, to interact with the Physical body.
quote:With respect, I think you are placing the dolly in the cup here. Nobody is saying that the existence of scientism is an argument against the Theory of Evolution, or whatever. It is rather that the arguments put forward (without going into the details here) are based on scientism rather than science.
But stating the fact that some people try to use science to explain things that it probably can't explain, is not a valid argument to use against people who use science to explain things it definitely can explain.
For example to claim "scientism" as an argument against the overwhelming evidence in favor of the scientific position on some DH topics is a straw-man argument.
quote:Erik Weisz (a.k.a Harry Houdini) spent a good deal of time investigating the phenomena you describe, sometimes even in conjunction with mainstream scientific journals. What you seem to be complaining about is that these phenomena have been investigated and the results aren't to your liking.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:Well you show me examples of serious investigations of these subjects - past lives, ghosts, spiritual manifestations - in mainstream scientific journals. That's what I mean by 'supressed'.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Give me an example of objective evidence for those things that has been “automatically discarded”.
quote:What observation? Who has observed forces that are not detectable in particle accelerators?
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Real empirical science would start with the observation, and then try to construct an explanatory hypothesis, not start with the theory, and try to disprove the observation
quote:So for example, what would make Carroll's arguments "scientism"?.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It is rather that the arguments put forward (without going into the details here) are based on scientism rather than science.
quote:That may or may not be so. But this thread is about the tenability of scientism as a philosophy, not the reason why somebody may accuse another person of holding that philosophy.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem is that "scientism" is usually only trotted out as whipping boy (how's that for a mixed metaphorationism?) whenever science has something particular to say about someone's pet issue. (e.g. heliocentrism, descent with modification, climate change) It's usually a tactic to avoid discussing the specifics of a particular case and instead argue "all science is stupid and subjective". [/QB]
quote:Do I really need to explainify that just because something has an entry on Wikipedia that doesn't necessarily mean that it really exists?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Nope. "Scientism" is a term, not a Straw Man.
Wiki article on Scientism
It is a pejorative term, and has more than one use (see the article) - but that doesn't make it a straw man, just because some people don't like it.
quote:If you want a repost to at least some of Carrol's points then you might be interested in some of William Lang Craig's recent podcasts.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
How about instead of attacking a straw-man "scientism" you can argue against specific arguments from actual scientists.
For example:
Sean Carrol
He is arguing that the laws of Physics we currently have rule out things like astrology , life after death. Any teleological description of nature and so on.
Why is he wrong? assuming he is, which I doubt.
quote:The obvious answer is to simply look on Wikipedia, the ultimate authority on all things. According to this font of wisdom:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Croesos -
Ah, I see. Ignoring my moral challenge.
I will therefore draw the appropriate conclusion.
But please carry on with your denials of scientism with your, ahem, diversionificatory tactics.
quote:Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable! It is moralicious to use dynamite for mining, quarrying, constructicating, and demolishizing. It used to be moral for warfare, but not any more.
Dynamite is mainly used in the mining, quarrying, construction, and demolition industries, and it has had some historical usage in warfare. However the unstable nature of nitroglycerin, especially if subjected to freezing, has rendered it obsolete for military uses.
quote:But again you miss the point. Why is it immoral to use dynamite? What scientific theory or hypothesis told us so? And if it is immoral why do we now use explosives that are many times more powerful to kill each other?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]It used to be moral for warfare, but not any more.
quote:Typical Croesos fudge, as per.
Originally posted by Croesos
Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable! It is moralicious to use dynamite for mining, quarrying, constructicating, and demolishizing. It used to be moral for warfare, but not any more.
quote:Science doesn't have to do any such thing! I never suggested this at all, in fact the very opposite! Science cannot provide this kind of explanation, and never will be able to, because morality lies outside its purview. We know this a priori. If you disagree, then please show me the oughts that the empirical study of nature provides. I'm afraid I have never seen the words "thou shalt not steal" (for example) spelt out in the clouds, or naturally tattooed on the wing of a magpie!
Originally posted by Ikkyu
Basing a moral code on scientific ideas is a completely different topic. But you failed to explain why science HAS to provide a moral code, it only has to describe the moral codes that exist. The explanation will probably go "Evolution + Culture + History +....." obviously lots of details need to be filled in.
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
The obvious answer is to simply look on Wikipedia, the ultimate authority on all things.
...
Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:So if you say science cannot do this why did you ask?
Originally posted by : EtymologicalEvangelical
Please show him how the empirical scientific method can explain - with appropriate reasonable evidence - what he ought to do with it.
quote:Not at all. Just pointing out, for what feels like the thousandth time, that the "scientism" you describulate is a cartoonish strawman that doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any adherents. What's usually called "scientism" is typically someone else pointing out that your pet hypothesis is erroneous, and demonstrably so.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Typical Croesos fudge, as per.
Originally posted by Croesos
Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable! It is moralicious to use dynamite for mining, quarrying, constructicating, and demolishizing. It used to be moral for warfare, but not any more.
quote:Sorry. Conflated one of your posts with
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
The obvious answer is to simply look on Wikipedia, the ultimate authority on all things.
...
Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable!
Evidence for that comment, please. I don't recall ever singing the praises of Wikipedia, but there you go. No accounting for some people's imagination...
Now, be a good scientist and back up your assertions...
quote:Good.
Originally posted by Croesos
Not at all. Just pointing out, for what feels like the thousandth time, that the "scientism" you describulate is a cartoonish strawman that doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any adherents. What's usually called "scientism" is typically someone else pointing out that your pet hypothesis is erroneous, and demonstrably so.
quote:Since I suspect whatever you mean by "philosophical naturalism" is an equally cartoonish misrepresenationment, most likely.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Good.
Originally posted by Croesos
Not at all. Just pointing out, for what feels like the thousandth time, that the "scientism" you describulate is a cartoonish strawman that doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any adherents. What's usually called "scientism" is typically someone else pointing out that your pet hypothesis is erroneous, and demonstrably so.
I'm glad that you acknowledge that scientism is a load of bollocks, and, I assume the same goes for any philosophy dependent on it, such as philosophical naturalism?
Logical consistency isn't really a lot to ask, is it?
quote:It's possible that scientism is indeed a strawman, but I would have thought that Sam Harris has certain scientistic ideas in relation to morality. I haven't read 'The Moral Landscape', but I have read bits of his stuff where he seems to argue that science can cross the is/ought boundary. I would say that is nonsense.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not at all. Just pointing out, for what feels like the thousandth time, that the "scientism" you describulate is a cartoonish strawman that doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any adherents. What's usually called "scientism" is typically someone else pointing out that your pet hypothesis is erroneous, and demonstrably so.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Typical Croesos fudge, as per.
Originally posted by Croesos
Purely scientific objective information from a source you yourself consider unimpeachable! It is moralicious to use dynamite for mining, quarrying, constructicating, and demolishizing. It used to be moral for warfare, but not any more.
quote:First move your candle flame by thought alone and then we’ll discuss it – until then you’re indulging in idle speculation.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
So even if we could observe the results of telekinesis (let's say, someone can move a candle flame by thought alone), then it hasn't really happened, because there is no scientific mechanism for it to happen. Again, that's scientism - genuine science proceeds from actual observations, and attempts to form and prove hypotheses to explain them. Scientism starts with current scientific theory, and proceeds to ignore or supress any fact or observation which contradicts it.
But as I said, it's not a rational, logical position, however much its adherents may protest otherwise.
quote:So your position, as far as I can understand it, is that
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just pointing out, for what feels like the thousandth time, that the "scientism" you describulate is a cartoonish strawman that doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any adherents.
quote:Yes, I remember scientism from before it became a pejorative word. Jacques Monod used to be the big name. Dawkins is certainly a scientism-ist, or was until he backed off from it on finding that it's unfashionable. And I think Rosenberg defines it very nicely indeed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is one philosopher who seems brave enough to come out and say that scientism is correct. This is Alex Rosenberg, whose helpfully named book 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality' has just come out. I haven't read it, but Mr Rosenberg has provided this helpful little bon mot:
"My conception of scientism is almost the same as that of those who use it as a term of abuse. They use the term to name the exaggerated and unwarranted confidence that science and its methods can answer all meaningful questions. I agree with that definition except for the ‘exaggerated’ and ‘unwarranted’ part."
I say, bravo Mr Rosenberg!
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209
quote:It's always difficult when Dawkins gets mentioned, because to me at least, it appears that what he adheres to most consistently is his own publicity. His various shifts of stance over the years certainly look as if one of his major concerns is Making Dawkins Look Good. I believe that at one point, Dawkins dissed all philosophy as being worthless, but I've struggled to find a citation, so I could be wrong. Perhaps it's somewhere in one of his rhetorical fist-fights with Mary Midgley.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think Prof Dawkins really adheres to scientism. For example, in TGD, he is quite happy to debate various philosophical arguments, well, OK, he does it quite badly, but never mind.
But surely this kind of argumentation would be ruled out by scientism? Philosophy is one of the interesting areas which science does not cover, although I suppose this could be countered by saying that philosophy does not actually lead to any gain in human knowledge.
quote:I'm pretty sure using inapplicalble measures to support spurious hypothesis is already knownified as "quackery". This seems like a perfectly good termification and has the advantages of already being in common use and not being linguistically inelegant.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There is a long history of people using some background in natural philosophy or some natural science to gain a spurious authority when making pronouncements about psychology or the social sciences or philosophy. Usually, they do so for right-wing ends. (See Gould's Mismeasure of Man for some particularly egregious examples.) The idea that the social sciences and philosophy are not real subjects of knowledge, and are just waiting for proper scientists to come along and put them in order, is a long-standing piece of ideological puffery. It needs a name so we can call it out: scientism or parascience will both do.
quote:The nub of the problem. EE offers a moral challenge, Croesos chooses not to respond directly, EE draws the appropriate conclusion.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Croesos -
Ah, I see. Ignoring my moral challenge.
I will therefore draw the appropriate conclusion.
But please carry on with your denials of scientism with your, ahem, diversionificatory tactics.
quote:For the benefit of this contributor, what is the response to the moral challenge, or is the challenge in some respect not an appropriate test of the idea that science can explain morality?
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:The nub of the problem. EE offers a moral challenge, Croesos chooses not to respond directly, EE draws the appropriate conclusion.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Croesos -
Ah, I see. Ignoring my moral challenge.
I will therefore draw the appropriate conclusion.
But please carry on with your denials of scientism with your, ahem, diversionificatory tactics.
Foolishly I thought the challenge might have been ignored for a variety of reasons (I, for example, felt no overpowering urge to respond), but EE already knows there is only one appropriate conclusion to draw. No further evidence is required, EE already knows the only explanation. Scientists have no hope against someone who doesn't need to consider alternatives.
quote:Is it significant that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I prefer to Wikipedia on such matters) has no mention of scientism?
Originally posted by BroJames:
If scientism is quackery, then it is a specific kind of quackery and specific terminology is useful.
quote:And while on the superiority of SEP their article on Kuhn may help. Personally I'm with you - though not an expert.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Are there any authorities here on Thomas Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
quote:Actually lots of people on SoF seem to feel that way. I do sometimes.
Originally posted by holy smoke:
The trouble is, like the atheist, the believer in the omniscience of science is so convinced of the self-evident truth of his position, that he thinks he can argue his way out of any argument to the contrary, before he has even begun.
quote:That's hardly surprising as "scientism" only seems to exist in the eye of the beholder.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suspect there are very few advocates of 100% scientism, as it would seem to contradict itself, simply by being asserted.
quote:Well... there isn't a contents entry for scientism (nor, come to that, for logical positivism), but searching the SEP throws up 21 entries in which the term occurs. In any event it is no more or less significant than the fact that The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and The Oxford Companion to Philosophy both do have references for scientism.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:Is it significant that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I prefer to Wikipedia on such matters) has no mention of scientism?<snip>
Originally posted by BroJames:
If scientism is quackery, then it is a specific kind of quackery and specific terminology is useful.
quote:And, as with most use of pejorative terms, its use says more about the user that it does about the person at whom the finger is being pointed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, it has become a pejorative term, so few people are going to celebrate it; hence kudos to Alex Rosenberg.
quote:Maybe you (think) you can discern it. Maybe some of them (think they) can. That does not mean that people generally can see, or that it is actually there. Is the desire to label perceived opponents with an acknowledged pejorative term the main motive for this discernment?
As others have said, you can discern it in earlier ideas, such as logical positivism, verificationism, and so on, many of which seemed to crash and burn.
I suppose today eliminative materialism is quite close to scientism, but perhaps there is a subtle difference.
quote:It might be, or might not. I suppose it is interesting to look back at some of these earlier views, which seemed to crash and burn, and ask why they did. One reason might be because they had begun to use philosophical arguments, which they had themselves ruled out of operation, as meaningless.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:And, as with most use of pejorative terms, its use says more about the user that it does about the person at whom the finger is being pointed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, it has become a pejorative term, so few people are going to celebrate it; hence kudos to Alex Rosenberg.
quote:Maybe you (think) you can discern it. Maybe some of them (think they) can. That does not mean that people generally can see, or that it is actually there. Is the desire to label perceived opponents with an acknowledged pejorative term the main motive for this discernment?
As others have said, you can discern it in earlier ideas, such as logical positivism, verificationism, and so on, many of which seemed to crash and burn.
I suppose today eliminative materialism is quite close to scientism, but perhaps there is a subtle difference.
quote:Errm... actually I am very willing to consider alternatives. That is why I asked the question!
Originally posted by que sais-je
Foolishly I thought the challenge might have been ignored for a variety of reasons (I, for example, felt no overpowering urge to respond), but EE already knows there is only one appropriate conclusion to draw. No further evidence is required, EE already knows the only explanation. Scientists have no hope against someone who doesn't need to consider alternatives.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:To what extent would you agree with the proposition that "science and its methods can answer all meaningful questions"?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:That's hardly surprising as "scientism" only seems to exist in the eye of the beholder.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suspect there are very few advocates of 100% scientism, as it would seem to contradict itself, simply by being asserted.
quote:Significant for me - I don't have a copy of the other two!
Originally posted by BroJames:
In any event it is no more or less significant than the fact that The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and The Oxford Companion to Philosophy both do have references for scientism.
quote:Very much so. Those decrying "scientism" often issue caveatations claiming to support "science", provided science knows its place and keeps its big nose out of whatever pet issues the decrier happens to cherishize. They're particularly vague about where this line is drawn.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
That's hardly surprising as "scientism" only seems to exist in the eye of the beholder.
quote:I don't believe that's the usual connotation of 'quackery'. Furthermore, trading on the prestige of the natural sciences to support conclusions reached for other reasons, or reached solely because of the perceived prestige, is enough of a special case to warrant its own term.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure using inapplicalble measures to support spurious hypothesis is already knownified as "quackery". This seems like a perfectly good termification and has the advantages of already being in common use and not being linguistically inelegant.
quote:Oh, I agree. Peter Atkins is one such beholder, he of "science is omnipotent" fame. Simple logic put him right on that point, of course.
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:Very much so.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
That's hardly surprising as "scientism" only seems to exist in the eye of the beholder.
quote:Oh yes. The following are, admittedly, pretty vague...
Those decrying "scientism" often issue caveatations claiming to support "science", provided science knows its place and keeps its big nose out of whatever pet issues the decrier happens to cherishize. They're particularly vague about where this line is drawn.
quote:You forgot mathematics, which is not derived via the scientific method but rather via logical reasoning. I find it fascinating that your straw scientismistinistafarians seem to so confident in the power of science while utterly rejecting mathematics. I'm sure someone agreeulating with your assertifying will be along to explainify this . . . any . . . day . . . now . . .
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh yes. The following are, admittedly, pretty vague...
1. Morality
2. Reason
3. The uniformity of nature
4. The universality of cause and effect
5. The validity of the empirical scientific method itself
6. Aesthetics
7. A whole host of innate ideas without which sense perception (and, ahem, dear old science) is impossible (do I really need to fish out my copy of Critique of Pure Reason to elaborate on this?)
quote:Rest assured I am no supporter of Peter Atkins, so no need to talk about "your straw scientismist..blah..blah..blah..."
Originally posted by Croesos
I find it fascinating that your straw scientismistinistafarians seem to so confident in the power of science while utterly rejecting mathematics.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:My sentiments exactly. The overreach of natural scientists into areas that apparently should not concern them varies so widely that the term is useless except as an insult in lieu of an argument. So, its usage is common in academic turf wars such as those that Dafyd mentions and commoner still deployed by creationists and Christian apologists. But the umbrage taken in each case is due to markedly different perceived slights. The outrage a philosopher or a historian may feel when a scientist tells them their methods are merely a subset of science has nothing in common with a creationist opposing evolution, with a Christian protesting there is a special spiritual realm closed to science or a dualist of any stripe declaring that neuroscience can never ever explain consciousness.
And, as with most use of pejorative terms, its use says more about the user that it does about the person at whom the finger is being pointed.
quote:Yes, I think science can describe extant moral codes, and so on, but the argument over morality and science is usually about the is/ought boundary. Given certain values, can science tell me if I ought to follow them? I don't see how it could do that.
Originally posted by Alogon:
What's wrong with the idea that science can explain morality, at least in part?
It doesn't count for much. Moral codes differ markedly from one culture to another on certain points.
What if it can explain why a Brit believes that a widow ought to be provided for, while in many parts of India for centuries, one believed that a widow should commit suicide. If this expectation has changed, it is mainly because the British were horrified, and the British ruled. Does might make right? What says science?
quote:OK. Are you saying that science, within the current boundaries of scientific knowledge, cannot tell you this? Or are you saying that science will never be able to tell you this. That there will never be a discovery that x, y or z process drives a moral decision. If the latter, what are the grounds on which you are so confidently deciding the bounds of future scientific knowledge? To say dogmatically that science can never explain morality sounds like, to coin a phrase, religionism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think science can describe extant moral codes, and so on, but the argument over morality and science is usually about the is/ought boundary. Given certain values, can science tell me if I ought to follow them? I don't see how it could do that.
quote:Is this logic or "Etymologic"? Experience on the Ship suggests there can be a sizeable gap between the two.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Simple logic put him right on that point, of course.
quote:I don't think it can cross the is/ought boundary either. But it does not have to.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think science can describe extant moral codes, and so on, but the argument over morality and science is usually about the is/ought boundary. Given certain values, can science tell me if I ought to follow them? I don't see how it could do that.
quote:But science explaining morality is not the issue. Of course, social science and psychology and anthropology and so on, can explain various moral codes.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:OK. Are you saying that science, within the current boundaries of scientific knowledge, cannot tell you this? Or are you saying that science will never be able to tell you this. That there will never be a discovery that x, y or z process drives a moral decision. If the latter, what are the grounds on which you are so confidently deciding the bounds of future scientific knowledge? To say dogmatically that science can never explain morality sounds like, to coin a phrase, religionism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think science can describe extant moral codes, and so on, but the argument over morality and science is usually about the is/ought boundary. Given certain values, can science tell me if I ought to follow them? I don't see how it could do that.
quote:I see that you have supported that assertion with plenty of evidence.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian
Is this logic or "Etymologic"? Experience on the Ship suggests there can be a sizeable gap between the two.
quote:You keep talking about 'explaining morality', but that is to conflate two separate issues. I don't think anybody is objecting to that.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Other systems of ideas do seem to think that they can convert "is" to "ought" so I don't see why science shouldn't have a go too. But that is by the by.
However, what I was getting at more was whether the distinction between "is" and "ought" is not a consequence of our current ideas/understanding of what morality is. I think it is not inconceivable that research into brain function could not reach a stage where it can be accurately predicted that, given background situations A, B and C, brain X will reach moral conclusion Y. The effect of that is to break down the distinction between "is" and "ought". It also, of course, has the potential of raising a question mark over the whole idea of morality.
But is to conceive of that "scientism"? I don't see why it should be.
Edited to add that some of those levying accusations of "scientism" do seem to resent any role of any scientific discipline in explaining morality.
quote:This claim is pure ignorance. There ar a lot of scientists and stage magicians who spend a lot of time investigating such things. (Magicians tend to be better at it than scientists because nature doesn't lie and magicians are all about illusion). James Randi has a $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate something that would according to you be discarded as uncientific.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
That is generally because any evidence to the contrary - of past lives, spirits, or whatever - is automatically discarded - as 'unscientific'.
quote:And that just displays a fundamental lack of imagination. It's not that the ghost can't be measured by any of our existing instruments. It's that nothing the ghost ever does can be measured by any of our existing instruments.
quote:What would we measure it with? So if it can't be measured by any of our existing instruments, then it doesn't exist. Scientism.
If you then propose a non-physical "ghost in the machine". He or she would have to interact with the physical body in some way. We would be able to measure that.
quote:No. Those phenomena that have any impact at all that intersects with anything we can measure.
The 'real world'... You mean those phenomena which are observable by our current scientific instruments.
quote:And this is just a clean demonstration of why scientism is in most cases a slander made up by people who don't like science. To quote Isaac Asimov "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That’s funny...”"
Of course not, how would they? So even if we could observe the results of telekinesis (let's say, someone can move a candle flame by thought alone), then it hasn't really happened, because there is no scientific mechanism for it to happen. Again, that's scientism - genuine science proceeds from actual observations, and attempts to form and prove hypotheses to explain them. Scientism starts with current scientific theory, and proceeds to ignore or supress any fact or observation which contradicts it.
quote:Indeed. But the chief adherents to Scientism are those who try to claim that that's how the scientific establishments operates. People like you and Mark Betts. This isn't a logical or rational position, merely a slur based on a group that is less mainstream than Creationists are to Christians.
But as I said, it's not a rational, logical position, however much its adherents may protest otherwise.
quote:My apologies for being unclear. You said you would draw the appropriate conclusion from Croesos not answering. I thought there were lots of reasons why he might not have answered - other parts of what you said were more interesting maybe, or he thought the question was unimportant or whatever. You seemed to think you knew why he hadn't answered. I felt, probably wrongly, that you were assuming that someone not answering a question you had posed didn't have an adequate response. Again, my apologies if I doubted your philosophical charity towards those who don't share your views.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Errm... actually I am very willing to consider alternatives. That is why I asked the question!
Do please enlighten me. Or are you just going to give in to your overpowering urge to ignore my question, while comforting yourself with the thought that you don't need to answer someone who you have judged isn't prepared to listen, even though you have no evidence that I am not willing to listen, because you haven't bothered to give any answer that I *can* consider!!
Sheesh...
quote:OK. You want an answer?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
One example of scientism (aka practical philosophical naturalism) is the idea that science can explain morality. If so, then consider the following...
Someone presents you with a stick of dynamite. Please show him how the empirical scientific method can explain - with appropriate reasonable evidence - what he ought to do with it. Should he place it on a crowded train to blow people to bits, or should he use it in a controlled explosion to demolish a derelict building safely? How does science ALONE answer this question?
Failure to provide a proper answer strictly according to the empirical scientific method will prove that your conflation of science and scientism is unwarranted, and that Mark's point is completely valid.
quote:To what extent would you agree with the proposition that "science and its methods can answer all meaningful questions"?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:OK. Are you saying that science, within the current boundaries of scientific knowledge, cannot tell you this? Or are you saying that science will never be able to tell you this. That there will never be a discovery that x, y or z process drives a moral decision. If the latter, what are the grounds on which you are so confidently deciding the bounds of future scientific knowledge? To say dogmatically that science can never explain morality sounds like, to coin a phrase, religionism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think science can describe extant moral codes, and so on, but the argument over morality and science is usually about the is/ought boundary. Given certain values, can science tell me if I ought to follow them? I don't see how it could do that.
quote:Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that in any field of study big enough to encompass arithmetic (which science is) there are statements that are true but not provable. So the idea that science and its methods can answer all meaningful questions is clerly false.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
To what extent would you agree with the proposition that "science and its methods can answer all meaningful questions"?
quote:Just to be clear, are you really saying that the only things worthwhile being done in philosophy departments use mathematics and game theory?
Originally posted by Justinian:
I can't do it through empiricist science alone. I need to take in rationalist philosophy in the only setting it works.
quote:You really need to think a bit harder about game theory. (And while you may or may not be able to take a game theoretic optimum and call it a moral system, game theory is not a moral system itself.) The consensus at the moment is that single-run prisoner's dilemma leads to both sides defecting. (That's probably not the golden rule, although see below.) An iterated prisoner's dilemma leads to some version of tit-for-tat as an optimum strategy. (Again, probably not the golden rule.) But iterated prisoner's dilemma is highly unrealistic, since it presupposes two parties who have equal payoffs, equal power, and who retain that position of equality after each round. In real life, people rarely start from positions of equality and certainly don't retain positions of equality after one party defects.
Mathematics and Game Theory in specific. (And yes, empiricist science is allowed to use mathematics). Like all other moral systems, Game Theory generally leads (via tests like the Prisoner's Dilemma and Pareto optimal approaches) to the Golden Rule in most cases with a few wrinkles.
quote:This is stretching the definition of empiricism to breaking point.
Method 2 through empiricism: Almost all systems of ethics intersect at The Golden Rule.
quote:This kind of argument reminds me of this: Step Three Profit.
Which of the courses of action is compatable with The Golden Rule? The answer is left as an (easy) excercise for the reader.
quote:Consistent philosophical naturalists reject quite a lot of mathematics.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You forgot mathematics, which is not derived via the scientific method but rather via logical reasoning.
quote:So lets say we provide you with a better concealable device, in fact lets put it on a stealth drone. We'll pay you copious amounts, and demonstrate the resources and will to protect you (and in any case we'll blame someone local).
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:OK. You want an answer?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[qb]
Probable consequences of placing it on a crowded train if successful: Dead people. Direct personal gain: None. Estimated probability of being caught: 10% (back of the envelope). Personal consequences for being caught doing this: Multiple consecutive life sentences at best. People out for revenge at worst.
Probable direct consequences for failure: Blowing yourself up. Very bad.
Recommendation: Don't. This is a self-destructive course of action with the best path leading to no substantive gain.
quote:We don't have to cast around for hypotheticals. Or rather, we can refer to an hypothetical that was once seriously contemplated by someone with the means to implement it. The Allies at one point discussed the possibility and utility of smuggling explosives onto Hitler's personal train (Führersonderzug), possibly by subborning the domestic staff assigned to it. The idea was eventually dismissed as unworkable since Hitler would often change his plans at the last minute. I have no idea whether the proposed explosive was dynamite or something else, but I'm pretty sure that's not the relevant feature of the scenario from a moral perspective.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
**you could of course question why my Dr Evil organisation would do that, and I could come up with some tale involving oil or something. Or do some analysis on the whole of humanity in which case we'll keep the aliens away for 100 years, and ask why we care.
quote:No. I'm saying that even full on logical positivists can use mathematics and game theory and end up at a moral outcome using that. It was a "Here is one way to do it."
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Just to be clear, are you really saying that the only things worthwhile being done in philosophy departments use mathematics and game theory?
Originally posted by Justinian:
I can't do it through empiricist science alone. I need to take in rationalist philosophy in the only setting it works.
quote:And genuine single run situations that provide no information for onlookers happen very rarely.
You really need to think a bit harder about game theory. (And while you may or may not be able to take a game theoretic optimum and call it a moral system, game theory is not a moral system itself.) The consensus at the moment is that single-run prisoner's dilemma leads to both sides defecting.
quote:Tit-for-tat comes close to the golden rule under normal circumstances.
An iterated prisoner's dilemma leads to some version of tit-for-tat as an optimum strategy. (Again, probably not the golden rule.)
quote:Probably not. Although that is because you are excluding a significant proportion of people when you exclude atheists. I'd reject it because "where most people end up" is a low value system; it's just that with abstract concepts it's hard to find higher. Spirits, however, are not abstract concepts.
This is stretching the definition of empiricism to breaking point.
Also, I don't think you'd accept an argument that justified the existence of spirits on the grounds that almost all systems of religion intersect at the existence of immaterial personal agents.
quote:To continue this analogy a bit, it would also make a difference whether eyeballing the height or pulling out the surveyors theodolite would make a difference in the result based on how you use the data.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'd scornfully reject simply eyeballing to guess the height of the building if we had proper surveyor's tools. But I wouldn't reject it if it was the only tool available. I therefore don't consider this special pleading.
quote:I think a full on logical positivist would have to claim that applying mathematics to emotional noises still results in nothing more than emotional noises.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm saying that even full on logical positivists can use mathematics and game theory and end up at a moral outcome using that. It was a "Here is one way to do it."
quote:I'd say tit-for-tate is downright incompatible with the golden rule.
Tit-for-tat comes close to the golden rule under normal circumstances.
quote:And that has what to do with unvarnished self interest, mathematics, and game theory?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think a full on logical positivist would have to claim that applying mathematics to emotional noises still results in nothing more than emotional noises.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm saying that even full on logical positivists can use mathematics and game theory and end up at a moral outcome using that. It was a "Here is one way to do it."
quote:The problem the golden rule has is what when someone wants to play meanly? If what I want is to torture someone else? It's a three body problem where the Golden Rule can't be extended and tit for tat allows for a justice system. Under the Golden Rule, somewhat perversely, I believe you are allowed a justice system to protect others but you can not protect yourself.
quote:I'd say tit-for-tate is downright incompatible with the golden rule.
Tit-for-tat comes close to the golden rule under normal circumstances.
Be nice to other people because you'd like them to be nice to you is obviously compatible with the Golden Rule.
quote:You may be on dodgy ground with "beauty". There is experimental evidence that shows that when it comes to facial beauty at least the subjects rated symmetry very highly, and symmetry is surely dependent upon mathematics is it not?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can't we also say that some questions are naturally dealt with in philosophy? For example, what is beauty? Or the question, 'can't we also say that some questions are naturally dealt with in philosophy?'.
quote:So if you Missus doesn't meet these mathematical requirements and you tell her "Darling, you're beautiful" are you having a laugh?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:You may be on dodgy ground with "beauty". There is experimental evidence that shows that when it comes to facial beauty at least the subjects rated symmetry very highly, and symmetry is surely dependent upon mathematics is it not?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can't we also say that some questions are naturally dealt with in philosophy? For example, what is beauty? Or the question, 'can't we also say that some questions are naturally dealt with in philosophy?'.
link includes Recent studies have shown that the secret of beauty may at last be understood. It seems that attractiveness may be hard wired in our brains
Studies have shown that facial symmetry is one of the best observational indicators of good genes and healthy development and that these traits are what we mean when we say someone is attractive.
My embolding (embolding?)
quote:It wouldn't matter if the discussion itself was scientific or not; the Science is in the understanding that it is the brain that enables the discussion to take place, I think.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If said wife and I then have a discussion about whether it's beautiful or not, do you think our discussion should/would be a scientific one?
quote:So you are saying that your post is itself a scientific observation?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:It wouldn't matter if the discussion itself was scientific or not; the Science is in the understanding that it is the brain that enables the discussion to take place, I think.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If said wife and I then have a discussion about whether it's beautiful or not, do you think our discussion should/would be a scientific one?
quote:Statements about unvarnished self interest are not falsifiable. If I say that such-and-such is in somebody's interest, that is not falsifiable unless you make a purely stipulative definition of what 'interest' means.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:And that has what to do with unvarnished self interest, mathematics, and game theory?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think a full on logical positivist would have to claim that applying mathematics to emotional noises still results in nothing more than emotional noises.
quote:Have you ever come across the concept of rational debate? – it means refuting something you would like to be untrue with evidence rather than making a glib comment and hoping to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Truman White:
So if you (sic) Missus doesn't meet these mathematical requirements and you tell her "Darling, you're beautiful" are you having a laugh?
Get real Hugh.
quote:Your reactions (visual and olfactory) will be processed according to procedures hard-wired into your brains. Culture and experience may influence why you articulate different reactions.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
HughWillRidMee
How about if I'm walking along the beach, and I see a pile of decaying seaweed, with some driftwood next to it, and an old trainer that's been washed up, and I stop, and exclaim, how beautiful that is, and photograph it?
But my wife says, yuk, come away, it pongs.
If said wife and I then have a discussion about whether it's beautiful or not, do you think our discussion should/would be a scientific one?
quote:I don't know - but we seem to finding out more and more about the underlying simplicity of life - how our brains work for instance. We now know that we are not seeing most of what we think we see - most of the image in our brain is put there by memory - rather like a digital TV updating only the pixels that change. We also know that most of our memories are constructed by our brain from a few (hopefully salient) points stored in different locations within the brain and then dredged up and linked with a narrative that seems to make sense at the time. (hence the unreliability of witness' evidence). Terry Pratchett may have been very close to the mark when he suggested that, rather than the arrogance of homo sapiens, we should call ourselves pan narrans. - the ape that tells stories.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
HughWillRidmee
So you seem to be supporting some version of scientism then? Perhaps something like, 'science can answer all meaningful questions'? Or, 'science can describe everything'?
quote:That sounds to me like great advice for all of us. I would note, however, that the trick is in drawing sound conclusions and reading neither too little nor too much into the evidence we encounter.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Ultimately we should, I believe, follow the evidence and manage where we end up.
quote:EVIDENCE?!? Don't you know that considerating actual evidence is philosophical naturalism, the slippery slope to scientism?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:That sounds to me like great advice for all of us. I would note, however, that the trick is in drawing sound conclusions and reading neither too little nor too much into the evidence we encounter.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Ultimately we should, I believe, follow the evidence and manage where we end up.
quote:I wonder if this claim might not be quite accurate.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...the theorem that the power set of the reals has a greater cardinality that the set of the reals, is not a theorem that any philosophical naturalist can assent to.
quote:I suppose so. But I think fictionalism is a fundamentally implausible get out clause. It's as if a YEC were to take a fictionalist approach to pre-4004 BC geology and palaeontology. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; but because our metaphysics tells us there can't be a duck we'll just say we're pretending it's a duck and leave it at that.
Originally posted by Tea:
On the other hand, those naturalists who are nominalist or fictionalist with regard to mathematics won't find this theorem an obstacle.
quote:And HughWillRidmee shoots and he scores! Back of his own net! Own goal at post 124.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
]Have you ever come across the concept of rational debate? – it means refuting something you would like to be untrue with evidence rather than making a glib comment and hoping to be taken seriously.
quote:The words I chose may not be considered to convey a scientific idea, but I know that it is my evolved brain which is doing the work of choosing them, and that research is enabling people to know more and more about the ways our brains work. HughWillridMee says it better.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So you are saying that your post is itself a scientific observation?
quote:So you are saying that that is a scientific observation?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:The words I chose may not be considered to convey a scientific idea, but I know that it is my evolved brain which is doing the work of choosing them, and that research is enabling people to know more and more about the ways our brains work. HughWillridMee says it better.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So you are saying that your post is itself a scientific observation?
quote:Well spotted Dafyd - but despite the constant stream of posts from like minded people which seem to finish off any deep and meaningful topic on here, I don't think his side were ever winning. Own goals don't help of course!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:And HughWillRidmee shoots and he scores! Back of his own net! Own goal at post 124.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Have you ever come across the concept of rational debate? – it means refuting something you would like to be untrue with evidence rather than making a glib comment and hoping to be taken seriously.
Really, that deserves some kind of prize for most self-deconstructing comment on the Ship.
quote:Boy I guess I don't know what a philosophical naturalist is then. They're dead set against mathematical realism are they? Or they're all constructivists with a watertight denial of Choice?
Originally posted by Tea:
quote:I wonder if this claim might not be quite accurate.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...the theorem that the power set of the reals has a greater cardinality that the set of the reals, is not a theorem that any philosophical naturalist can assent to.
Philosophical naturalists whose understanding of mathematics is physicalist or psychologistic will have a problem with this theorem.
On the other hand, those naturalists who are nominalist or fictionalist with regard to mathematics won't find this theorem an obstacle.
quote:I would define a philosophical naturalist as one who thinks that our theories shouldn't include entities whose ontological basis falls outside the realm of the physical sciences.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Boy I guess I don't know what a philosophical naturalist is then. They're dead set against mathematical realism are they? Or they're all constructivists with a watertight denial of Choice?
quote:Quine is something of a special case, I think.
Originally posted by mousethief:
No "to be is to be the value of a bound variable" then?
quote:A realist? A pragmatist?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Quine is something of a special case, I think.
Originally posted by mousethief:
No "to be is to be the value of a bound variable" then?
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
So if you (sic) Missus doesn't meet these mathematical requirements and you tell her "Darling, you're beautiful" are you having a laugh?
Get real Hugh.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:And HughWillRidmee shoots and he scores! Back of his own net! Own goal at post 124.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
]Have you ever come across the concept of rational debate? – it means refuting something you would like to be untrue with evidence rather than making a glib comment and hoping to be taken seriously.
Really, that deserves some kind of prize for most self-deconstructing comment on the Ship.
quote:1 – I don’t have a “Missus”.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well spotted Dafyd - but despite the constant stream of posts from like minded people which seem to finish off any deep and meaningful topic on here, I don't think his side were ever winning. Own goals don't help of course!
quote:Of course it is! But I hope some will excuse me if I don't get my science books out, my calculator and my retractable tape measure, just to make sure mathematically!
Originally posted by Truman White:
@HughWillridmee
Is a tarantula beautiful?
quote:If your a priori position is your desire to refute "something you would like to be untrue" - and that is the plain meaning of what you wrote - then that desire may get in the way of rational debate, rational consideration of the evidence. You're not free from the temptation to rationalise your desires, Hugh. None of us are. Rational debate involves a setting aside of such desires, surely, rather than seeking to confirm them?
Have you ever come across the concept of rational debate? – it means refuting something you would like to be untrue with evidence ..
quote:There's that, but I think that removing this kind of emotional bias is only possible up to a point. If we didn't care at all about the truth we wouldn't debate it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If your a priori position is your desire to refute "something you would like to be untrue" - and that is the plain meaning of what you wrote - then that desire may get in the way of rational debate, rational consideration of the evidence.
quote:I agree that rational debate is different from trying to get a win. That's why you try to debate rationally - because you do care about whether what you would like to be true is actually true.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure, from all points of view, "bias is normal", however caused. But there is something wrong in applying the techniques of rational debate for the primary purpose of achieving what you want. In rational debate, the primary purpose isn't to win "your" POV.
quote:Well, according to a hypothesis from, depending on where one stands, either a bunch of crazy mofo scientismists sticking their noses where they are not wanted or some cognitive social scientists looking into the nature of rationality, it may be a mistake to think so.
I agree that rational debate is different from trying to get a win.
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
On the other hand, those naturalists who are nominalist or fictionalist with regard to mathematics won't find this theorem an obstacle.
I suppose so. But I think fictionalism is a fundamentally implausible get out clause. It's as if a YEC were to take a fictionalist approach to pre-4004 BC geology and palaeontology. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; but because our metaphysics tells us there can't be a duck we'll just say we're pretending it's a duck and leave it at that.
quote:Clearly you find the fictional suggestion that we're interacting with entities out of time and space sufficiently plausible to go along with.
Originally posted by Tea:
Plausibility depends on time, place, and the socially accepted web of background beliefs. For many of us today, the suggestion that we, spatio-temporal entities, can interact with entities that exist outside of time and space so as to have knowledge of them is no more plausible than fictionalism. Appeals to plausibility won’t help us much either way here.
quote:* Inserted by Tea for clarificatory purposes
If we don't understand how these mathematical* entities can be actual, what are we supposed to be understanding when we treat them as fictional?
quote:I’m not sure that “suspension of disbelief”, a concept which might – or, more probably, might not – help us understand our engagement with certain kinds of fictional narrative is relevant here. Consider this use of a fiction:
It violates suspension of disbelief.
quote:I do not share your understanding of fictionalism as explaining “how we know about fictional entities beyond space and time,” as I do not think that fictionalists assert, in some kind of Meinongian fashion, the existence of fictional entities. (Perhaps I did not make that sufficiently clear in previous posts – my apologies). What mathematical fictionalists are providing is, in the first place an account of the semantics of mathematical theories – that these theories are literally untrue because the entities to which they refer do not exist - and secondly, some kind of explanation of why we are nevertheless justified in our use of these literally untrue theories. As the term “use” suggests, this explanation will be most likely be some kind of instrumental account.
If you can come up with a fictional account of how we know about fictional entities beyond space and time you've come up with an account of how we could know about real entities beyond space and time.
quote:I wonder if you could be more specific about the specific reasons for adopting platonism in mathematics that you claim fictionalism does not address.
Furthermore, it doesn't address all the reasons for adopting realist accounts for mathematics - it just handwaves them…
quote:The final assertion about metaphors is an unsupported claim that labels, but does not solve, the problem of how the Christian today is supposed to interpret a credal statement such as “Jesus ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father.” You have to explain how we get from the literal untruth of the statement to its “metaphorical” or “figurative” truth. I’m not sure that in this explantion that fictionalism can be summarily dismissed.
As regards to your final question, I am a supernaturalist about some claims and a figurativist about most of them. (A metaphor is not a fiction.)
quote:I'm not entirely sure what the difference you're drawing between being inconceivable and being implausible is.
Originally posted by Tea:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:* Inserted by Tea for clarificatory purposes
If we don't understand how these mathematical* entities can be actual, what are we supposed to be understanding when we treat them as fictional?
I am not claiming that mathematical platonism is inconceivable; instead, I am arguing for the implausibility of our getting to know of entities wholly outside of space and time, given the belief that many of us have that we exist wholly within space and time and that our knowledge of other entities can best be explained as a set of processes taking place within space and time.
quote:I don't think it's illuminating to describe 'the average Londoner' as a fiction. I think that adding reference to a fictional individual as a representational aid is an unnecessary step in the analysis of the sentence - more likely to result in confusion than clarification should somebody actually use it.
quote:I’m not sure that “suspension of disbelief”, a concept which might – or, more probably, might not – help us understand our engagement with certain kinds of fictional narrative is relevant here. Consider this use of a fiction:
It violates suspension of disbelief.
“The average Londoner is captured on camera around 300 times a day.”
The “average Londoner” does not, of course, literally exist, for what would we make of somebody who went out to look for one specific person? We don’t, however, “willingly suspend our disbelief” when talking about this “average Londoner.” Instead, we use this fictional talk as a representational aid.
quote:I don't see what it adds to instrumentalist accounts to clutter them up with references to non-existent entities. You're presumably going to claim that an instrumentalist account on its own can't give a full analysis of the meaning of the statements. So you're claiming that they mean what they mean on a platonist analysis - it's just that they're false. But that looks really rather like you're trying to have your platonist cake and arbitrarily reject the ontological commitments that come with it.
What mathematical fictionalists are providing is, in the first place an account of the semantics of mathematical theories – that these theories are literally untrue because the entities to which they refer do not exist - and secondly, some kind of explanation of why we are nevertheless justified in our use of these literally untrue theories. As the term “use” suggests, this explanation will be most likely be some kind of instrumental account.
quote:Unless you're proposing that the question can be properly settled by neuroscientists and not otherwise, I wouldn't accuse you of scientism.
To return to the thread’s central concern: no doubt you consider my preference for a fictionalist account of mathematics a mistake arising from a scientistic outlook. How do you reply to those Christians who are theologically more conservative than you when they, confronted with your figurative interpretation of credal claims, accuse you of falling prey to scientism?
quote:I don't see any pretense here. The place at table to the immediate right of the host is the place of honour. The meaning is plain to one familiar with the cultural context.
Originally posted by Tea
Nobody, many Christians will argue, is expected to believe that Jesus is literally above us in the sky or in space sitting to the right of God the Father. That part of the creed, they might continue, should be understood figuratively; it expresses, they might say, something about the divine nature and authority of Jesus. I think that kind of response is justified as a rebuttal to those New Atheists who attempt to saddle the religious with beliefs about the natural world to which no rational person could offer assent today.
How, though, do the Christians who make this successful rebuttal get from the text of the creed to its nonliteral meaning? One way they do so might be by interpreting the words of the creed in a fictionalist manner; the creed is making a truth claim, it refers to a spatial location - on the right hand of the Father - but they know that this location does not exist and that therefore the proposition “Jesus sits on the right hand of the father” is false. Nevertheless, they continue to make this false declaration not because they erroneously believe in its literal truth but because engaging in the pretense...
