|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it?
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(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.")
You and me both.
--------------------
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 itsarumdo:
do angels exist?
That's an easy one! Angels are human ideas, depicted by artists as they imagine such beings would be, if they existed. So all that is needed here are evolved brains. If someone asserts that angels exist, it is up to them to provide a basis for a hypothesis and tests to prove them. quote:
what is consciousness?
A function of the brain/mind. Still has undefined areas, yes, but whatever else is not known about it, the fact that a living brain is necessary cannot be doubted, can it? quote:
is everything amenable to reductionist scientific analysis?
Hmmm, I think, yes, but this question need only be considered occasionally, otherwise it can be taken for granted. quote:
what was my ancestors name 153 generations ago?
There is no doubt from a scientific point of view that you had such an ancestor and that he had a name, so if a record of it exists somewhere, it could be found using research tools and skills produced of course by living humans. quote:
what emotional state was I in yesterday morning?
Unless you were attached to some piece of brain sensing machine at the time and the results indicated some particular, known aspect of brain activity, then the only way that someone could know is if you gave the information. What other answer could you give to this question? quote:
have I ever had a past life that affects this life?
No. The circumstances of your ancestors’ lives and their genetic make-up could well affect you and your circumstances, but reincarnation? Definitely not!! quote:
is there such a thing as the collective unconscious?
No! Dr Sean Carroll can explain! quote:
given that some children are born with ambiguous genitalia, what is the ethical response to this problem?
Okay, a question like this needs (scientific) knowledge of the physical condition, consideration of what is the best option for the child concerned; but whatever decision is arrived at, it will be made by humans using physical brains, referring to the life experiences that they have had and that others before them have had and communicated by language. All morals and ethical ideas are as they are because humans have made them so. quote:
to you internally perceive the colour purple the same way that I perceive it?
For me personally, no, since all dark colours look the same to me! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) However, I understand scientist have invented machines which can analyse colours and identify them without the need for a human eye. I’ve heard of a little gadget which blind people can use to tell what colour garment they have picked up. It’s science all the way down, you know!!
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
[crosspost]
Almost as fed up as I get with those who say "science can't answer this question therefore God must exist".
[ 08. October 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Almost as fed up as I get with those who say "science can't answer this question therefore God must exist".
I'm not one of them.
--------------------
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 Marvin the Martian:
[crosspost]
Almost as fed up as I get with those who say "science can't answer this question therefore God must exist".
Science can answer the question, but empiricism can't.
Both "empiricism can't answer the question therefore God must exist"
and
"empiricism can't answer the question therefore God doesn't exist"
are a logical fallacy from the argument of ignorance. Neither are true.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
is everything amenable to reductionist scientific analysis?
Hmmm, I think, yes, but this question need only be considered occasionally, otherwise it can be taken for granted.
This is really the only answer we need, with respect, because all of your answers are reductionist.
What makes you think that is a legitimate approach?
--------------------
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 Marvin the Martian:
[crosspost]
Almost as fed up as I get with those who say "science can't answer this question therefore God must exist".
If that is expressed as a gap hypothesis (i.e. God gets shoehorned into the gaps in our knowledge, until tomorrow when science fills those gaps), then I agree.
I also think it is an illegitimate conclusion from the proposition that there certainly are many questions science cannot answer, and will never be able to answer, because they are not questions that can be investigated using science. To infer from that God's existence is a non sequitur.
That isn't what this thread is about, though.
[ 08. October 2014, 11:37: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
is everything amenable to reductionist scientific analysis?
Hmmm, I think, yes, but this question need only be considered occasionally, otherwise it can be taken for granted.
This is really the only answer we need, with respect, because all of your answers are reductionist.
What makes you think that is a legitimate approach?
It would actually be insane to live like this. For example, if I am wondering whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice-cream, probably I could be subject to various kinds of physiological tests, to find out which suits my taste-buds more at that moment. However, I can also go to the freezer, and choose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[crosspost]
Almost as fed up as I get with those who say "science can't answer this question therefore God must exist".
Actually, yes. I'm down with this, too. Both viewpoints are so very, very problematic.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It would actually be insane to live like this. For example, if I am wondering whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice-cream, probably I could be subject to various kinds of physiological tests, to find out which suits my taste-buds more at that moment. However, I can also go to the freezer, and choose.
Isn't "go to the freezer and choose" exactly what Susan means by "taken for granted"?
By which I mean that the process by which you decide which ice cream to have can (in principle) be described through 'reductionist scientific analysis', but that doesn't mean you have to do such an analysis every time you make a decision. That would be like saying you have to examine the performance of every rod and cone cell in your retinas every time you want to look at something.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It would actually be insane to live like this. For example, if I am wondering whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice-cream, probably I could be subject to various kinds of physiological tests, to find out which suits my taste-buds more at that moment. However, I can also go to the freezer, and choose.
Isn't "go to the freezer and choose" exactly what Susan means by "taken for granted"?
By which I mean that the process by which you decide which ice cream to have can (in principle) be described through 'reductionist scientific analysis', but that doesn't mean you have to do such an analysis every time you make a decision. That would be like saying you have to examine the performance of every rod and cone cell in your retinas every time you want to look at something.
Yes, but it's not that it 'can' be taken for granted; it has to be, otherwise life would be completely insane.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Thank you for your response, which I have much enjoyed thinking about and answering as best I can.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
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?
Yes, I do agree with you actually! It is, I think, all the overtones and variations of meaning of that one word, love, that give it a much greater significance in our minds and experience that is far beyond that of the ability to measure the brain’s workings. We could, I suppose, have different words for each aspect of it, but that wouldn’t work after so many thousands of years since we’ve had the word love. I love my family – a sentence that does not in any way express the multi-faceted feelings and emotions I have when I think of them, but from a scientific point of view, I appreciate that these are all reactions, sensations, emotional etc processes taking place in my brain and body. This does not diminish in any way the love I feel and to know that I have evolved to feel and understand this is far more exciting and magical to me than to believe it is because of some mystical, inexplicable something. Why should I want to fool myself into thinking that? quote:
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.
Maybe it is because believers do not like to accept no God, or perhaps more likely want there to be a mystical something beyond the reach of Science, and that's human nature. If, however, you feel that you communicate with God*, and vice versa, then these interactions would be connected with reality and therefore, have an effect which would be measurable. )
*No answer requested, but I will add a regular sceptic’s question – how do you know which god to worship, and what makes you so sure it is the right one?
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, but it's not that it 'can' be taken for granted; it has to be, otherwise life would be completely insane.
I'd say the same applies to any theory about how the decision making process works.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In short, the idea that science someday will be able to explain any X, where X is something that it cannot currently explain, is a confession of faith in science. In shorter, scientism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, the idea that science someday will be able to explain any X, where X is something that it cannot currently explain, is a confession of faith in science. In shorter, scientism.
Doesn't that make all forms of scientific research "scientism"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No. Science is not scientism.
It would seem to be, according to MT's formulation. Saying "we don't currently know how to formulate a vaccine for Ebola (for example), but pursuing these lines of research is likely to produce one" is, according to him, "a confession of faith in science" and therefore "scientism".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crśsos: It would seem to be, according to MT's formulation. Saying "we don't currently know how to formulate a vaccine for Ebola (for example), but pursuing these lines of research is likely to produce one" is, according to him, "a confession of faith in science" and therefore "scientism".
It is most definitely a confession of faith in Science. It becomes Scientism by the use of the word 'any' in mousethief's post: if you believe that Science can explain all X.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It is most definitely a confession of faith in Science. It becomes Scientism by the use of the word 'any' in mousethief's post: if you believe that Science can explain all X.
Given a world of limited resources and time, wouldn't the likely course be to stop at one Ebola vaccine, provided it was effective, and not try to develop all possible Ebola vaccines? I suppose you're right about that, but I'm not sure there's anyone who thinks science can or should be so exhaustive.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crśsos: Given a world of limited resources and time, wouldn't the likely course be to stop at one Ebola vaccine, provided it was effective, and not try to develop all possible Ebola vaccines? I suppose you're right about that, but I'm not sure there's anyone who thinks science can or should be so exhaustive.
I'm not sure if you grasp the range of the word 'all' here. I'm learning about Scientism on this thread while I'm posting about it, but as I understand it, one aspect Scientism is its claim of universality. It's not only that Science will be able to develop all possible Ebola vaccines, but that it will be able to explain everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
You're missing the point. "Any X" is absolutely everything and anything at all, not "any and every ebola vaxine". Mousethief's post had nothing to do about ebola vaxines; you brought that in.
It was about the blind faith that despite knowing that we are incapable of something now, nevertheless we are sure we will be capable in the future.
Until we've achieved X, we can't be sure that we will be able to. For some X's, there's probably a good chance that we'll get there. For others, it might be impossible.
(X-post with LeRoc)
[ 08. October 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
With respect Susan (and I do mean that - you at least have been polite) you've missed the point. My remarks about love are not meant to indicate there is a mystical "something" that you seem to be referring to. Rather, I was trying to explain that you cannot reduce love to what is going on in your brain - which is what you ended up doing. As I think AC made clear earlier, you can't describe what something is made of and then just step away and say "finished!" No - not even close.
In the case of love, we can't actually agree on what it is, what it should feel like, what its effects are, how it manifests, what causes it (I mean, what circumstances cause us to feel love, and what that feeling even feels like, at the risk of sounding tautological) - how on earth could we even begin to point to the brain and say "this is love right here"? More importantly - infinitely more importantly - what on earth would that even establish? It might have significance for a brain surgeon, or a neuroscientist like IngoB. Not terribly much for me.
I certainly have no intention of trying to diminish anyone's sense of wonder at the natural world, or what science has revealed. But if I want to understand the significance of phenomena that can't be empirically measured, why would I consult a set of methods that empirically measure stuff?
To do so would be an act of blind faith, rather than reason.
I think when you say things like "people want to believe" you have to be careful. People also want to believe all phenomena can be reduced to empiricism. I don't really understand why, just as you apparently don't understand the existence of religious faith.
Re the sceptic's question - it's a modern question of course. Prior to modernity, one typically (though not always) observed the religion of one's culture and region. As a modern person, I do compare religions - although admittedly I have only recently started doing this. If I found a religion that more adequately articulated the significance of my experience of the divine, I would convert. That hasn't happened yet. It might.
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's interesting how there is a lot of faith in the Brain being the seat of consciousness. In fact, this is one argument used time and time again to either repudiate or explain all kinds of numoinous phenomena.
"http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/pdf"
Given that this research indicates that credible memories of events occurring around the "dead" people occureed long after the nominal 30 seconds it takes for the brain to shut down with no blood supply....
a) consciousness is not strictly related to brain function - i.e. there may be a soft linkage between brain function and consciousness, but that is not fixed by virtue of blood flow, oxygen supply or associated physiological processes - and neiother is it fixed to EEG signals
b) biological death is not the same as death of consciousness
c) consciousness is not necessarily fixed to living tissue (though it preferentially resides there)
d) biological death is a transition in a similar way to conception/birth (into another life)
heading slightly off into the long grass, but still relevant.
[ 08. October 2014, 18:52: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
In the case of love, we can't actually agree on what it is, what it should feel like, what its effects are, how it manifests, what causes it (I mean, what circumstances cause us to feel love, and what that feeling even feels like,..
...how on earth could we even begin to point to the brain and say "this is love right here"? More importantly - infinitely more importantly - what on earth would that even establish?
We don't have to agree on what love is as a first step. The process could be more like discovering by the methods of science that when certain chemicals are present in the brain at certain levels, the subject reports feelings that are consistent with the way that the word "love" is commonly used. Doesn't matter whether such a discovery happens as part of an attempt to "research love" or as a chance by-product of a project with other aims.
What we call "love" may turn out not to be a single phenomenon, but a complex of effects that through scientific research we come to describe in more precise terms.
Such research probably won't explain the quality of the feeling. In the same way that there is a scientific explanation for pain, which has led to the development of better painkillers, without us having much understanding of why pain feels the way it does.
I don't know whether a "love potion" will be invented. It's not inconceivable.
Committing oneself to the proposition that scientific methods will lead to an understanding of love does seem like an act of faith. Faith in both the order and comprehensibility of the universe, and faith in the ingenuity of working scientists like IngoB and Alan C.
I don't think I'm making that act of faith here; just opining as to what seems likely, in the light of the rapid progress of scientific knowledge over the last century.
What I find less easy to understand and sympathise with is those whose faith is in the opposite direction; who commit to the idea that life is incomprehensible, that we will never understand.
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Russ: Committing oneself to the proposition that scientific methods will lead to an understanding of love does seem like an act of faith. Faith in both the order and comprehensibility of the universe, and faith in the ingenuity of working scientists like IngoB and Alan C.
What I find less easy to understand and sympathise with is those whose faith is in the opposite direction; who commit to the idea that life is incomprehensible, that we will never understand.
I hope you realize that these are only the extremes, and there is actually a lot in between. Some things we will understand (and probably more in the future than we do now), and perhaps some things we never will. I don't think that's a bad thing though. Completely understanding ourselves would take a bit of the Mystery out of things.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
We don't have to agree on what love is as a first step. The process could be more like discovering by the methods of science that when certain chemicals are present in the brain at certain levels, the subject reports feelings that are consistent with the way that the word "love" is commonly used. Doesn't matter whether such a discovery happens as part of an attempt to "research love" or as a chance by-product of a project with other aims.
What we call "love" may turn out not to be a single phenomenon, but a complex of effects that through scientific research we come to describe in more precise terms.
I don't think that would make sense unless the different effects that are called love are distinguishable in terms of their social and psychological effects. If research shows that effect one is accompanied by jealousy and effect two isn't, then that's one thing. But suppose the effects manifest in ways that are indistinguishable in their social and psychological causes and consequences? Would it then make sense to say that it's not one phenomenon? Surely, it is the social and psychological consequences that make us interested in the phenomenon at all. Therefore, why in that case would the neuroscientific basis, a rather abstruse and hard to determine phenomenon, get definitional priority?
This isn't an argument against materialism. Nobody(*) disputes that one dollar American banknotes and one hundred dollar American banknotes are entirely material objects. But they have completely different causal effects that are not explicable in terms of any of the natural sciences.
(*) For a value of nobody that excludes utter cranks.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, the idea that science someday will be able to explain any X, where X is something that it cannot currently explain, is a confession of faith in science. In shorter, scientism.
Doesn't that make all forms of scientific research "scientism"?
Nope. Scientific research is about biting off things that scientists believe they can realistically chew. Scientism is declaring that everything is edible.
--------------------
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 Crśsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No. Science is not scientism.
It would seem to be, according to MT's formulation. Saying "we don't currently know how to formulate a vaccine for Ebola (for example), but pursuing these lines of research is likely to produce one" is, according to him, "a confession of faith in science" and therefore "scientism".
Go back and read what I said. I said the belief that science can and will explain EVERYTHING. Not any one particular thing. Not be able to create a bunch of different Ebola viruses (what a bizarre misinterpretation!). Everything. Can you see the difference? One is saying, "I think science can beat this" (and has good reason to think so). The other is saying, "It doesn't matter what it is, it is scientifically explainable."
Can you really, in your brain of brains, not see the difference? If not, then I submit we may never have a meeting of minds.
--------------------
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
Russ - what LeRoc and Dafyd said.
And no one here is saying that the world is "incomprehensible." This is, once again, a category error that implies that only scientific knowledge of the world renders the world "comprehensible." Which is nonsense. There are other ways of knowing, understanding and even finding out things.
The belief that only scientific knowledge counts in making the world comprehensible is a symptom of the phenomenon this thread is about - scientism or perhaps STEM supremacy.
(Which is still think sounds like a plot to breed a race of super humans from stem cells. And that is an HBO series I would watch the absolute shit out of).
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If not, then I submit we may never have a meeting of minds.
I do not think there will be one here. ISTM, there is as much emotion as reason powering the responses. Some are thinking other people are not "getting" their argument, but I think most people are. At least mostly.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
long after the nominal 30 seconds it takes for the brain to shut down with no blood supply....
This is not accurate. Times will vary depending on various factors, including cold, heath and age, but cells begin to die after ~ 1 minute. 3 to 4 minutes and severe brain damage becomes likely. 10 minutes and recovery unlikely. 15 minutes and recovery virtually impossible.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, the idea that science someday will be able to explain any X, where X is something that it cannot currently explain, is a confession of faith in science. In shorter, scientism.
Yes, but a faith based on evidence, on the knowledge of what has been found out already, and on the knowledge too that if the answer is not found, then it is not considered to be an objective fact, but remains a don't know yet.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Russ - what LeRoc and Dafyd said.
And no one here is saying that the world is "incomprehensible." This is, once again, a category error that implies that only scientific knowledge of the world renders the world "comprehensible." Which is nonsense. There are other ways of knowing, understanding and even finding out things.
The belief that only scientific knowledge counts in making the world comprehensible is a symptom of the phenomenon this thread is about - scientism or perhaps STEM supremacy.
(Which is still think sounds like a plot to breed a race of super humans from stem cells. And that is an HBO series I would watch the absolute shit out of).
I can't believe that anybody really thinks that science makes life comprehensible. Well, I can see that it might, in one kind of way - when I'm hungry I eat, and so on. But is that life?
Yesterday, I was staring at the purple sheen on the neck of a pigeon, kind of transfixed by it. I expect a scientific explanation of the sheen could be given, but that would not change my marveling. The experience is sui generis. But I suppose this is getting closer to a religious sensibility.
It reminds me of working with some people in therapy - there is lots of explanation at first, but there comes a time when we are able to be with each other. If we started to explain that, we would no longer be with each other.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I noticed a long time ago that I was taking some pretty good pictures with my camera. But in order to do so I had separated myself into an observer and had somehow also disconnected form the place I was in. After a lot of years not taking photos and then being a bit more careful as to how far I objectified the world, I still don't fully have the capacity to both observe enough in the way necessary to take composed photographs AND be fully present and connected in the time and place in the way that I like to be. Well - "like" is a bit of a weak word - the way that feels to be most wholesome is more to the point.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I noticed a long time ago that I was taking some pretty good pictures with my camera. But in order to do so I had separated myself into an observer and had somehow also disconnected form the place I was in. After a lot of years not taking photos and then being a bit more careful as to how far I objectified the world, I still don't fully have the capacity to both observe enough in the way necessary to take composed photographs AND be fully present and connected in the time and place in the way that I like to be. Well - "like" is a bit of a weak word - the way that feels to be most wholesome is more to the point.
I think this is a good point, and I would enlarge it. Doing science is in the third person, whereas living is in the first. These are very different, and I don't live in a kind of detached observer-like way. Well, sometimes I may do, but I also participate in life, I enjoy it, I am in life.
This is one of the problems with saying that science describes the world; well, maybe, but it doesn't enter into it. The scientist leaves work, goes home, and connects with other people, enjoys himself, and so on. Hopefully, at any rate.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Too late for edit: I think I should have said 'faith based on the testable reliability of knowledge accumulated using the 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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Too late for edit: I think I should have said 'faith based on the testable reliability of knowledge accumulated using the scientific method'.
Ah yes - I had a conversation some time ago with someone who followed that one - she was convinced that - because reflexology was not proven by science, the principles behind it could not possibly "exist", and it was therefore demonic. There are quite a few misunderstandings here, but one of them is an assumption that science describes everything - whereas in reality science is necessarily an incomplete description of the world (and always will be).
Kurt Gödel was slightly crazy, but produced a couple of theorems on the logical universality of axiomatic systems for integers which are also relevant here. Basically it is not possible to describe all truths by using a self-consistent set of axioms. There is some heated debate as to whether this applies beyond the world of integers, but if time-space is quantised, one could argue that everything is integers ("and the rest is the work of man", according to Kronecker). In less formal terms (again there is some debate as to whether it is possible to express Gödel in anything other than formal terms), logically any given model of how the universe works can never be complete, and there will always be something that either is indemonstrable through it and/or is downright inconsistent with it. And interestingly, here we don't even need to enter any spiritual world - this applies equally to the physical universe. As I said, Gödel was slightly crazy - he eventually starved himself to death because he was paranoid that someone was poisoning his food.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, the idea that science someday will be able to explain any X, where X is something that it cannot currently explain, is a confession of faith in science. In shorter, scientism.
Yes, but a faith based on evidence, on the knowledge of what has been found out already, and on the knowledge too that if the answer is not found, then it is not considered to be an objective fact, but remains a don't know yet.
Which is why atheism is "scientifically" invalid and irrational.
Agnosticism is the true empirically scientific position as it acknowledges empiricism is incapable of either proving or disproving the existence of God as objective fact.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But many atheists are agnostic about God.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Too late for edit: I think I should have said 'faith based on the testable reliability of knowledge accumulated using the scientific method'.
That is one of the wordiest oxymorons I've ever seen.
You're still not getting it, Susan. Some things cannot be established and investigated using science. That's not something that will one day change. It will always be so, because of the mature of science.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But many atheists are agnostic about God.
That's an oxymoron too
[ 09. October 2014, 11:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Too late for edit: I think I should have said 'faith based on the testable reliability of knowledge accumulated using the scientific method'.
That is one of the wordiest oxymorons I've ever seen.
You're still not getting it, Susan. Some things cannot be established and investigated using science. That's not something that will one day change. It will always be so, because of the mature of science.
She knows DK, she knows. Yet she persists in faith. Save your breath. And don't be beguiled by the smiley faces and apparent politeness.
[ 09. October 2014, 11:36: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
There's nothing wrong with SusanDoris persisting in faith. I think it's rather beautiful actually.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Some things cannot be established and investigated using science.
I think there's some confusion here about what "established and investigated" means.
Take pain, for instance. We know that it's basically the response of nerve cells to damage sustained by the body. That's the scientific explanation for it, but that explanation doesn't get to the heart of what it actually feels like to the one sustaining the damage - and it certainly doesn't provide any insight into what we should do to minimise pain for ourselves or others.
BUT - the fact that the scientific answer doesn't do those things doesn't mean there's anything actually happening other than what the scientific explanation describes.
It's like how you can describe a game of football as two teams of 11 people trying to kick a ball into a net for 90 minutes. That explanation doesn't get anywhere near to describing what it's like to play in a game of football, but that doesn't mean there's actually something happening other than two teams of 11 people trying to kick a ball into a net for 90 minutes.
Basically, something happens and then we add a bunch of extra layers of understanding and interpretation to that. Science can establish and investigate what the thing that happened actually was, but it can't do anything like as good a job of analysing the extra layers that we add to everything - not least because there are as many different understandings and interpretations as there are people.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There is nothing beautiful about consistenly trying to undermine the faith of others when you know you don't have a leg to stand on but do it anyway.
[x-posted with Marvin]
[ 09. October 2014, 12:19: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Too late for edit: I think I should have said 'faith based on the testable reliability of knowledge accumulated using the scientific method'.
Ah yes - I had a conversation some time ago with someone who followed that one - she was convinced that - because reflexology was not proven by science, the principles behind it could not possibly "exist", and it was therefore demonic. There are quite a few misunderstandings here, but one of them is an assumption that science describes everything - whereas in reality science is necessarily an incomplete description of the world (and always will be).
Reflexology makes claims about the material world that can be tested; science is a good tool for showing that those claims are wishful thinking or not and it does show the former is so for reflexology. Given that why should one accept the claimed underlying principles for something that doesn't happen? A foot massage does feel good (barring cases such as now when I have a bad case of poison oak on one foot) but little more.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Evensong: There is nothing beautiful about consistenly trying to undermine the faith of others when you know you don't have a leg to stand on but do it anyway.
She isn't succeeding very well in undermining my faith. Yours?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But many atheists are agnostic about God.
That's an oxymoron too
The trouble is, you're now defining other people's ideas for them. It's a bit like an atheist saying that you believe in a zombie on a stick.
I know plenty of atheists who define their atheism as not having a belief in God; but they don't know that there is no God. Hence 'agnostic atheist' is an accurate reflection of their views.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Too late for edit: I think I should have said 'faith based on the testable reliability of knowledge accumulated using the scientific method'.
Ah yes - I had a conversation some time ago with someone who followed that one - she was convinced that - because reflexology was not proven by science, the principles behind it could not possibly "exist", and it was therefore demonic. There are quite a few misunderstandings here, but one of them is an assumption that science describes everything - whereas in reality science is necessarily an incomplete description of the world (and always will be).
Reflexology makes claims about the material world that can be tested; science is a good tool for showing that those claims are wishful thinking or not and it does show the former is so for reflexology. Given that why should one accept the claimed underlying principles for something that doesn't happen? A foot massage does feel good (barring cases such as now when I have a bad case of poison oak on one foot) but little more.
It was introduced into a hospital in Wales about 20 years ago, based ion clinical evidence that it reduced postop hospital bed time by about 3 days. But this is irrelevant - the point I was making is that the use of science as a definition of what is holy is totally barking.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
