|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Are you, Dark Knight and Mousethief, saying that the philosophy of science departments should be the science police, decreeing what can be studied as science and what can't? If not, what's so problematical about science sticking its nose into something that may not be amenable to a scientific approach?
1. No. 2. Because then it ceases to be science.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Hell, LilBuddha's opening post is all about motives.
No, no it isn't. I've read it multiple times and I do not see that. But then I wrote it, so I kind of knew that already.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Sometimes, if what you object to is an attitude that is narrowly dismissive of anything outside its ambit, snarling at it is the only way forward.
IME, snarling causes people to dig in their heels and stop their ears all the sooner.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
To assert God doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence is a failure of logic. It's an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.
Not precisely. No, one cannot prove God does not exist, however Christianity has used reports of evidence as proof of God's existence for centuries so it is not unreasonable to question the lack of continued evidence.
And there have been several claims on the ship about empirical evidence for religion, so...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Re: Fundamentalism
Liberty University has a course on "History of Fundamentalism" web page which states, "This course presents that knowledge and seeks to equip students for
the future of the Fundamentalist movement." The overall tenor seems to assume the students are in the [Christian] Fundamentalist movement.
There is certainly a good size subsection of American Christians who consider themselves fundamentalists. However the term is often applied to though not accepted by other evangelical Christians and also applied though not accepted by people in other religions.
I do not know of any group that accepts 'scientism'.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not precisely. No, one cannot prove God does not exist, however Christianity has used reports of evidence as proof of God's existence for centuries so it is not unreasonable to question the lack of continued evidence.
What lack of continued evidence? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I'm open, show me.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Re: Fundamentalism
Liberty University has a course on "History of Fundamentalism" web page which states, "This course presents that knowledge and seeks to equip students for
the future of the Fundamentalist movement." The overall tenor seems to assume the students are in the [Christian] Fundamentalist movement.
There is certainly a good size subsection of American Christians who consider themselves fundamentalists. However the term is often applied to though not accepted by other evangelical Christians and also applied though not accepted by people in other religions.
I do not know of any group that accepts 'scientism'.
I was wrong. I assumed the negative defintion was more prevalent than it is, based on not much more than my experience. No one uses the term around these parts as a self descriptor unless they don't understand it. Nevertheless, that was an inappropriate assumption.
Nowhere near as inappropriate as Justinian and Croesus' ridiculous caricatures of me based on it, but wrong nonetheless.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
OMFG. No. I'm. Not.
I have explained that to you several times. Either you don't have the capacity to grasp that, or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.
That post you keep linking to DOES NOT SAY THAT. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
So you keep saying. And then contradicting that assertion. Your posts seem to boil down to a repeating series of "using your senses to examine reality cannot be justified, just assumed" followed by "I totally didn't say that! It's totally valid to examine reality with your senses." Then there's usually some bit about how you can distinguish between things you can and can't examine with your senses and that there's some kind of rational process involved in making this determination, but then insist that there's no rational reason to believe sensible observations are any more or less valid than anything else. It's not that I can't grasp what you're saying, it's that I'm getting whiplash from the vacillations.
Taking your proffered example of climate science, some would say making observations using our senses is a good way to understand what's going on. Others postulate that taking large amounts of money from petrochemical companies and then telling them what they want to hear is the best way to gain climatological knowledge. You claim to hold that the whole observation thing is an axiom, unjustifiable by any rational means and simply assumed. If that's the case, why wouldn't the "telling oil companies what they want to hear" method be just a valid? It can (and has) also been assumed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I have come late to this thread, but it bears on some issues that interest me, so rather than respectfully hold back and let it pursue its current recondite philosophical course, I thought I’d just barge in and disrupt it by riding a couple of banal hobby horses.
(Golly, that’s not like me…..)
Zyklon B symbolizes the gap between science and scientism.
An extremely efficient pesticide, it was a product of modern Western science, and manufactured by one of the world’s leading scientific nations.
At the same time, science has absolutely nothing to say about the question of whether or not it was evil to use it to exterminate Jews, and it is sheer scientism to pretend that it has.
Even if science descriptively exposes the pseudo-science of Nazi race theories, or analyses the neurological processes that are associated with anti-Semitism, it still cannot say anything prescriptive to the person who says, “I just hate Jews and will do anything in my power to eradicate them”, because as David Hume showed, it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, whether in ethics, justice, relationships or aesthetics.
There was an egregious manifestation of scientism a few years ago when those opposed to the production of fetuses for stem cells were accused of being anti-scientific.
No, they were anti-scientism, not anti-science, because the fact that something can be done (such as build and drop a nuclear device) says nothing about whether it should be done, which is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I think he's arguing that once a marker for love is physically measurable then love can be detected in any circumstance by looking for that marker. Which would be fine if we were looking at simple systems, but as the system gets more complex, that aint necessarily so. For instance with oxytocin, the Love Hormone - usually if there is a moderate amount of oxytocin i nthe blood stream, then someone is more or less in a loving state, or has been in the past few tens of seconds. However, during late stage pregnancy, oxytocin is released that is nothing to do with the mothers emotional state. If the mother is relatively unstressed and undistracted, then the prresence of ocytocin will tend to gravitate her towards a loving emotional state. But other emotions are also possible ... and here comes the complexity of human emotion, because in this state it is possible to feel love (throgh the effects of oxytocin) and stress or fear at the same time. Or the latter two can blank out the oxytocin effects if they are stroing enough. One could also look at hgeart rate variability - it falls into a very neat 10 second sinusoid when someone is ain a loving/appreciative state, but can also fall into that if they force a 10 second breath cycle. And so it goes on. The fact that love can be fooled with - by oxytocin injection or by forced breath cycling or maybe other means does not mean that love is unreliable, but it does somewhat make more difficult a consistent definition through means of measurement. How to measure a rose with a ruler?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
OMFG. No. I'm. Not.
I have explained that to you several times. Either you don't have the capacity to grasp that, or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.
That post you keep linking to DOES NOT SAY THAT.
So you keep saying. And then contradicting that assertion. Your posts seem to boil down to a repeating series of "using your senses to examine reality cannot be justified, just assumed" followed by "I totally didn't say that! It's totally valid to examine reality with your senses." Then there's usually some bit about how you can distinguish between things you can and can't examine with your senses and that there's some kind of rational process involved in making this determination, but then insist that there's no rational reason to believe sensible observations are any more or less valid than anything else. It's not that I can't grasp what you're saying, it's that I'm getting whiplash from the vacillations.
Taking your proffered example of climate science, some would say making observations using our senses is a good way to understand what's going on. Others postulate that taking large amounts of money from petrochemical companies and then telling them what they want to hear is the best way to gain climatological knowledge. You claim to hold that the whole observation thing is an axiom, unjustifiable by any rational means and simply assumed. If that's the case, why wouldn't the "telling oil companies what they want to hear" method be just a valid? It can (and has) also been assumed.
This will be the last time I dance this round with you. If you don't get it this time, the next waltz will be in hell.
This thread is about the phenomenon "scientism." My argument is that this phenomenon (which some here have said is not a real thing, but merely a slur, but they can thrash that one out) is based on the idea that only that which is empirically verifiable is valid. This principle itself is not empirically verifiable.
Does that mean empiricism itself is invalid? No. I have not said this. I don't care what you think I've said (you have not only misappropriated me, but you have actually misquoted me twice on this thread). I would be cautious in the use of empirical methods, but I think they have their place in the universe that we see laid out before us. Otherwise, things like medicine would be impossible.
What are the boundaries of empiricism, and science itself? That is an interesting question, not one that I have directly addressed here. I think there should be limits, I am not postulating here what they should be. To paraphrase Galileo (badly) "measure what is measurable, and what is not measurable maybe try and understand some other way."
This is done. I am not interested in what you think I am saying, or how you misread or misunderstood me. That is your problem, not mine.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Sometimes, if what you object to is an attitude that is narrowly dismissive of anything outside its ambit, snarling at it is the only way forward.
IME, snarling causes people to dig in their heels and stop their ears all the sooner.
You mean like this?
[ 07. October 2014, 08:33: 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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You cannot politely compare the two. If we're sticking to politeness we're going to have to nuke this entire thread - as it is about a derogatory slur that was invented to sling mud at one group of people. ]
I'll grant you that, but that doesn't make it OK, does it? quote:
We're also going to have to carpet-bomb significant parts of theology; any that involve hell and who belongs there. It is very hard to come up with anything more insulting than the insults and accusations that were slung by the early church at each other.
Ah now, waaaait a minute, this is the field where I can reasonably claim expertise, and when you go around saying that the guys in the early church were absolute bastards to each other I'm going to have to stand up and say, uh, yeah.
Actually, fair point.
Damn you, Cyril of Alexandria.
quote:
That said, you really can't compare the beards of comic fans and theologians.
Theologians wash, basically.
(In a previous life I remember seeing on a large BBS for RPGs a long, unironic thread entitled "do you shower?" with an unintentionally hilarious lively discussion of the pros and cons of soap. No lie.)
quote:
And my personal apologies - especially as you've been the single most polite and balanced person in this discussion and I'm coming in from a position about three steps outside my personal one.
No harm, no foul, no offence taken. I'm actually enjoying this thread, and finding much to agree and disagree with on both sides.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The thread has moved on, but I wanted to say that I don't think the juxtaposition of "user interface of a smartphone" with "oeuvre of a French literary theorist" is a particularly compelling illustration of how STEM is better understood by humanities people than the humanities are by STEM people. The former is an aspect of technology that is specifically (even uniquely) intended to be accessible to non-specialists, and the latter is ... not. (I presume.)
One might as well compare a popular TV drama (if you'll accept performing arts as part of the humanities, accessible even to engineers and such) with this sophomore level class in quantum mechanics.
Yeah, but actually that was sort of my point. Both are complex, nuanced and valid forms of post-doctoral study, and 90% of STEM research (so most stuff except possibly the more abstract forms of maths and physics) has an intended end outcome that is actually way easier to describe than Humanities research.
And by the time you get to a Humanities postdoc, you are doing stuff like investigating the nuances of the philosophy of Maurice Blanchot (like another academic I made art with, and by the way, everyone should read Blanchot because it's beautiful) and that's the point.
Even Physics can be explained more easily: when they found the Higgs Boson, anyone can understand that some of the cleverest men who ever lived built a machine that could see smaller things than anyone has ever seen before (which I know isn't exactly what happened, but it is an accurate enough approximation that my eight-year-old son could grasp).
The standouts in humanities are History and Archaeology, I would think, which have relatively straightforward outcomes: like the historian I met there trying to write a history of the copper industry in Swansea, thinking about what that did to the city, and what effects that will have on the regeneration of an area that has in places literally seen nothing grow for 100 years, except already this is less obvious than the guy I worked with who is building tidal energy turbines.
STEM research creates stuff, by its nature. Humanities research creates ideas. Neither is superior; together they create a totality of learning.
But by its very nature STEM research has demonstrable material results that research of the same level in humanities simply doesn't have, meaning that even if an outsider doesn't get the maths or physics, they can go yeah, of course, smartphones, tidal turbines, cures for HIV, Large Hadron Colliders, teeny tiny particles that the universe is made from.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Take a piece of paper, and from the left side to the middle write down STEM fields in order of their "applied" nature, with the most "conceptual" (mathematicians, theoretical physicists) on the left edge, and the most applied (engineers) towards the middle. Now do the same for the humanities, with the most "conceptual" ones (philosophers, critical theorists) on the right edge, and the most applied ones (linguists, historians) towards the middle. (Sorry, I can't do this so well for the humanities myself.) The people in the middle always have been close to each other in a practical sense, because they have been trying to get things done together.
But in my opinion what is happening in our days is that the left and right edge of that piece of paper - at an apparent "maximum distance" - are getting bent towards each other. Eventually I believe they will be joined, turning that piece of paper into a torus. We are, I believe, in the process of re-establishing a coherent system of ideas and knowledge.
I don't really have that much clean evidence for this in my hands. But I find that much of the speculative side of theoretical physics really is starting to sound like philosophy and even a bit like myths, just with lots of maths in it. And neuroscience, where I work now, just has the mind-body problem lurking at every corner, with people constantly running into problem of qualia and philosophical zombies whether they realise it or not. Furthermore, when I got into "philosophical religion" I found that my "modern physics" mindset seemed to make it really easy to track its arguments. A modern physicist has to go intellectually where common sense and intuition are starting to collapse on themselves, and theology is just like that. And arguing by analogy is rather similar to the typical "imagining a simpler related system that I understand to guess where the truth of the complex system is located" that physicist do all the time.
Anyway, I think we are heading towards a new synthesis now. And I don't mean a synthesis in the sense of a "Theory of Everything", but rather a re-consolidation of human approaches to ideas and knowledge. Give it a few hundred years...
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm open, show me.
I can't show you a lack of continued evidence. Your post seemed to imply there was some, then it somehow disappeared. What do you mean by that?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Take a piece of paper, and from the left side to the middle write down STEM fields in order of their "applied" nature, with the most "conceptual" (mathematicians, theoretical physicists) on the left edge, and the most applied (engineers) towards the middle. Now do the same for the humanities, with the most "conceptual" ones (philosophers, critical theorists) on the right edge, and the most applied ones (linguists, historians) towards the middle. (Sorry, I can't do this so well for the humanities myself.) The people in the middle always have been close to each other in a practical sense, because they have been trying to get things done together.
But in my opinion what is happening in our days is that the left and right edge of that piece of paper - at an apparent "maximum distance" - are getting bent towards each other. Eventually I believe they will be joined, turning that piece of paper into a torus. We are, I believe, in the process of re-establishing a coherent system of ideas and knowledge.
I don't really have that much clean evidence for this in my hands. But I find that much of the speculative side of theoretical physics really is starting to sound like philosophy and even a bit like myths, just with lots of maths in it. And neuroscience, where I work now, just has the mind-body problem lurking at every corner, with people constantly running into problem of qualia and philosophical zombies whether they realise it or not. Furthermore, when I got into "philosophical religion" I found that my "modern physics" mindset seemed to make it really easy to track its arguments. A modern physicist has to go intellectually where common sense and intuition are starting to collapse on themselves, and theology is just like that. And arguing by analogy is rather similar to the typical "imagining a simpler related system that I understand to guess where the truth of the complex system is located" that physicist do all the time.
Anyway, I think we are heading towards a new synthesis now. And I don't mean a synthesis in the sense of a "Theory of Everything", but rather a re-consolidation of human approaches to ideas and knowledge. Give it a few hundred years...
I sort of hope you're right, I really genuinely do, because that's a picture that inspires, but in my experience in academic institutions, in administration, teaching, and as an attached observer, what I'm seeing is a ragged tear down the middle of the sheet.
But my experience is by no means everything.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Same with the body therapies and psychotherapies - there is a convergence of model and technique and the exciting thing is that it looks as if there is some coherent shape emerging for the body-mind phenomenon.
It's a shame that at the same time the legislators would like to cut off the body from the head for sake of professional demarcation.
When our jaws shrunk and our brains expanded (due to less structural mechanical requirement for massive cranial bones and ridges), that point in eviolution also more or less defined the relationship bewteen structural musculoskeletal function and brain morphology. And going from "we only use 10% of our brains", we now know that maybe 25% of the brain is taken up by a premotor cortex which also symbolically represents (in terms of motor acftivity) everything that we read, think, see, hear and feel.
The feedback loop sensory -> interpretative -> movement ->sensory that the brain mediates relies on a willingness to be a fully commited experiential participant in the body, and a lot of the scientism arguments head back to Descartes and a denial of the proper body-mind sensory-motor relationship. If it isn't in a peer reviewed journal or capable of being analysed and measured in a reductionist fashion, it doesn't exist and it's an illusion to be derided and ignored. And of course, unless embodiment is taken seriously, the usual background level of sensory activity is so "normal" and familiar that it doesn't appear to have anything missing. Not only are the blind leading the blind, but some of them are through apparently intellectual argument, persuading the half blind that they don't need their eyes at all.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
One might call it a war between holism and reductionism?
I too hope Ingo is right and the twain shall one day again meet. I have heard it said that quantum physics is the beginning , but I don't know enough about it to know if that is true. Sounds like Ingo thinks it might be tho so perhaps there is hope.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
One might call it a war between holism and reductionism?
I too hope Ingo is right and the twain shall one day again meet. I have heard it said that quantum physics is the beginning , but I don't know enough about it to know if that is true. Sounds like Ingo thinks it might be tho so perhaps there is hope.
Yes - and yes there is always hope.
And the level of noise coming from this particular conflict suggests that we're getting close to a shift. The difficulty is that there are not many people like Ingo who can talk about the subject and not simultaneously expose the stuffing from their teddy bear.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But by its very nature STEM research has demonstrable material results that research of the same level in humanities simply doesn't have, meaning that even if an outsider doesn't get the maths or physics, they can go yeah, of course, smartphones, tidal turbines, cures for HIV, Large Hadron Colliders, teeny tiny particles that the universe is made from.
OK. I guess I was interpreting "having an idea what humanities (or STEM) people actually do" a little differently. But I also wouldn't have said that
quote:
Even Physics can be explained more easily: when they found the Higgs Boson, anyone can understand that some of the cleverest men who ever lived built a machine that could see smaller things than anyone has ever seen before (which I know isn't exactly what happened, but it is an accurate enough approximation that my eight-year-old son could grasp).
is much of an explanation of the search for the Higgs boson. (You could be talking about the invention of the microscope in 16th century Holland.)
I'd be surprised if it were really impossible to come up with a condensed, approximate "explanation" that did similar justice to the work of Roland Barthes - though I wouldn't be surprised if people were less interested in it, if for no other reason than he didn't spend $4.75B writing it. (I presume.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But I also wouldn't have said that
quote:
Even Physics can be explained more easily: when they found the Higgs Boson, anyone can understand that some of the cleverest men who ever lived built a machine that could see smaller things than anyone has ever seen before (which I know isn't exactly what happened, but it is an accurate enough approximation that my eight-year-old son could grasp).
is much of an explanation of the search for the Higgs boson. (You could be talking about the invention of the microscope in 16th century Holland.)
Well, fair point. I was being about as reductionist as it's possible to be there.
quote:
I'd be surprised if it were really impossible to come up with a condensed, approximate "explanation" that did similar justice to the work of Roland Barthes - though I wouldn't be surprised if people were less interested in it, if for no other reason than he didn't spend $4.75B writing it. (I presume.)
Gotta be honest, I've read Barthes in painful detail.
Let's try: "He wrote that you could find out something about how you read stories (and about yourself) by chopping up the stories into tiny bits and examining each of those bits in turn."
See, it's still not as immediately inspiring as Higgs Bosons.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
OK. I guess I was interpreting "having an idea what humanities (or STEM) people actually do" a little differently.
IME most people are more interested in what you're going to come out with at the end. A person who writes about the dissection of an idea (like Maurice Blanchot writes about being and death, and living, and the fear of death) is going to come out at the end with a book about that idea. A powerful, valuable book, but the idea, what it contains, is a thing that it harder to get a grip on.
A scientist is going to come out with a way of doing stuff. Or a way of making something. Or is going to find something. Or make something. Here is the Higgs Boson. Here is a way to make weird swirly pictures and holy fuck don't they look like leaves? Here is the world's fastest car.
I actually know someone working on the bid to make a car that goes 1000mph and the whole point of the project is that it will excite people and make them want to study science. Humanities, and I speak as a holder of two humanities degrees and the conviction to fight for the death for the humanities, simply can't compete with that sort of thing.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Justinian - to point out the neuro chemical affects of love is to continue down the same erroneous path and to tangle up the mess we've been trying to untangle this whole time.
No. Your attempt to say that a dualistic universe in which there are no observable physical consequences of events is creating this mess. This attempt to hypersimplify the universe and put it into nice neat boxes simply doesn't work.
quote:
Love is a bit easier to demonstrate this with than God. You cannot look at chemical reactions or brain scans and say "this is the effect of love" before answering the much more important ontological question of what love actually is. Otherwise, how could you know what you are measuring?
And this comes from the mistaken epistemological belief that you must always have a complete and accurate theory before you can look at what is in front of your nose.
quote:
I would argue that it is actually impossible to do this, because love is such an important phenomenon, impacting us in so many ways, often contingent and unpredictable, that to point to a colour on a brain scan and say "this is love" is absurd.
And this is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on. When you look at the scan you do not say "This is love" you say "Love's consequences include this." If there is no observable consequence of love then you are making the claim that "Love's consequences are absolutely nothing." A brave claim and not one I would care to defend.
In other words height is not the measure of a human any more than neurochemistry is the measure of love. But every human has a height and you can measure that height. Your claim is akin to the idea that because height isn't the full measure of a human (it absolutely isn't) there is nothing to be gained from measuring heights (my medical colleagues would disagree) and therefore you should treat humans as heightless.
quote:
I guess you could do this by asking people about the effects of faith in God, and try and measure those results, or perhaps compare the brain scans of two people, one who believes in God and one who does not. But this wouldn't confirm or disconfirm the existence of God, just make some (quite dubious) observations about the effects of belief. Even that would be hopelessly reductionistic.
It would also confuse the existence of God with the existence of belief in God. Evidence for belief in Santa does not demonstrate the existence of Santa.
But if all you have to offer is belief then this means that God has no impact on this world.
quote:
In short, you continue down the line of answering questions that cannot be answered empirically, using strictly empirical methods.
Nope. This is your misunderstanding. The nature and total properties of God can probably not be answered empirically. Existence is an empirical property. Actions can be empirically measured. Much as the height of a person can be measured even if it does not tell the whole story.
quote:
Which must lead to reductionism, and bypasses the difficult questions about ontology, that if not addressed will lead inevitably to the wrong assumptions, followed by fallacious conclusions.
The reductionism here is coming from you. It is the sort of reductionism that says "Because we can not get everything we therefore can not get anything. And therefore we should give up before we've started."
To get to your position you need to start with the assumption that (a) God has no measurable properties and (b) God undertakes no meaningful actions in this world. In short God has no impact on the universe and can not be reached from the universe. I fail to see a practical difference between such an apathetic God and hardline atheism.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You cannot politely compare the two. If we're sticking to politeness we're going to have to nuke this entire thread - as it is about a derogatory slur that was invented to sling mud at one group of people. ]
I'll grant you that, but that doesn't make it OK, does it?
This reaches a fundamental problem where politeness and religion intersect. It's also why any group of radicals is perceived as impolite. There are some things it is literally impossible to say politely - anything along the lines of "Your entire worldview is wrong and you've been wasting your time" (add "and you deserve to be punished eternally" and it gets so much worse). All you can do is dress it up prettily.
quote:
quote:
That said, you really can't compare the beards of comic fans and theologians.
Theologians wash, basically.
(In a previous life I remember seeing on a large BBS for RPGs a long, unironic thread entitled "do you shower?" with an unintentionally hilarious lively discussion of the pros and cons of soap. No lie.)
I only wish I found that hard to believe. Although I do find it hard to believe that everyone on the anti-soap side was serious.
quote:
STEM research creates stuff, by its nature. Humanities research creates ideas. Neither is superior; together they create a totality of learning.
But by its very nature STEM research has demonstrable material results that research of the same level in humanities simply doesn't have, meaning that even if an outsider doesn't get the maths or physics, they can go yeah, of course, smartphones, tidal turbines, cures for HIV, Large Hadron Colliders, teeny tiny particles that the universe is made from.
Yup. Also by their nature it's much easier to tell when a STEM subject has veered off the rails and is either doing not much more than gazing at its own navel, or is as captured by outside interests that are against their stated mission goals as many economics departments are.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Yup. Also by their nature it's much easier to tell when a STEM subject has veered off the rails and is either doing not much more than gazing at its own navel, or is as captured by outside interests that are against their stated mission goals as many economics departments are.
Yeah, completely. Although someone mentioned the inventors of Zyklon B, or any Nazi science experiment project really, as precisely that: Science Gone Bad.
When Science Attacks.
You've Been Scienced.
I'll grant you that no one is as vulnerable to outside interests as Economics and Business. But then, they are also departments that do have demonstrable outcomes (ie, money).
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Wood: Humanities, and I speak as a holder of two humanities degrees and the conviction to fight for the death for the humanities, simply can't compete with that sort of thing.
Still, it seems that the Sciences have more difficulty in attracting new students than the Humanities, at least in my country.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Wood: Humanities, and I speak as a holder of two humanities degrees and the conviction to fight for the death for the humanities, simply can't compete with that sort of thing.
Still, it seems that the Sciences have more difficulty in attracting new students than the Humanities, at least in my country.
Would that it were the case here.
Hence my woes with STEM supremacists upthread.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
I guess you could do this by asking people about the effects of faith in God, and try and measure those results, or perhaps compare the brain scans of two people, one who believes in God and one who does not. But this wouldn't confirm or disconfirm the existence of God, just make some (quite dubious) observations about the effects of belief. Even that would be hopelessly reductionistic.
It would also confuse the existence of God with the existence of belief in God.
That's exactly what he said.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Evidence for belief in Santa does not demonstrate the existence of Santa.
We had leprechauns, moon made of cheese and now we have Santa clause as analogies for the existence of God.
It seems you are appealing to ridicule as a rhetorical device because you are unable to deal logically and philosophically with the question at hand.
I'm just surprised the flying spaghetti monster hasn't been mentioned yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But if all you have to offer is belief then this means that God has no impact on this world.
And here we have another left field entry. Alan was talking precisely about the belief in God affecting things which you dismissed as being not the same as the actual existence of God, then critisized him for belief having no bearing on reality. Holy Shit you're all over the godamn place in your logic.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
In short, you continue down the line of answering questions that cannot be answered empirically, using strictly empirical methods.
Nope. This is your misunderstanding. The nature and total properties of God can probably not be answered empirically.
HUZZAH! ONE ATHEIST THAT GETS IT!
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Existence is an empirical property.
Says who? Prove it. There is no evidence to believe such a thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Which must lead to reductionism, and bypasses the difficult questions about ontology, that if not addressed will lead inevitably to the wrong assumptions, followed by fallacious conclusions.
The reductionism here is coming from you. It is the sort of reductionism that says "Because we can not get everything we therefore can not get anything. And therefore we should give up before we've started."
That's not what AC is saying at all. You're getting confused like Croesus is getting confused with DK.
I notice no rebuttal to my argument from ignorance btw. I'll assume I'm correct then.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
No Justinian - the misunderstanding here is yours. You are not reading my posts, but what you want to hear. I never, ever claimed that you need a complete theory of something before you start investigating it. I said nothing that in any way resembles such a thing. I am saying that your continued category error is based on the fact that you have bypassed ontology and gone straight to epistemology. In fact, to claim I've said that you need a complete theory before proceeding is almost the opposite of what I'm sayjng. If you start with the wrong ontology, you adopt the wrong axioms, and proceed to try and answer ontological questions empirically. Which, once again (and hopefully for the last time) is a category error.
And your interpretation of what I said about love is just as faulty. I am of course not saying love doesn't exist. However, if I was to try to demonstrate empirically the significance of love, and it's significance informs us what it is, not merely its effects (and certainly not its atomic structure) - as I say, if I were to try and do that, I would fail. Because, and here it is again - some things cannot be established using empirical "proof."
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No Justinian - the misunderstanding here is yours. You are not reading my posts, but what you want to hear. I never, ever claimed that you need a complete theory of something before you start investigating it. I said nothing that in any way resembles such a thing. I am saying that your continued category error is based on the fact that you have bypassed ontology and gone straight to epistemology.
Given that your posts frequently and directly contradict each other in this thread I'm not sure what I'm meant to do.
And here where you are being clear you are also demonstrating you miss the point and are hideously reductionist.
Ontology without epistemology is the creation of fictional constructs. Neither more nor less. You can create whatever you like with just ontology. And without epistemology you have absolutely no way of telling whether what you are talking about is a fictional construct.
If you start with ontology (you've got to start somewhere) then a very early question needs to be the epistemological one. Because either all possible entities exist or you need an arrogance far beyond that of the mythical scientismist to be able to claim that your unverified hypothetical construct is in fact a real thing.
quote:
And your interpretation of what I said about love is just as faulty. I am of course not saying love doesn't exist. However, if I was to try to demonstrate empirically the significance of love, and it's significance informs us what it is, not merely its effects (and certainly not its atomic structure) - as I say, if I were to try and do that, I would fail. Because, and here it is again - some things cannot be established using empirical "proof."
Indeed. Science is normally very poorly placed to answer the question "Why?" But the question "Why?" follows the questions "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "How"
And the answers to those assuming the line you and Evensong appear to be both arguing are "Absolutely nothing", "Nowhere or everywhere - the two are indistinguishable", and "No time or all times", and "Through methods that are indistinguishable from them having happened by natural causes".
All of these, of course, have consequences for the Why.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: I'm firmly on the atheist side of course, and have only seen the word scientism or scientist used by believers against non-believers and think the phrase, 'sneer word' is appropriate.
Out of interest, how do you stand towards the definition of Scientism that was given in the opening post of this thread:
quote:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that physical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints
From your other posts on the Ship, you seem to have a rather far-reaching view on the authority of Science. How far does it go?
I think that the words ‘universal applicability’ sound right; the words ‘physical science … most authoritative approach are correct. This is not of course to state that this is so to the exclusion of others but it is the best we have if we want to have reliable, testable information.
Is Science the ‘Most valuable part of human learning’? – That is a matter of personal judgement of course, butscientific knowledge is always there, a foundation constantly being strengthened. I set this against the foundation of religious beliefs which proposes god/s of some sort, all of which remain elusive and whose presence or absence does not alter the natural universe.
My view of the authority of Science is that I am confident of its being the best we have BECAUSE the Theories of Science are always subject to revision and updating when better, more correct information becomes available. Of course, mistakes are made – scientists are human beings after all – but we have only to look around us to see where it has brought us today to appreciate that it works. From the accumulated scientific and philosophical information throughout history, we know that not only should the views of all those in the world of the ~Arts be given the very high respect and authority they deserve but that their survival value must have been as strong as the ability to find food and stay alive. But these are evolved skills, contained in evolved human brains. This fact can be taken for granted.
Actually, having spent quite some time this afternoon thinking about the subject (thank you, LeRoc!), writing, deleting and re-writing, I don’t think I really know what scientism is or whether it is a necessary word!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No Justinian - the misunderstanding here is yours. You are not reading my posts, but what you want to hear. I never, ever claimed that you need a complete theory of something before you start investigating it. I said nothing that in any way resembles such a thing. I am saying that your continued category error is based on the fact that you have bypassed ontology and gone straight to epistemology.
Given that your posts frequently and directly contradict each other in this thread I'm not sure what I'm meant to do.
You have asserted this without evidence. I'm dismissing it without evidence.
quote:
And here where you are being clear you are also demonstrating you miss the point and are hideously reductionist.
No, the poster who has been unrelentingly reductionist on this thread is you. Your approach attempts to reduce phenomena that cannot be established by empirics to empirics.
quote:
Ontology without epistemology is the creation of fictional constructs. Neither more nor less. You can create whatever you like with just ontology. And without epistemology you have absolutely no way of telling whether what you are talking about is a fictional construct.
Never claimed I was insisting on ontology without epistemology. Straw man.
quote:
If you start with ontology (you've got to start somewhere) then a very early question needs to be the epistemological one. Because either all possible entities exist or you need an arrogance far beyond that of the mythical scientismist to be able to claim that your unverified hypothetical construct is in fact a real thing.
You do have to start somewhere. You have to start with ontology. This is the path Heidegger takes when he tries to roll back Descartes error of confusing ontology with epistemology. You can ask epistemological questions as soon as you like. As long as you don't bypass ontology, because to do so is to risk trying to answer or understand phenomena in ways that that they cannot be answered or understood. quote:
quote:
And your interpretation of what I said about love is just as faulty. I am of course not saying love doesn't exist. However, if I was to try to demonstrate empirically the significance of love, and it's significance informs us what it is, not merely its effects (and certainly not its atomic structure) - as I say, if I were to try and do that, I would fail. Because, and here it is again - some things cannot be established using empirical "proof."
Indeed. Science is normally very poorly placed to answer the question "Why?" But the question "Why?" follows the questions "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "How"
And the answers to those assuming the line you and Evensong appear to be both arguing are "Absolutely nothing", "Nowhere or everywhere - the two are indistinguishable", and "No time or all times", and "Through methods that are indistinguishable from them having happened by natural causes"..
No idea what you are trying to say here.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Justinian, you seem to have been saying in recent posts that the existence of God would have empirical effects that could be observed by scientific methods. You follow that with an assertion that these effects have not been observed, and therefore based on empirical evidence the existence of God is disproved - or, at least, not positively affirmed. Have I followed your argument accurately so far?
You probably know this, but may I suggest
this talk titled The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality by physicist and skeptic Sean Carroll. I think it was very interesting and the discussion I followed concerning it was too.
--------------------
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
quote:
SusanDoris: I think that the words ‘universal applicability’ sound right; the words ‘physical science … most authoritative approach are correct. This is not of course to state that this is so to the exclusion of others but it is the best we have if we want to have reliable, testable information.
This is contradictory. I'm trying to ascertain if your position coincides with Scientism of course; from what I've read from you on the Ship you seem to be at least close to it. But I'm not sure if I'll get a clear enough answer to make that ascertainment.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Actually, what I've consistently argued on this thread is that science is legitimate and useful within certain boundaries. It is when practitioners transgress those, and attempt to address questions that cannot be answered by science, that we run into the problem of scientism. Among other things.
Sorry to sound a bit daft, but can you please point me in the direction of a couple of such questions? Thank you.
--------------------
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
do angels exist?
what is consciousness?
is everything amenable to reductionist scientific analysis?
what was my ancestors name 153 generations ago?
what emotional state was I in yesterday morning?
have I ever had a past life that affects this life?
is there such a thing as the collective unconscious?
given that some children are born with ambiguous genitalia, what is the ethical response to this problem?
to you internally perceive the colour purple the same way that I perceive it?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I actually know someone working on the bid to make a car that goes 1000mph and the whole point of the project is that it will excite people and make them want to study science. Humanities, and I speak as a holder of two humanities degrees and the conviction to fight for the death for the humanities, simply can't compete with that sort of thing.
Not all STEM is sexy engineering. Ask non-applied mathematicians how easy they find it to compete for funds or explain to the public what they are doing. Ask the many fundamental scientists who have to be very optimistic that their research will one day cure cancer, or the like, and who dread the research councils' "Impact" section on grant proposals as an exercise in wishful pretending.
For that matter, when our university finished making our "REF impact" statement to the government, they had a day long workshop for academics to get them to be more "impactful". As part of this, they had four speakers presenting impact cases that the university really liked. Here are the topics:
- The Impact of Digital Rome
- Increasing access to effective psychological treatments
- Impact of Languages in War and Conflict
- How can research influence policy?
Notice something? This was for the entire university, but the only thing that was STEM was a talk from psychology (and psychology is borderline STEM, frankly). The last talk was from a guy who could be considered a STEM person (agriculture), but he really was speaking about politics, namely about his dealings and wheelings in Westminster. So, apparently good impact is primarily delivered by the humanities around here...
As for the supposed academic divide: one of my friends here is an archaeologist, and he regularly collaborates with people from the maths department. The head of our neuroimaging facilities is a linguist, a former student of Noah Chomsky. And before that, a hermit. No, really. I have tried pretty hard to get a collaboration / grant proposal with one of our resident philosophers going, and while that didn't work out I'm now negotiating a collaboration with a psychologist and a different philosopher. I share supervision of a PhD student with someone from pharmacy, and of a postdoc with someone from meteorology and the aforementioned ex-hermit linguist neuroimager. I have a PhD in perturbative quantum chromodynamics and I'm about to start a project building a robotic frog faithful in its motion control to biological recordings. Today I have been asked to collaborate in an EU proposal aimed at ADHD, and I was member of a funding panel on dementia tech. Right now I'm working on a paper about spatiotemporal neural bursting in anaesthesia. The last paper I published was about the neural anatomy in layer II/III. Nevertheless, many of my colleagues probably know me best for creating really spiffy scientific movies / animations. And of course in my free time I pretend to have a clue about Catholic theology and Thomist philosophy on SoF.
Yes, the old science world with its clear cut boundaries between disciplines is still very much around, in particular also among the research councils, and it is a pain in the butt. But frankly, a new science is rising and it is all about crossing over and working the edges. And I think we are just at the start of that. Furthermore, I think we had the pendulum swing way to the specialisation side, and it is now swinging back to the polymaths. We basically needed to develop the tech (in particular: computers) and collaborative methods to keep multiple balls in the air, now that they all have become huge and heavy. Leonardo da Vinci juggled by his own power, we are learning how to team-juggle with electronic power. These are exciting times for people with good and flexible brains...
--------------------
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
Le Roc
Sorry about that!! I'm afraid I'll have to blame having to listen not read.
itsarundo
Well, I did ask, I suppose!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) back tomorrow.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, the old science world with its clear cut boundaries between disciplines is still very much around, in particular also among the research councils, and it is a pain in the butt. But frankly, a new science is rising and it is all about crossing over and working the edges. And I think we are just at the start of that. Furthermore, I think we had the pendulum swing way to the specialisation side, and it is now swinging back to the polymaths. We basically needed to develop the tech (in particular: computers) and collaborative methods to keep multiple balls in the air, now that they all have become huge and heavy. Leonardo da Vinci juggled by his own power, we are learning how to team-juggle with electronic power. These are exciting times for people with good and flexible brains...
You are fortunate enough to be in a really good uni, mind. The uni I have connections with...
Isn't. Not really.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm open, show me.
I can't show you a lack of continued evidence. Your post seemed to imply there was some, then it somehow disappeared. What do you mean by that?
Show me evidence. Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Zyklon B symbolizes the gap between science and scientism.
I don't think so. Scientism does not say use of science is good. It demonstrates that science can be used for good or ill.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Sometimes, if what you object to is an attitude that is narrowly dismissive of anything outside its ambit, snarling at it is the only way forward.
IME, snarling causes people to dig in their heels and stop their ears all the sooner.
You mean like this?
Yes. It would be easy to make the argument, however, by that time the heels which were going to be dug were already. any
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
by IngoB
Today I have been asked to collaborate in an EU proposal aimed at ADHD
You would perform a great service if you happened to demonstrate a clear connection between ADHD-type brain activity and plagiocephaly (either cranial bone displacement or falx/tentorium displacement or deformation of the jugular foramen). Provided, that is, no silly bugger suggests we keep the "back to sleep program" and just perform surgical interventions on childrens heads.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Show me evidence. Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God.
Everything & anything. Cosmological argument. Done.
Would you like some fries with that?
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm open, show me.
I can't show you a lack of continued evidence. Your post seemed to imply there was some, then it somehow disappeared. What do you mean by that?
Show me evidence. Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God.
I could say that you're walking around in one.
This is interesting, though it doesn't strictly constitute repeatable evidence... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYZZsm5gqo
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Olives. Surely, olives are empirical proof that God exists.
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Olives. Surely, olives are empirical proof that God exists.
And they are definitely repeatable
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Actually, what I've consistently argued on this thread is that science is legitimate and useful within certain boundaries. It is when practitioners transgress those, and attempt to address questions that cannot be answered by science, that we run into the problem of scientism. Among other things.
Sorry to sound a bit daft, but can you please point me in the direction of a couple of such questions? Thank you.
Well, itsarumdo has given quite a few possible candidates, but I think I've outlined some examples in quite a bit of detail. But since you asked so nicely ...
What is love? (Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me ... Sorry. Had to). But seriously - science may be able to speculate as to which part of my brain certain chemicals combine or electrical impulses occur, and say something like "this is what happens to your brain when you feel love" or something. Without doing the ontological work to figure out what love is, such an approach is facile. I think that doing that work here is endless, as direct, non-metaphorical language (I mean in the general sense here, of course all language is fundamentally metaphorical) cannot adequately express the significance of love. Therefore measuring the effects of love is going to be impossible, since these are contingent and unpredictable, varying in different people and circumstances. The same applies to isolating the brain chemistry that "causes" love. Hopefully it is evident from this reasoning how wrong headed that must be. If we can't even agree as to what it is, what its effects are - how on earth can we muck around trying to measure it?
Another example is God. What is God, does God exist, does God not exist, what is the nature of God's interaction with the world? ... ad infinitum. Questions science cannot help us with.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dark Knight: That post you keep linking to DOES NOT SAY THAT.
I have to say that I'm with you here. I have the feeling that Crœsos didn't understand that post, and built up a whole line of reasoning based on his misunderstanding of it.
You didn't say "empiricism is worthless". You said "empiricism can't be proven and if Scientism claims to be able to explain / prove everything, then that's a problem".
Yup. I agree.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Sometimes, if what you object to is an attitude that is narrowly dismissive of anything outside its ambit, snarling at it is the only way forward.
IME, snarling causes people to dig in their heels and stop their ears all the sooner.
You mean like this?
Zing.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If you start with ontology (you've got to start somewhere) then a very early question needs to be the epistemological one. Because either all possible entities exist or you need an arrogance far beyond that of the mythical scientismist to be able to claim that your unverified hypothetical construct is in fact a real thing.
You do have to start somewhere. You have to start with ontology. This is the path Heidegger takes when he tries to roll back Descartes error of confusing ontology with epistemology. You can ask epistemological questions as soon as you like. As long as you don't bypass ontology, because to do so is to risk trying to answer or understand phenomena in ways that that they cannot be answered or understood.
Seems like you are both making this a linear process -- you start at point A, and proceed through points B, C, etc. -- when it's really iterative. Start with the chicken or the egg, who cares, but you keep tinkering, and going back and forth between making observations and changing your theory, including your ontology.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Yes, agreed and conceded. A linear scheme is not helpful here.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
"The disciplines that rely on the scientific method are sufficient to explain everything that happens in the Universe. All other disciplines can ultimately be reduced to those. We may not be able to make this reduction right now, but one day we will be." ... But I don't think it's self-contradictory.
The catch is the claim that modern natural science can explain everything in the universe, as you would have it, or some similar claim. Actually you may have intended to escape the trap by including the word "happens" in your statement. But that does not help. To the extent to which that breaks the self-application it also ceases to be representative of actual scientism.
I had the feeling that the addition of "one day we will be" gives me even more wiggle room. I got the idea; you'll want to apply this statement to itself. This basic assertion can't be derived from the scientific method. But to this, a scientismist could answer "... yet."
(I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. I'm actually getting rather fed up with people saying "Maybe Science isn't able to explain X, but one day it will be.")
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Show me evidence. Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God.
Everything & anything. Cosmological argument. Done.
Would you like some fries with that?
While you know I'm a big Feser fan, there has to be a simpler way to explain the argument surely.
What was wrong with my pictoral representation again? I showed it to you a year or so ago.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
