homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it? (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it?
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
i have maintained throughout that the correct path is to lay axioms out on the table so that they can be critiqued. There are two pisdibke reasons for you not seeing that. One is deliberate misrepresentation. The second is you are incapable of grasping that. Either way, you're wrong.

Or the third answer. When I suggest investigating the axiom you complain that that's putting the etymology before the ontology. Which means that you are only prepared to accept theoretical as opposed to empirical means of dealing with axioms.

Indeed this post by you is your attempt to deny any attempt to check your ideas because your position is based on axioms.

quote:
My statement about you be willing to concede something refers to the admission that science has limits. Which is what I have been saying this while time.
And I have accepted throughout. "There are two possible reasons for you not seeing that. One is deliberate misrepresentation. The second is you are incapable of grasping that. Either way, you're wrong."

quote:
You do have quite a talent for surveying defeat and perceiving victory, I'll give you that.
You certainly have a talent for reading what you want to and then projecting your own issues onto the other side. I'll give you that.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What is all this stuff about investigating axioms? If you've investigated them, found reasons why they are true, then they're not axioms anymore. Then they have been derived from these reasons you've found.

This is a good point, and somewhere I could justly be accused of a slippage in language (although I suspect the question was directed at Justinian and me). When I am using the term axiom and discussing interrogating a priori positions, I am probably using the word more in the sense of an established rule or principle, not just something that has to be accepted a priori. To me, this is an important part of the hermeneutic circle - understanding your preconceptions, engaging with a phenomenon, revising or critiquing your preconceptions, engaging, and so forth. There is, however, no point at which one does not have a priori positions, whether naive or informed.
Does that make sense?

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And any form of transportation that can be shown to work with a non-zero chance of getting back to land is immediately taken up by the explorers. And just because we haven't got there yet doesn't mean we should take what you get from your crystal balls seriously.

And we see the problem here. Justinian, a reasonably left-wing individual, thinks that any way of 'finding the ideal way to govern a country' outside the neoclassical models of economics is crystal ball gazing.
[Killing me]

You couldn't be more wrong.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What is all this stuff about investigating axioms? If you've investigated them, found reasons why they are true, then they're not axioms anymore. Then they have been derived from these reasons you've found.

This is a good point, and somewhere I could justly be accused of a slippage in language (although I suspect the question was directed at Justinian and me). When I am using the term axiom and discussing interrogating a priori positions, I am probably using the word more in the sense of an established rule or principle, not just something that has to be accepted a priori. To me, this is an important part of the hermeneutic circle - understanding your preconceptions, engaging with a phenomenon, revising or critiquing your preconceptions, engaging, and so forth. There is, however, no point at which one does not have a priori positions, whether naive or informed.
Does that make sense?

And this is something we actually agree on. Where we disagree is the limits of what science can investigate to verify (anything that can be measured in my world) and whether we should start by checking what we can.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Justinian, a reasonably left-wing individual, thinks that any way of 'finding the ideal way to govern a country' outside the neoclassical models of economics is crystal ball gazing.

[Killing me]

You couldn't be more wrong.

You just said that the people trying to model the study of politics and economics on the hard sciences are using all reliable methods already.
If you didn't mean to liken people who think economics and politics oughtn't to be modelled on the hard sciences to crystal ball gazers you chose a funny way of not doing so.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
i have maintained throughout that the correct path is to lay axioms out on the table so that they can be critiqued. There are two pisdibke reasons for you not seeing that. One is deliberate misrepresentation. The second is you are incapable of grasping that. Either way, you're wrong.

Or the third answer. When I suggest investigating the axiom you complain that that's putting the etymology before the ontology. Which means that you are only prepared to accept theoretical as opposed to empirical means of dealing with axioms.
I'm going to be charitable and presume you mean epistemology here. Yes, ontology is prior. And given axioms are theoretical constructs, it seems reasonable to critique them theoretically. Still, I am happy to consider any of your attempts to establish the existence of God, or explain the significance of love, empirically, before figuring out what they are first. You get started on that. I'll be right over here, on the edge of my seat.
How you propose to investigate things empirically when you haven't established what they actually fucking are is a mystery to me, but I'll certainlt have a look at what you come up with.
quote:

Indeed this post by you is your attempt to deny any attempt to check your ideas because your position is based on axioms.

Link won't work for me. Might be an iPhone thing.
quote:
quote:
My statement about you be willing to concede something refers to the admission that science has limits. Which is what I have been saying this while time.
And I have accepted throughout.
That's risible.
quote:
quote:
You do have quite a talent for surveying defeat and perceiving victory, I'll give you that.
You certainly have a talent for reading what you want to and then projecting your own issues onto the other side. I'll give you that.
If you're going to do this really shitty psychologist thing again, can you please at least have the decency to do it in hell, where I can give it the response it deserves? You know precisely nothing about my issues. Ta muchly.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What is all this stuff about investigating axioms? If you've investigated them, found reasons why they are true, then they're not axioms anymore. Then they have been derived from these reasons you've found.

This is a good point, and somewhere I could justly be accused of a slippage in language (although I suspect the question was directed at Justinian and me). When I am using the term axiom and discussing interrogating a priori positions, I am probably using the word more in the sense of an established rule or principle, not just something that has to be accepted a priori. To me, this is an important part of the hermeneutic circle - understanding your preconceptions, engaging with a phenomenon, revising or critiquing your preconceptions, engaging, and so forth. There is, however, no point at which one does not have a priori positions, whether naive or informed.
Does that make sense?

And this is something we actually agree on. Where we disagree is the limits of what science can investigate to verify (anything that can be measured in my world) and whether we should start by checking what we can.
No, I have specifically stated that science can investigate what is measurable. Many times. What we disagree on is what is measurable.
And I have no idea whether or not I disagree with the second part because it doesn't make any sense.

[ 13. October 2014, 15:22: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Justinian, a reasonably left-wing individual, thinks that any way of 'finding the ideal way to govern a country' outside the neoclassical models of economics is crystal ball gazing.

[Killing me]

You couldn't be more wrong.

You just said that the people trying to model the study of politics and economics on the hard sciences are using all reliable methods already.
If you didn't mean to liken people who think economics and politics oughtn't to be modelled on the hard sciences to crystal ball gazers you chose a funny way of not doing so.

[Citation needed]. What I've said is that you need to verify as much as possible.

And one problem with neoclassical economics is that it requires Homo Economicus. Almost as clear illustration that it has faulty premises as the Austrian's refusal to accept any empirical checks.

And Dark Knight, I don't know whether you are refusing to engage in good faith or just not reading both what you are writing and what I am. But either way we're getting nowhere.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are certainly correct we are getting nowhere. I absolutely reject the accusation I am posting in bad faith, or that I am not reading what is being posted, which is easy as you haven't provided any evidence. If you feel that way, fine - my feelings about your posting is about the same.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

Either calm down or, as per the Commandments pursue this line of conversation in Hell. Anyone ignoring this warning is likely to hear from an admin next.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sincere apologies, Eutychus.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
My claim throughout has been that "Either your God does something measurable to change physical reality, which can be through a vast number of approaches, or they do nothing that measurably impacts the world in any way at all and therefore have all the impact on the world of something that doesn't exist and should be treated as such."

My problem with this is the idea that if something impacts the world it must do so in a measurable way.

I believe that the Holy Spirit impacts peoples' lives in all sorts of ways. I don't think that it would be possible to conceive of a way to measure how though, partly because it's impractical, but more because the ways that the Holy Spirit influences us is often subtle, varied, sometimes counter-intuitive. To reduce the way that this person influences me or anyone else to something that can be measured through statistics is a non-starter.

You've essentially given two options:
- Impacts the world in a measurable way
- Does not impact the world at all (for all intents and purposes)

Personally, I reject both of these, and go with "Impacts the world in a non-measurable way". Of course, this is exactly what people have been getting at in questioning the STEM supremacy idea; only that which can be deconstructed / measured / understood is valid. That's not the way the world is. You can't measure Art, Love, Philosophy or Religion.

In terms of the suggestion that people who question scientism are only doing so because they want to reject some certain science or other (Darwinism, or whatever), I can see the validity of that assertion. I'm sure that's often what happens. But I haven't seen that happen at all on this thread. People haven't been rejecting scientism in favour of 6-day creation. They've been rejecting scientism as a philosphical stance because it's insufficient to grapple with the scope of human understanding.

And, if I could jump back a few pages, Justinian, to where you started expounding various Christian doctrines or understandings, and Mousethief took umbridge, I'd say I quite understand MT's frustration. It kind of reminded me of this site.

My problem with that kind of approach is that it appears to assume that, by challenging one part of Christian teaching, the whole of Christianity (or even theism!) falls down.

You want to challenge the idea that God rejects people and sends them to an eternal Hell for not believing in him? Awesome - I'm right with you. I know mousethief would be too, and plenty of others. We've had shedloads of threads about it. Want to challenge the idea that people believe all sorts of strange things because they understand the Bible in an overly literal sense? Again, great. I'm with you all the way. Want to challenge the idea that good people / Christians "go to heaven"? Brilliant. I'd point out that the whole thrust of Scripture is the theme of Heaven coming to Earth, not bits of earth going up to Heaven.

But challenging those things does only that - challenges those individual things. So, if you give a description of Christianity that has little or no relevance to my understanding of Christianity (which is primarily as a faith which is a Way, not a set of doctrines), then you're speaking past me. I'm happy for you to challenge Christians that do think in that way, and there are plenty. But there are plenty of us who see the concept of being followers of Jesus in a very different light. If you want to know what we believe, then great. But telling us what we should believe because we're Christians, then getting frustrated because that's not what we actually believe isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Measureable means (I think) repeatably measurable, and there is the problem, Justinian - repeatability.

I can think of numerous instances of people feeling they have received spiritual help in various ways - sometimes very physical help (like tachycardia immediately stopping), and far more of these than I would consider to be normal in the wayt of unexpected occurrences. In fact one could almost say that miracles happen all the time, but also that they are not miraculous, because they follow some quite specific spiritual laws - i.e. they are not extraordinary in that they do not contravene all laws of nature - only maybe a few assumptions we have erroneously gathered as to the limitations of nature and the rigidity of causal interrelationships.

But all of these are personal, specific to the individual, unpredictable. They can be collated - indeed, a book of some 2000 medically documented healings occurring after prayer is currently being compiled - but they are all one-off's. It's just a question of how many one-offs you can see before you are forced to admit that they are not part of any commonly recognised statistical norm.

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
and far more of these than I would consider to be normal in the wayt of unexpected occurrences. In fact one could almost say that miracles happen all the time

Either miracles happen all the time and are therefore normal, or they aren't normal and don't happen all the time. They can't happen more often than normal.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Justinian, a reasonably left-wing individual, thinks that any way of 'finding the ideal way to govern a country' outside the neoclassical models of economics is crystal ball gazing.

[Killing me]

You couldn't be more wrong.

You just said that the people trying to model the study of politics and economics on the hard sciences are using all reliable methods already.
If you didn't mean to liken people who think economics and politics oughtn't to be modelled on the hard sciences to crystal ball gazers you chose a funny way of not doing so.

[Citation needed].
LeRoc
quote:
How high do you estimate the chances that the scientific method will find the ideal way to govern a country?
SusanDoris:
quote:
I think I'd estimate it at very low.
LeRoc:
quote:
But isn't this sufficient proof that Science doesn't have the answer to everything?
SusanDoris
quote:
The scientific method is the best one we have for getting at the truth, but there are of course vast areas that remain under the heading of 'we don't know'.
Which is where IngoB came in and then you came in responding to IngoB.
So it would appear that by sailing ships IngoB was referring to methods of finding an ideal, or at least better, way to govern the country that don't consider themselves scientific. I.e. not neoclassical economics. (The fact that neoclassical economics does not fit the evidence is neither here nor there if it is nevertheless the only theory to aspire to verifiable measurements. If you rule out the non-measurably verifiable, then whatever is left, however inaccurate, must be the best alternative.)

quote:
And Dark Knight, I don't know whether you are refusing to engage in good faith or just not reading both what you are writing and what I am. But either way we're getting nowhere.
You can't know something if it isn't true.
I think Dark Knight is entitled to wonder why all of the atheists who've responded to him on this thread are straw-manning him.

[code headache]

[ 14. October 2014, 05:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Something based on axioms you have no idea of the truth value of is utterly irrelevant to anything except parlour games.

If you have the ability to verify the truth value of something, it is perforce not an axiom.

quote:
From a false premise you merely find falsehoods.
This is logically inept.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
and far more of these than I would consider to be normal in the wayt of unexpected occurrences. In fact one could almost say that miracles happen all the time

Either miracles happen all the time and are therefore normal, or they aren't normal and don't happen all the time. They can't happen more often than normal.
But (assuming they happen all the time) they are each a different miracle, and as such not necessarily amenable to scientific investigation, which requires repeatable (and by and large repeating) phenomena.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
and far more of these than I would consider to be normal in the wayt of unexpected occurrences. In fact one could almost say that miracles happen all the time

Either miracles happen all the time and are therefore normal, or they aren't normal and don't happen all the time. They can't happen more often than normal.
Which is why it's probably not a good idea to think of tghem as miracles at all - they're on;ly miracles oif your definition of normailty requires physical causaity. If you happen to believe it's a materialised spiritual world, then "normal" has a much wider range of possibility.

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'miracle' is not 'something we can't explain', it's a lrager concept than that. Something can be entirely explicable by scientific methods and be miraculous. Something can be inexplicable by scientific methods and be non-miraculous. A miracle is a sign that points towards something, it may also be a wonder. A wonder that signifies nothing is just a wonder, not a miracle.

Is it explicable that within a few minutes online I'd found a church in a small city in Japan with an English language fellowship group? Of course it is. Is it a miracle that when I needed friends and fellowship with other Christians that this group exists? I would say it is. Can God work in the world to ensure such a group of people exist in this city just when I need them? Yes, He can. Would that exercise of his adjusting the world for a particular purpose be measurable by any scientific method or instrument? I do not believe so.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm a bit behind things, I'm afraid. [Smile] I wrote this yesterday evening, but only now have time to check and post.

Ingo B
I’m afraid the analogy about the ships and horses was too complicated for me! this is mainly because of having to listen to instead of read it.
Le Roc
quote:
…your second sentence, … seems contradictory.

When you say "vast areas remain under the heading 'we don't know'" are you saying that in principle, Science will find the answers to these areas some day? Or are you saying that Science isn't the right way for finding answers to these areas?

Neither really. There cannot be a rigid line ever between what can or can’t be found out by Science, but Until someone comes up with a better method than the scientific one (and that would be via said scientific method anyway, wouldn’t it) there will never be a time when inquiring minds cease to probe and investigate, search for the most useful and verifiable way for getting at the facts. In any case, what other methods are there?
The next sentence is straightforward, not flippant. Any suggestion such as prayer or interpretation of dreams etc goes via human thought
Which needs a living brain which is slowly being researched so that more can be understood about how it works.
AlanCresswell
quote:
So, the scientific method is a tool to understand the world, just as riding about on horseback is a tool for exploring the world. But, there are other tools apart from the scientific method - philosophy, poetry, myth, even theology. These other tools are the ships of Ingo's analogy.
Yes, I do appreciate that, but all of these are human thoughts and ideas. As quetzalcoatl says, stories have always been important tools, but they are humanly imagined. Knowing a live brain is needed for stories is using the scientific method, but that knowledge is taken for granted and does not in any way detract from the value and effects of the story.
Nor, to atheists, does this lessen wonder and amazement that we can think thus.
IngoB
quote:
[QB... admitting that there are things one cannot come to know by science…[/QB]
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this. What things can one come to know without a method which can be tracked back to science? Which aspect of any kind of religious belief is not originally a human idea ? Where, in any kind of religious belief, Is knowledge which can be explained or measured without using some kind of scientific method?

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SusanDoris: There cannot be a rigid line ever between what can or can’t be found out by Science, but Until someone comes up with a better method than the scientific one (and that would be via said scientific method anyway, wouldn’t it) there will never be a time when inquiring minds cease to probe and investigate, search for the most useful and verifiable way for getting at the facts.
I'm still trying to get an answer from you, when you say that something can't be found out by Science, is this a temporary thing (inquiring minds will continue to investigate; in principle it can be found) or is this a permanent thing (some things are outside of the realm of Science). But I'm more or less giving up in trying to get straight answers from you.

quote:
SusanDoris: In any case, what other methods are there?
For finding the ideal form of government? (Or even answering the question if there is one.) Democratic dialogue. Romantic ideas. Egoistic fights. Rare bursts of altruism. None of which are the scientific method.

But suppose that you're right. Suppose that one day, scientists are able to completely understand the human mind, and therefore to answer the question what would be the best way to run a society. In this case, the logical option would be to do away with democracy and let our society be run by scientists. Our democratically elected representatives don't have access to all scientific facts, and their egoistic bickering would get in the way of the policies that are demonstratedly the best based on scientific evidence. No, it's better to stay closer to the source and let scientists rule us on the basis of what their evidence says. Would you favour such a government?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this. What things can one come to know without a method which can be tracked back to science? Which aspect of any kind of religious belief is not originally a human idea ? Where, in any kind of religious belief, Is knowledge which can be explained or measured without using some kind of scientific method?

Are you serious? Science is a very recent phenomenon. How on earth do you think people knew stuff before science?
As to the rest, we have been talking about other ways of knowing this whole thread. If you don't understand by now that there must be other ways of knowing, because science is limited by its nature in what it can reveal (only what can be empirically investigated and verified), then I don't know what else to say.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: There cannot be a rigid line ever between what can or can’t be found out by Science, but Until someone comes up with a better method than the scientific one (and that would be via said scientific method anyway, wouldn’t it) there will never be a time when inquiring minds cease to probe and investigate, search for the most useful and verifiable way for getting at the facts.
I'm still trying to get an answer from you, when you say that something can't be found out by Science, is this a temporary thing...
That is why I said there cannot be a rigid line - there is always a middle area where we have to say 'we don't know'. Since no-one can see into the future, then that is impossible to say. I think, bearing in mind the increase in knowledge, understanding of how things work and progress in medicine etc up until now, that the probability is that many things that apparently cannot be found out by the scientific method today will be sooner or later. During this process, no doubt all sorts of other questions will come up, which people will wonder if science can answer and also provide a new set of 'don't know' questions.
quote:
… (inquiring minds will continue to investigate; in principle it can be found) or is this a permanent thing (some things are outside of the realm of Science). But I'm more or less giving up in trying to get straight answers from you.
I think that is a bit unfair! I would say that, again thinking of history and progress up until now, that the probability of anyone ever establishing a real god in any religion is as near to zero as makes no difference. But I even if I get into my 90s – doubtful in my family!! – I shall not be able to give a 100% guarantee. I do hope that that is clear enough. Human nature, societies, technologies, ideas of government, etc are never static, and if they were there would always be someone to stir things up!
I’ll answer the rest of your post asap. It needs a bit more thinking about. I hope you won't give up! on me!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SusanDoris:
quote:
LeRoc: I'm still trying to get an answer from you, when you say that something can't be found out by Science, is this a temporary thing...
That is why I said there cannot be a rigid line - there is always a middle area where we have to say 'we don't know'. Since no-one can see into the future, then that is impossible to say. I think, bearing in mind the increase in knowledge, understanding of how things work and progress in medicine etc up until now, that the probability is that many things that apparently cannot be found out by the scientific method today will be sooner or later. During this process, no doubt all sorts of other questions will come up, which people will wonder if science can answer and also provide a new set of 'don't know' questions.
I'm sorry, your answer is still not clear.

I'd also like it if you'd try to answer my other question in that post.

[Edited to fix code to straighten out attributions. -Gwai]

[ 14. October 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: Gwai ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Something based on axioms you have no idea of the truth value of is utterly irrelevant to anything except parlour games.

If you have the ability to verify the truth value of something, it is perforce not an axiom.
Which is a distraction. If you can verify something through pure logic it ceases to be an axiom. This doesn't mean you can't check certain consequences - and if the consequences are false you have got something wrong somewhere.

quote:
quote:
From a false premise you merely find falsehoods.
This is logically inept.
OK. Refinement. Any truth you can reach via logic from false premises is merely by coincidence.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Justinian, a reasonably left-wing individual, thinks that any way of 'finding the ideal way to govern a country' outside the neoclassical models of economics is crystal ball gazing.

[Killing me]

You couldn't be more wrong.

You just said that the people trying to model the study of politics and economics on the hard sciences are using all reliable methods already.
If you didn't mean to liken people who think economics and politics oughtn't to be modelled on the hard sciences to crystal ball gazers you chose a funny way of not doing so.

[Citation needed].
LeRoc
So your argument that I said something is that SusanDoris in reply to LeRoc said something. Right. And when we look at what SusanDoris said and you quoted it doesn't actually mean what you claim I said either:

quote:
quote:
The scientific method is the best one we have for getting at the truth, but there are of course vast areas that remain under the heading of 'we don't know'.

And in the context you are making accusations, neo-classical economics' claim to use the scientific method is fallacious. Neoclassical economics, as I mentioned in my rebuttal mangles the approach to one which puts ontology in front of epistemology by relying on the construct of Homo Economicus and rational actors. This is precisely the opposite of the methods I am advocating.

In short you've (a) misrepresented me, (b) put the words of someone else into my mouth, and (c) accused me of supporting something that is demonstrably wrong directly because of the arguments I'm making.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sorry, your answer is still not clear
I'd also like it if you'd try to answer my other question in that post.

[Edited to fix code to straighten out attributions. -Gwai]

My apologies, Leroc! to help me make my answer clear, may I ask you please, to give me a few suggestions as to what you thought I might say as I am interested to know. An yes, I will come back to your other question as soon as I can.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gwai: I'm sorry for my code mess-up, and thank you for repairing it.

quote:
SusanDoris: My apologies, Leroc! to help me make my answer clear, may I ask you please, to give me a few suggestions as to what you thought I might say as I am interested to know.
Let's try multiple choice! [Biased] (I'm not mocking you here, I just thought it was funny to say that.)

Options:
  1. At the moment, Science does not know the answer to how to govern a society. But it is the right way to find the answers to this. Maybe it won't find them all at once, some questions will still remain open. But eventually, it will find the answers to those too.
  2. The scientific method may give us some information that will help us how to govern a society. However, there will always be questions about how to do this that are outside of the realm of Science.
A or B please. The answer is worth 10 points [Biased]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So your argument that I said something is that SusanDoris in reply to LeRoc said something. Right.

IngoB appears to have dropped out of your summary.

LeRoc and SusanDoris and IngoB were arguing over whether the scientific method is the only way to discover whether there's an ideal way to run a country. So either you were talking about how to run a country, or you didn't care enough to find out what IngoB was talking about.

quote:
And in the context you are making accusations, neo-classical economics' claim to use the scientific method is fallacious. Neoclassical economics, as I mentioned in my rebuttal mangles the approach to one which puts ontology in front of epistemology by relying on the construct of Homo Economicus and rational actors.
Homo economicus and rational action are confessedly components of a model. Just as the Rutherford-Bohr atom is a model. Models have a perfectly valid use within the scientific method.

The problem is that if you think anything that has a direct effect upon the world has measurable consequences (here ), then neoclassical economics is the only game in town. Because neoclassical economics is the only school that adopts that axiom. Homo economicus is simply the only way people have so far found of modelling human beings in such a way that everything they do of importance has measurable consequences.

quote:
This is precisely the opposite of the methods I am advocating.

You are advocating epistemology over phenomenological ontology. That is, you are advocating prioritising abstract considerations about what counts as knowledge over actual human experience.
Now maybe if you're unfamiliar with the phenomenological tradition you might have been thrown by Dark Knight using the word 'ontology'. But Dark Knight explained what he meant by that in his posts.

quote:
In short you've (a) misrepresented me, (b) put the words of someone else into my mouth, and (c) accused me of supporting something that is demonstrably wrong directly because of the arguments I'm making.
Annoying, isn't it? Perhaps the next time Dark Knight or I or anyone complains that you're putting words in our mouths you might consider listening? Rather than redoubling your efforts to stuff your words down our mouths as if we're geese you're fattening for foie gras.

Your posts were responding to a conversation that, probably due to inattention on your part, was about something other than you thought the conversation was about.
But even if you think it's illegitimate to respond to a post as if it's meant as a contribution to the conversation to which it's responding - I will stand by the claim that the practical implications of at least some of the positions you're defending on this thread are that neoclassical economics is the only valid economic or political position. If you don't intend those implications, you need to modify at least some of the relevant positions, if my argument is correct.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ingo B
I’m afraid the analogy about the ships and horses was too complicated for me! this is mainly because of having to listen to instead of read it.

In a nutshell: to say that more needs to be discovered is one thing, to say that one needs other means to discover it is quite another. The most intrepid explorer on horseback is not going to discover Australia.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What things can one come to know without a method which can be tracked back to science?

Making yourself a cup of tea, you did not learn this by science. The language you are using, you did not learn this by science. Thinking about what cannot be known by science, you did not learn this by science. Deciding that further thought about that would be a waste of your time, you did not learn this by science. Feeling happy anticipation about seeing your good friend instead, you did not learn this by science. There is very, very little indeed in your life that has anything to do with science. Even on the broadest possible interpretation, where you would claim that your electric water boiler is a "product of science", much of your life still has little to do with science. And if you go completely nuts and declare every bit of experience and learning somehow as "science", just because it associates sensory input systematically with cognitive states, then guess what - pretty much everything beyond vegetative body function is this kind of "science" - including, most definitely, every bit of religion.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Which aspect of any kind of religious belief is not originally a human idea ?

Why do you consider that to be a relevant question? We are humans, and you can call all our higher cognition "having ideas". Even if the Holy Spirit inspires us, the result would still be a human idea, a human thinking something. So what?

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Where, in any kind of religious belief, Is knowledge which can be explained or measured without using some kind of scientific method?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because God created it. That is true knowledge. It was not obtained by modern natural science based on empirical data. It can be explained by metaphysical argument from observing nature, but not in a "science" sort of way.

[ 14. October 2014, 22:04: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For finding the ideal form of government? (Or even answering the question if there is one.) Democratic dialogue. Romantic ideas. Egoistic fights. Rare bursts of altruism. None of which are the scientific method.

But how we know these things and understand more how they have evolved and how they work are thanks to a scientific method which has itself gradually improved, if only by fits and starts. I suppose it would have been more accurate to say ‘tracks back to nature’.
quote:
[But suppose that you're right. Suppose that one day, scientists are able to completely understand the human mind, and therefore to answer the question what would be the best way to run a society.
But that is not going to happen because there will never be an end to the questions.
quote:
In this case, the logical option would be to do away with democracy and let our society be run by scientists.
I do not agree that is a logical step, but not ever having studied the discipline of philosophy, I can’t find the words for a suitable reply. I agree of course that even the best governments will never be in any way ideal, but that’s human nature. We can only hope that the two steps forward, one step back way that our species has muddled through will continue in an overall forward direction as far as understanding nature and ourselves is concerned.
I appreciate this is a poor response, but I assure you I have been typing, deleting and thinking as hard as I can although Synthetic Dave is bearing up remarkably well! I’m an optimist, you see, even about politics

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So your argument that I said something is that SusanDoris in reply to LeRoc said something. Right.

IngoB appears to have dropped out of your summary.

LeRoc and SusanDoris and IngoB were arguing over whether the scientific method is the only way to discover whether there's an ideal way to run a country. So either you were talking about how to run a country, or you didn't care enough to find out what IngoB was talking about.

Or IngoB's faulty analogy was faulty in its own right because, like all analogies, it was a distortion of the truth - and in ways that were relevant to the wider conversation about what some people use the slur Scientism to describe.

You are misrepresenting me.

quote:
quote:
And in the context you are making accusations, neo-classical economics' claim to use the scientific method is fallacious. Neoclassical economics, as I mentioned in my rebuttal mangles the approach to one which puts ontology in front of epistemology by relying on the construct of Homo Economicus and rational actors.
Homo economicus and rational action are confessedly components of a model. Just as the Rutherford-Bohr atom is a model. Models have a perfectly valid use within the scientific method.

The problem is that if you think anything that has a direct effect upon the world has measurable consequences (here ), then neoclassical economics is the only game in town. Because neoclassical economics is the only school that adopts that axiom.

Bullshit! Neoclassical economics is the game definitively not in town. Because its models are measurably counter to important ways the universe works. Which makes them simply wrong.

"Everything has measurable consequences" is not the same as "Everything can be directly measured" and it certainly isn't the same as "A simple model can account for everything" - which is what the rational actor approaches are. And "Everything has measurable consequences" is quite literally the opposite of "We should accept ideas grounded in theory that when the consequences are measured turn out not to be true".

Neoclassical economics is textbook pseudoscience - starting off with axioms that have either not been shown to work or been shown not to work. Then appropriating the trappings of scientific terminology while both using them improperly and starting off with a faulty premise.

quote:
Homo economicus is simply the only way people have so far found of modelling human beings in such a way that everything they do of importance has measurable consequences.
Again, this is pure misrepresentation. I'm trying to work out whether it's simply wrong, or whether it's not even wrong. Either way it's putting the cart before the horse. Homo Economicus is the fallacy of starting out with the ontology rather than measuring what we have and then building from there.

quote:
You are advocating epistemology over phenomenological ontology. That is, you are advocating prioritising abstract considerations about what counts as knowledge over actual human experience.
Once more you are misrepresenting me. I'm saying that by starting with ontology you are starting with the exact fallacy used by the neo-classical economists. Neo-classical economists start out with "What is the nature of a person" and decide on the rational actor - the ontology. And never do the checking of how they know.

I'm suggesting starting out with what we know. Starting out by working out what we know and how we know it, starting out with the epistemology quite literally is starting out with prioritising experience over the abstract theoretical considerations that ontology gives us. You are completely misrepresenting me here.

What it doesn't do is start out by assuming, as itsarumdo does, that all human perception is accurate. But human perception is definitely evidence and that humans report something is measurable. Whether that's independent or not is also measurable.

quote:
quote:
In short you've (a) misrepresented me, (b) put the words of someone else into my mouth, and (c) accused me of supporting something that is demonstrably wrong directly because of the arguments I'm making.
Annoying, isn't it? Perhaps the next time Dark Knight or I or anyone complains that you're putting words in our mouths you might consider listening? Rather than redoubling your efforts to stuff your words down our mouths as if we're geese you're fattening for foie gras.
Tell me, is this an admission that the fact you have misrepresented me on almost every single point in this post and have directly put words in my mouth was deliberate?

quote:
But even if you think it's illegitimate to respond to a post as if it's meant as a contribution to the conversation to which it's responding - I will stand by the claim that the practical implications of at least some of the positions you're defending on this thread are that neoclassical economics is the only valid economic or political position. If you don't intend those implications, you need to modify at least some of the relevant positions, if my argument is correct.
And this is, as I have just demonstrated, absolute bullshit. Neoclassical economics is a direct result of doing the opposite of what I am advocating and I have demonstrated how. You can not start with ontology and theory before you look at what you can actually verify.

Now, you've misrepresented me on just about every point, and demonstrably so. You have invented consequences to my position that are the direct opposite of where they lead. You have put words in my mouth. And you have just doubled down. You have directly put words in my mouth that I have not said.

Unless further replies to me open with a genuine apology anything further I have to say to you on this subject will be said within the confines of Hell.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Note: For those who feel that my views might cause exasperation, scroll past!!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ingo B
I’m afraid the analogy about the ships and horses was too complicated for me! this is mainly because of having to listen to instead of read it.

In a nutshell: to say that more needs to be discovered is one thing, to say that one needs other means to discover it is quite another. The most intrepid explorer on horseback is not going to discover Australia.
Thank you. But the drive to explore and find the methods of travel is very much an evolved human trait ...information about which has been discovered by people using the scientific method, so although the instinct to explore was not implanted by some abstract subject called Science, the knowledge we have of it is thanks to scientific method.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What things can one come to know without a method which can be tracked back to science?

Making yourself a cup of tea, you did not learn this by science. The language you are using, you did not learn this by science. Thinking about what cannot be known by science, you did not learn this by science. Deciding that further thought about that would be a waste of your time, you did not learn this by science. Feeling happy anticipation about seeing your good friend instead, you did not learn this by science. There is very, very little indeed in your life that has anything to do with science. Even on the broadest possible interpretation, where you would claim that your electric water boiler is a "product of science", much of your life still has little to do with science.
It is background knowledge which I only bring to the forefront of my mind when discussions like these come up and I realise the huge place that Science has in our lives.
quote:
And if you go completely nuts and declare every bit of experience and learning somehow as "science", just because it associates sensory input systematically with cognitive states, then guess what - pretty much everything beyond vegetative body function is this kind of "science" - including, most definitely, every bit of religion.
I did not learn those things by science it is true, I learnt them from an evolved instinct to survive, observation and teaching from others, but every piece of knowledge about why and how they all work and of what they are made has been defined by people using a scientific method. As I have just said to LeRoc, perhaps I should have said ‘tracked back to nature’.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Which aspect of any kind of religious belief is not originally a human idea ?

Why do you consider that to be a relevant question? We are humans, and you can call all our higher cognition "having ideas". Even if the Holy Spirit inspires us, the result would still be a human idea, a human thinking something. So what?
But the Holy Spirit is a human assumption that such a spirit exists.
As I have been learning recently from QFT and an associated discussion, If it actually interacted with our world in any way, it could be detected and measured. Fully aware that I must leave an area open in my mind for proof that I might be wrong, I will say that I think it has no existence outside of human imagination. Same for God. The scientific method cannot be used since no fact can be produced about which to hypothesise and test. I do, therefore, consider that they do not exist and that the scientific method is the one to choose to arrive at facts. I suppose then we’re back at scientism, but since, as far as I can gather, the most likely definition of scientism is a sort of blind belief that Science has the exclusive ability and access to answers,then I’ll disagree because all my beliefs and faiths are based on evidence, science style.
By the way, I do agree that parts of this are off the topic of scientism, but I hope that as we are on page 9, that’s allowable.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SusanDoris - what you seem to be missing is that what you are saying is a statement of faith in empiricism and the scientific method. As many have tried to show you and others this itself is a position that is unverifiable empirically. So yes, that is scientism.
Justinian - Dafyd's statement of what you've been doing in response to me is spot on. You certainly won't be getting an apology from me. You want to tangle in hell, bring it.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Justinian - Dafyd's statement of what you've been doing in response to me is spot on. You certainly won't be getting an apology from me. You want to tangle in hell, bring it.

Dafyd's started something in hell. I've replied and brought you strongly into it.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
SusanDoris - what you seem to be missing is that what you are saying is a statement of faith in empiricism and the scientific method.

But that faith is based on the reliability and consistency of the evidence . which has resulted from empiricism, I think. I do most decidedly not have a blind faith, as it is clear that, being human beings, scientists make mistakes along the way. I don't know how we would have reached the current level of advances in the area of medicine if we'd had to rely on blind faith alone.
quote:
As many have tried to show you and others this itself is a position that is unverifiable empirically. So yes, that is scientism.
I'll go along with that, but why call it scientism? Why not stick to calling it Science?
QUOTE]]Justinian - Dafyd's statement of what you've been doing in response to me is spot on. You certainly won't be getting an apology from me. You want to tangle in hell, bring it. [/QUOTE]You're probably right! I certainly neither ask for nor expect any apology. I only rarely rread posts in Hell - I'm a person who prefers harmony, but do appreciate the opportunities in forums to say what I think and endeavour to be as courteous as possible.

Edited to add - I see Justinian mentions a thread in Hell, so I will just drop in to see what's what!

[ 15. October 2014, 17:31: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SusanDoris: But how we know these things and understand more how they have evolved and how they work are thanks to a scientific method which has itself gradually improved, if only by fits and starts. I suppose it would have been more accurate to say ‘tracks back to nature’.
Let me recap our discussion so far.

I asked: Can the scientific method find an answer to whether there is an ideal form of government?

You asked: What other methods would there be? (Insinuating that the scientific method is the only method to find an answer to this question.)

I answered: Democratic processes, romanticism, fights, altruism ...

You answer: But these originate from the brain, and the brain can be understood more and more through the scientific method.

Am I accurate about our conversation so far?

Suppose for a moment that someone does find the answer to the question "what is the ideal form of government?", and that she found this answer through democratic processes, romanticism, fights, altruism ... I know this is unlikely to happen, but for argument's sake.

If I understand your reasoning well, you'll claim that this person has found the answer through the scientific method. After all, she has used methods that originate from her brain, and brains can be described better and better by the scientific method.

Am I still correct?

Now, I have found the answer to the question "Does God exist?" The answer is "Yes." I have found the answer by using a democratic method, romanticism, fights, altruism ... These processes originate in my brain, my brain can be described better and better by the scientific method, therefore I have found the answer through the scientific method.


On the one hand you call everything we do (romanticism, altruism ...) 'using the scientific method', because it originates from our brains and brains can be explained more and more by the scientific method.

On the other hand you call religion unscientific because it originates from our brains.

What is it?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Come on, Le Roc, you're not using the atheist brain! This is situated about 5cm behind the thinking very hard bit, and over a bit to the left, behind the being very rational bit.

It ain't rocket surgery!

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But the drive to explore and find the methods of travel is very much an evolved human trait ...information about which has been discovered by people using the scientific method, so although the instinct to explore was not implanted by some abstract subject called Science, the knowledge we have of it is thanks to scientific method.

This is inane. People were building very sophisticated ships and sailing all over the place long, long, long before the Scientific Method ever reared its head

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Let me recap our discussion so far.

Thank you for your most interesting post. I'm afraid it's tap dancing this morning and a hospital visit this afternoon, but I'll be back asap!

Edited for typo.

[ 16. October 2014, 06:47: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But the drive to explore and find the methods of travel is very much an evolved human trait ...information about which has been discovered by people using the scientific method, so although the instinct to explore was not implanted by some abstract subject called Science, the knowledge we have of it is thanks to scientific method.

This is inane. People were building very sophisticated ships and sailing all over the place long, long, long before the Scientific Method ever reared its head
not to mention the ankythera mechanism (and its stone predecessors). bronze casting, embalming for the dead and a sophisticated herbal repertoire for the living, cross-breeding of different animals and plant strains, and lenses ground in ancient babylon...

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
mousethief: This is inane. People were building very sophisticated ships and sailing all over the place long, long, long before the Scientific Method ever reared its head
I'm starting to understand SusanDoris's reasoning a bit now. It is somewhat at follows:

Q: Do we use the scientific method to do X?
SD: Yes. Through the scientific method, we are able to explain better and better why we do X.

For X, fill in 'do politics', 'fall in love', 'explore' ... and you get the whole of SusanDoris's reasoning on this thread.

Of course, there are holes in her logic you can fly a 747 through. The most important one being: this isn't an answer to the question. But if you think you can explain this to her, be my guest.

Interestingly, there is one exception. When you fill in X = 'do religion', she suddenly considers this reasoning invalid. My last post was an effort to point this out to her.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you. But the drive to explore and find the methods of travel is very much an evolved human trait ...information about which has been discovered by people using the scientific method, so although the instinct to explore was not implanted by some abstract subject called Science, the knowledge we have of it is thanks to scientific method.

You're overextending the term "scientific method" as it is normally used. If I find something true, and then say it's caused by fairies at the bottom of the garden then I've still found something true. I'm just flat wrong about why - and this isn't the scientific method. But what I've found works and is real even if I'm wrong about why.

What the scientific method is is the best way we have of getting the how right and of finding more things that work and joining them up. But far from everything we know about the world is the direct result of the scientific method.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: This is inane. People were building very sophisticated ships and sailing all over the place long, long, long before the Scientific Method ever reared its head
I'm starting to understand SusanDoris's reasoning a bit now. It is somewhat at follows:

Q: Do we use the scientific method to do X?
SD: Yes. Through the scientific method, we are able to explain better and better why we do X.

For X, fill in 'do politics', 'fall in love', 'explore' ... and you get the whole of SusanDoris's reasoning on this thread.

Of course, there are holes in her logic you can fly a 747 through. The most important one being: this isn't an answer to the question. But if you think you can explain this to her, be my guest.

Interestingly, there is one exception. When you fill in X = 'do religion', she suddenly considers this reasoning invalid. My last post was an effort to point this out to her.

It's an interesting leap, from 'scientific method helps explain how omelettes work', to 'science makes omelettes'. I was wondering if she is using metonymy, but how would that be explained by scientific method?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
quetzalcoatl: I was wondering if she is using metonymy, but how would that be explained by scientific method?
If I follow her reasoning, it would be: "Through our understanding of the brain and of evolution, we are able to explain better and better why we use metonymy".

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All comments read and appreciated very interesting of course . I do so much admire the debating skills and knowledge on SofF and it looks as if, with luck and thanks of course to up-to-date medical knowledge, that I'll have a good few more years to read and learn!! Back soon.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

I asked: Can the scientific method find an answer to whether there is an ideal form of government?

You asked: What other methods would there be? (Insinuating that the scientific method is the only method to find an answer to this question.)

I answered: Democratic processes, romanticism, fights, altruism ...

I suggest that Answering the question "what is the best form of government ?" would require two different types of thought process. One is understanding the impacts of adopting different forms of government. The other is valuing those impacts to see which we prefer, which is closest to our ideal.

The understanding part is a question for science - the activity of gathering data, forming and testing hypotheses, establishing cause-and-effect relationships etc. someone claiming to have such understanding might reasonably be asked to make predictions - what will happen in Libya after the revolution ? - to demonstrate their knowledge.

The valuing part is not something that science can help with.

--------------

That position can be attacked from two sides - anti-rationalism denying the role of science in understanding government, and scientism asserting that better understanding of the human brain will someday tell us what we ought to value.

But none of the alternative methods you mention fot choosing a form of government seems at all likely to arrive at the best form of government...

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
]I suggest that Answering the question "what is the best form of government ?" would require two different types of thought process. One is understanding the impacts of adopting different forms of government. The other is valuing those impacts to see which we prefer, which is closest to our ideal.

The problem here is that we have reason to believe that the two thought processes cannot be separated out when it comes to human beings. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that human beings act rather than just behave, and there aren't any value neutral ways to understand human action.
A basic and trivial example: somebody who is right-handed doing something with their right hand is doing the same thing as somebody left-handed performing the same task with their left hand. Yet thinking that requires the person thinking to consider only the task performed, and not the bodily movements involved.
To understand what somebody is doing you have to interpret their understanding of what they're doing. And that isn't a value neutral exercise. You have to understand the other person's ideas of what is sensible and what is ethical and what is admirable, and in order to do that you have to draw on your own ideas. You can't study people or societies without studying their normative value judgements, and you can't understand what a normative judgement is without drawing on your own normative judgements.

quote:
The understanding part is a question for science - the activity of gathering data, forming and testing hypotheses, establishing cause-and-effect relationships etc. someone claiming to have such understanding might reasonably be asked to make predictions - what will happen in Libya after the revolution ? - to demonstrate their knowledge.
One obvious problem: how do you do about testing hypotheses at this level? Generally speaking, there are ethical problems with using societies as test subjects. Furthermore, if the society knows you're using it as a test subject that is going to alter the result.
In addition, in the natural sciences cause and effect relationships are mechanical. The billiard ball's opinion of what it's doing doesn't come into it. But in social sciences the people's opinions of what the causal relationships are affects what the causal relationships are. And that is actually hard to handle with logic.

People have been trying to establish social sciences on the model of the natural sciences for over a century now. The results are so far unimpressive.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
there aren't any value neutral ways to understand human action.

'Fraid I'm not seeing your argument here.

A biologist can observe that geese are monogamous - mate for life with a single partner - and chickens are not. Without being compelled to make a value judgment that one species is better than the other thereby.

Why cannot a scientist who studies humankind make the same sort of detached value-neutral observation about the mating habits of humans in different cultures ?

quote:
somebody who is right-handed doing something with their right hand is doing the same thing as somebody left-handed performing the same task with their left hand. Yet thinking that requires the person thinking to consider only the task performed, and not the bodily movements involved.
So what ? Applying any sort of discipline of study means ignoring those factors which seem irrelevant. When Newton invoked gravity to explain why the apple fell, he didn't need to know which variety of apple was involved.

Some things are genuinely irrelevant to the point at issue. Of course, it's possible to be wrong about which they are.

quote:
To understand what somebody is doing you have to interpret their understanding of what they're doing. And that isn't a value neutral exercise. You have to understand the other person's ideas of what is sensible and what is ethical and what is admirable

That's one level of understanding.

But you can have that sort of intimate understanding of an individual person and still not be able to predict what they'll do. And conversely have an understanding of people in general that is sufficient for predicting aggregate behaviour, without going into what ethical or aesthetic principles each individual holds.

quote:
how do you do about testing hypotheses at this level? Generally speaking, there are ethical problems with using societies as test subjects. Furthermore, if the society knows you're using it as a test subject that is going to alter the result.

That's back to "natural experiment" - looking in the data for when particular combinations of conditions happened anyway as part of the natural development of the system.

quote:

People have been trying to establish social sciences on the model of the natural sciences for over a century now. The results are so far unimpressive.

Some of what passes for social science is certainly unimpressive...

But some of the worst are those who don't see any need to keep their political value-judgments out of their publicly-funded supposedly-scientific work.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A biologist can observe that geese are monogamous - mate for life with a single partner - and chickens are not. Without being compelled to make a value judgment that one species is better than the other thereby.

Why cannot a scientist who studies humankind make the same sort of detached value-neutral observation about the mating habits of humans in different cultures ?

The reason is that the mating habits of the humans in different cultures are themselves the result of value judgements.
Geese may be monogamous, but I don't believe they have a concept of adultery or divorce. A goose, as far as we know, cannot think I really want to let that gander mount me but I shall resist because it would be adultery. Nor can a goose think my husband has cheated on me, but I'll try to keep this marriage together for the sake of the goslings. To understand what the geese are doing you don't have to make value judgements on their behalf.
Geese don't argue about whether or not they ought to emulate chickens. Humans in one culture do argue about whether or not another culture is better or worse than they are.

Let's take an example. Bill Clinton famously did or did not commit adultery depending upon what the meaning of 'is' is. An anthropologist observing proceedings would have had to judge whether or not the various parties involved - Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kenneth Starr, etc were correctly applying the concepts of adultery or impeachment or whether they were misapplying those concepts in order to understand their behaviour. Which is to say that the anthropologist has to be able to make those value judgements - such and such behaviour is or is not adultery - according to the standards of late twentieth century US culture. And there's no way into understanding how to make value judgements without using one's own experience of making value judgements.

quote:
quote:
somebody who is right-handed doing something with their right hand is doing the same thing as somebody left-handed performing the same task with their left hand. Yet thinking that requires the person thinking to consider only the task performed, and not the bodily movements involved.
So what ? Applying any sort of discipline of study means ignoring those factors which seem irrelevant.
Judging that handedness is irrelevant requires understanding what the person is trying to do, which in turn requires understanding what counts as success or failure, what counts as performing the task well.
Handedness might not be irrelevant: consider many cultures in which left-handedness is subject to social sanction.

quote:
quote:
To understand what somebody is doing you have to interpret their understanding of what they're doing. And that isn't a value neutral exercise. You have to understand the other person's ideas of what is sensible and what is ethical and what is admirable

That's one level of understanding.

But you can have that sort of intimate understanding of an individual person and still not be able to predict what they'll do. And conversely have an understanding of people in general that is sufficient for predicting aggregate behaviour, without going into what ethical or aesthetic principles each individual holds.

This assumes that the distribution of various ethical and aesthetic principles is irrelevant to aggregate behaviour. Which is not obviously true.
(Advertisers certainly take the aspirations and values of their target market into account, or try to.)
Also, the degree to which prediction is possible in principle in human affairs is theoretically limited. For example, if a method is found of predicting market behaviour savvy market actors will take it into account in deciding what to do, thereby altering their behaviour and thus altering the force of their predictions. Predictions become self-fulfilling or self-refuting.

quote:
quote:
how do you do about testing hypotheses at this level? Generally speaking, there are ethical problems with using societies as test subjects. Furthermore, if the society knows you're using it as a test subject that is going to alter the result.

That's back to "natural experiment" - looking in the data for when particular combinations of conditions happened anyway as part of the natural development of the system.
The number of combinations of conditions is fairly limited compared with the variety of conditions that can be combined. If you're looking at the behaviour of industrial countries, you've only got about a hundred and fifty years of data at most for only about forty to fifty nations. You can't isolate the variable you wish to study.
Furthermore, one of the variables you would need to compensate for is the nation's awareness of other nations or of its own past.

quote:
quote:

People have been trying to establish social sciences on the model of the natural sciences for over a century now. The results are so far unimpressive.

Some of what passes for social science is certainly unimpressive...

But some of the worst are those who don't see any need to keep their political value-judgments out of their publicly-funded supposedly-scientific work.

If the public decide to fund scientific work then that is itself a political value judgement: that scientific work is worth funding, and that public funding is a valuable way of doing so.
If my argument is correct the choice isn't between political or apolitical scientific work: it's between people making political judgements well and people making them badly.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Buzzzzzz

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A biologist can observe that geese are monogamous - mate for life with a single partner - and chickens are not. Without being compelled to make a value judgment that one species is better than the other thereby.

Why cannot a scientist who studies humankind make the same sort of detached value-neutral observation about the mating habits of humans in different cultures ?

Are you seriously saying you believe that humans can just as easily be disinterested about humans as they are about ducks? No difference at all?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools