|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientism: Why all hot and bothered about it?
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Most interesting sequence of posts – thank you! I think I’ve got the quotes right.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
You're right, we're all bastards. And that Susan, who doesn't ridicule theism that way, she's just as bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You've never heard of passive aggressive?
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Susan Dories is not an agnostic atheist. She firmly believes in scientism as her new God.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I suppose Susan is exhibiting a deliberate failure to agree with you.
It is now about 5:20 p.m. and spending the last three hours on SofF catching up on all the posts in this thread, copying and pasting stuff has, as always been absorbing and very interesting. I’m just responding to this exchange first, as it’s going to take quite a time to sort out all the other comments I want to make.
The main thing I think about atheism/agnosticism is that I state firmly that they are most decidedly not on a 50/50 basis. To be correct and accurate in what I say, I have to allow for the possibility – vanishingly small and faint as it is – that there might, one day be found that there is some sort of god. I feel that it is probably a waste of any time between now and my life’s end] to give that possibility more than a very, very low credibility. However, mmy enjoyment of joining in discusssions will never diminish!
[code]
[ 10. October 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
No, Justinian, it is not a failure of logic. You have no idea what's going on here, do you? It might have been useful if you had read or understood the rest of my post.
The position I am advocating is not, and never has been, that science or empirics can't teach us anything. You continue to confuse ontoligy and epistemology, because you persist with the Cartesian confusion of the two.
What I object to is the idea that what is happening at the level of scientific understanding is the most real level - the level of what is actually going on, to use Marvin's terminology. That understanding is important. But to say it is the most important, the understanding that is reflective of what is most real, is actually quite arbitrary. My everyday experience is actually a much more useful indicator of what is most important.
As we've talked about this at length now, I don't have much confidence you're any more likely to get it this time (kind of leads to the question of why I'm still posting, other than to torture our poor Purg hosts - seriously, love you guys). If you read orfeo's long but brilliant post in Hell earlier today, maybe it will sink in.
[ 10. October 2014, 16:26: 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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just illustrates the point that some theists don't like weak (or agnostic) atheism, as then they don't have their favourite straw man to play with, that is, the nasty anti-theist who yells 'Sky-daddy' when he wakes up, and then 'leprechauns' when he has his dinner, and 'Pastafarian' when he goes to sleep. How uncouth.
Oh...that's just the Courtier's Reply. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my experience, those aboard this ship ( and on other online websites and articles ) that state themselves to be atheists do not come from the position of your "agnostic" atheism, they come from a very strong anti-position that ridicules theism with such analogies like Justinian has provided: leprechauns, moon made of cheese, Santa Claus and the flying spaghetti monster to name a few.
In my experience atheism is hard line and seeks to ridicule faith as being irrational. Different from your experience perhaps but there you go.
In my experience, there are many aboard this ship whose strawman description of atheists has nothing at all in common with my own atheism or that of any other atheists I know. On at least one previous thread someone even tried to redefine "atheist" to better match their strawman. There may be a few anti-theists who resemble portions of that strawman, but they are only a very small (though sometimes vocal) minority. But the strawman is a convenient way to ridicule and dismiss all atheists without actually understanding their views.
Sort of like assuming that all Christians believe YEC and actively support the Inquisition: there may be a few that do, but it isn't a useful premise to use as a base for your interactions with Christians as a whole.
I would suspect, based on my experience, that you actually interact with many atheists who don't meet your strawman definition, but you might not notice because they don't always advertise that they are atheists - they just get on with life like normal people.
Why would one get the impression here on the ship that most atheists are militant anti-theists? Probably because most threads about atheism already assume they are, and the topics are so foreign to the rest of the atheists that we have nothing to contribute. Often for me the starting assumptions are Not Even Wrong.
Which, of course, is similar to why the term "Christian" has acquired a negative connotation in many circles - those who most strongly and publicly self-identify with the term often are those on the fringe who are doing the most to damage society.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The materialist or reductionist position suggests that, whatever we think or feel about a phenomenon, what is actually going on is what is happening at the molecular level, or the scientifically verifiable level. This is not the case, at all. And you don't just get to assume it is.
Well, I'm unconvinced that what we think or feel about any given event is an inherent part of the event itself. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, it still fell. And if somebody had been watching, it would still have fallen in exactly the same way. And that is true regardless of what that observer might have thought or felt about it.
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it. You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that reality just exists in our minds. What I am trying to say that the simple dichotomy of "this is objectively so regardless of the observer" is not quite so clear cut.
quote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that our thoughts and feelings aren't real. I'm just saying that they are a different thing to the events that cause them. No event is inherently tragic, comic, momentous, insignificant, etc. - those are meanings we ascribe to events, but the events themselves are exactly the same regardless of how we happen to categorise them. We can talk all night about what an event meant to us, about its significance, it's meaning, and so forth - but we would be talking about our thoughts and feelings about the event, not the event itself.
As human beings, we interpret. We think and feel about what happens. There is no way behind that. We cannot experience pure objectivity, free of our thoughts and feelings about them. Hell, even language is interpretive.
This is where science, rightly, plays the "independent verification" card. And it's a good card. But it still can't get us behind the fact that, if we agree that an event has some kind of objective reality that's free of the interpretive meaning-making of the observer (and that's still an if), we have no access to it. Idependent verification by someone else just gives us another way to verify the meaning attributed to the event.
quote:
Also, there's unarguably a definition of "real" that doesn't include thoughts and feelings. If I feel such strong hatred for someone that I think about killing them, they don't actually die. In fact, my thoughts and feelings in and of themselves have zero effect on the person whatsoever.
I'm afraid I'm not following here. Can you explain the significance of this example?
--------------------
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
This is an interesting turn - a definition of "real" being on the outside, but not the inside.
Is there a way that this argument falls without invoking an everyday shamanic presence in a massively interconnected world where every flutter of a leaf has significance when a question is asked?
Not that I'm against that kind of view of reality, but things have implications.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No, Justinian, it is not a failure of logic. You have no idea what's going on here, do you? It might have been useful if you had read or understood the rest of my post.
The position I am advocating is not, and never has been, that science or empirics can't teach us anything. You continue to confuse ontoligy and epistemology, because you persist with the Cartesian confusion of the two.
What I object to is the idea that what is happening at the level of scientific understanding is the most real level - the level of what is actually going on, to use Marvin's terminology.
No. What is going on is that you are trying to assume an answer and then create a situation under which you consider your answer to be tenable. I am starting with what we actually know and trying to work out what is with as few preconceptions as I can manage. And because you have already come up with your answer based on very little you are assuming that you are right and objecting when I don't start with the assumption that you are right.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it. You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer......
Meaning and significance are observer created, they have no existence independent of observers and minds. They may be the most important thing to us. But to the Universe? The Universe kept going happily along without us for almost 14 billion years. So it seems to me that if we want to learn anything, starting with the assumption that we are the most "real" part of the Universe could be a bit misleading.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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
I think the answer to the OP is that the heat is related to the notion of authority. And yes, scientism is to do with falsely claiming authority for the pronouncements of scientists. The idea that atheism is more true, more worthy of consideration, because Dawkins says it as a scientist than when various philosophers have reached this conclusion in the past.
We've covered some of the limits to the applicability of science - that it's about the facts of what is, rather than how things should be. And about explaining from the outside rather than what experience feels like from the inside. The one I'd add would be that it's not about individuals as individuals. We can do chemistry on the assumption that results of experiments on carbon atoms apply to all carbon atoms - functional identity. And what science tells us about a person is those aspects that are common to the other people who have been in some way experimented upon.
I'm less convinced that science can tell us nothing about the past. Although we can't experiment on or in the past, we can look for "natural experiments" - occasions when two situations had such a lot in common that different outcomes can be attributed to the few significant differences.
So yes, scientism tends to be blind to such methodological limitations. But not suggesting that there are fenced-off areas of life with signs saying "no science allowed here".
I'd argue that science doesn't have authority. Something isn't and shouldn't be so just because scientists say so. But there is a sense in which the facts have a sort of authority, and science is often the best way of getting at the facts...
Don't think it's necessarily scientism to think that science is the basis of the most valuable human learning that has taken place. In what ways do we know more than people a hundred years ago, if not in the STEM fields ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it. You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer......
Meaning and significance are observer created, they have no existence independent of observers and minds. They may be the most important thing to us. But to the Universe? The Universe kept going happily along without us for almost 14 billion years. So it seems to me that if we want to learn anything, starting with the assumption that we are the most "real" part of the Universe could be a bit misleading.
How about starting with the assumption that we ARE part of the universe, and so our direct experience is representative of it, and provides insight into it?
Potentially
Which is what meditation and other similar practices are all about
[ 10. October 2014, 20:37: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it. You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer......
Meaning and significance are observer created, they have no existence independent of observers and minds. They may be the most important thing to us. But to the Universe? The Universe kept going happily along without us for almost 14 billion years. So it seems to me that if we want to learn anything, starting with the assumption that we are the most "real" part of the Universe could be a bit misleading.
How about starting with the assumption that we ARE part of the universe, and so our direct experience is representative of it, and provides insight into it?
Potentially
Which is what meditation and other similar practices are all about
I am definitely not a dualist. We are indeed part of the Universe, our minds included. The basic mistake in my opinion is assuming our minds are made of something else different from what surrounds us. So that,for example, meaning and ideas somehow could exist independently of brains.
About meditation, I have been practicing Zen meditation for eleven years now. It has been of great value in my life. And it indeed provides insights about your "mind" and about your interconnectedness with all that surrounds you.
But for example I see nothing wrong in subjecting any claimed "benefits" of meditation to scientific study. And also I have no problems with the idea that all of the "insights" I may have "gained", (Insights and gain are terms that Zen would never embrace) could all be explained ,in principle, if we gain sufficient knowledge about the complex physical processes that happen in the human brain. I say in principle because I do not believe it is a trivial problem.
And I feel no need to add any "non-material" entities to the explanation. Like I said not a dualist.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This isn't about what's real and what's not. It's about whether what we think about an event actually changes the event itself. I say not.
It actually DID start, from where I came in, as being "about what's real and what's not". Because you threw in a bit that said "there's unarguably a definition of "real" that doesn't include thoughts and feelings." It's THAT definition that I attacked.
And I don't know why you bothered throwing that in, because it contradicted your own previous paragraph, where you said "I'm not saying that our thoughts and feelings aren't real." You were right the first time.
Also, your working example was to do with pain. In which case, what we think about it does change the event. Really, really bad example.
I've actually been involved in a tribunal case about this, so I had to research about what pain IS. And pain isn't the "event" of a stimuli causing nerve cells to fire. Pain IS the conscious process. If you're not awake, you don't experience pain. If you're running on adrenalin, the exact same stimulus doesn't produce the same sensation of pain. If you have a chronic pain syndrome, you continue to experience the sensation of pain long after the stimulus that caused the sensation has been removed.
Now, you can perhaps argue that one day, ONE DAY, we will understand every detail of every single cell and neurochemical and their circumstances and other inputs such that we can trace, in a biological version of chaos theory, exactly how the same stimulus in the same location will generate completely different pain sensations.
That, my friend, is scientism right there.
[ 10. October 2014, 22:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Now, you can perhaps argue that one day, ONE DAY, we will understand every detail of every single cell and neurochemical and their circumstances and other inputs such that we can trace, in a biological version of chaos theory, exactly how the same stimulus in the same location will generate completely different pain sensations.
That, my friend, is scientism right there.
And I can't for the life of me see why this is a big deal. If you replace the word "will" with "maybe" it becomes nothing more than a weird hope that might result in unforeseen benefits along the way. But in my experience that formulation elicits in some people the same excitable reaction that we've had on the two threads here.
As far as I can the see the answer to the OP's question about why so hot and bothered about scientism, is because it's scientism. The argument drifts in a nice circle. Scientism is bad, those horrid new atheists don't understand the limits of science, they don't understand philosophy and if they did they wouldn't be scientismists because its bad. Don't they know that if you start trying to reduce love to physics and chemistry that's bad and leads to scientism, which is bad. Oh, and scientism is why the academic turf wars are in a phase where the STEM fields are in the ascendancy. Which is bad.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
]
As far as I can the see the answer to the OP's question about why so hot and bothered about scientism, is because it's scientism. The argument drifts in a nice circle. Scientism is bad, those horrid new atheists don't understand the limits of science, they don't understand philosophy and if they did they wouldn't be scientismists because its bad. Don't they know that if you start trying to reduce love to physics and chemistry that's bad and leads to scientism, which is bad. Oh, and scientism is why the academic turf wars are in a phase where the STEM fields are in the ascendancy. Which is bad.
Really? I mean, really? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
]
As far as I can the see the answer to the OP's question about why so hot and bothered about scientism, is because it's scientism. The argument drifts in a nice circle. Scientism is bad, those horrid new atheists don't understand the limits of science, they don't understand philosophy and if they did they wouldn't be scientismists because its bad. Don't they know that if you start trying to reduce love to physics and chemistry that's bad and leads to scientism, which is bad. Oh, and scientism is why the academic turf wars are in a phase where the STEM fields are in the ascendancy. Which is bad.
Really? I mean, really?
It does explain a lot.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No, Justinian, it is not a failure of logic. You have no idea what's going on here, do you? It might have been useful if you had read or understood the rest of my post.
The position I am advocating is not, and never has been, that science or empirics can't teach us anything. You continue to confuse ontoligy and epistemology, because you persist with the Cartesian confusion of the two.
What I object to is the idea that what is happening at the level of scientific understanding is the most real level - the level of what is actually going on, to use Marvin's terminology.
No. What is going on is that you are trying to assume an answer and then create a situation under which you consider your answer to be tenable. I am starting with what we actually know and trying to work out what is with as few preconceptions as I can manage. And because you have already come up with your answer based on very little you are assuming that you are right and objecting when I don't start with the assumption that you are right.
Oh, dear. I think we're done.
What is actually going on, which is quite easy to trace here, is that you are assuming you are right. I am actually quite upfront about the need for axioms. My position is based on axioms. I am aware of it. There is no way around the need for axioms.
But I don't see much possibility that you can understand me. You take care now.
--------------------
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 Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it. You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer......
Meaning and significance are observer created, they have no existence independent of observers and minds. They may be the most important thing to us. But to the Universe? The Universe kept going happily along without us for almost 14 billion years. So it seems to me that if we want to learn anything, starting with the assumption that we are the most "real" part of the Universe could be a bit misleading.
Completely missed the point.
The universe can and probably has continued in our absence for billions of years. We cannot know anything of the universe sans our interpretive, meaning-making perspective. One of those - one - is science. There are others.
But the point you missed is that the everyday meaning of things has a much better claim to be the most important, the most real or actual, than one that claims we need to understand what we experience at its molecular level, or "objective" level (both examples) to know what is real or actual. Most of the time, anyway.
--------------------
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 Grokesx:
And I can't for the life of me see why this is a big deal.
It's a big deal because of the way it makes people behave.
Because there are folk who don't treat it as a some far-off "maybe". There are people who act as if science is this close to having all the answers and solving everything, and look with disdain at anyone who isn't on board with that.
I have a Science degree. Occasionally I encountered people who looked at me like some kind of weird freak for studying science at the same time as going to church, because in their mind there was no room for both - as if 3 years of chemistry, biochemistry and neuroscience was proof enough that science was The Answer.
It's bollocks. The theoretical future where absolutely everything is understood isn't going to happen in my lifetime or their lifetime. Real science is painstaking and slow and full of things that don't work (like that bloody blue-green algae that refused to kill things in its petri dish like it was supposed to *suppresses biochemistry honours flashback with a shudder*). We're nowhere near the end.
It's not as if scientists are being laid off on the grounds that there's nothing left for them to do. The reverse is true: scientists have absolutely enormous lists of things they'd like to investigate, but not enough resources or hours in the day to tackle them all.
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
--------------------
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
That, and some of them get all pissy about it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it. You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer......
Meaning and significance are observer created, they have no existence independent of observers and minds. They may be the most important thing to us. But to the Universe? The Universe kept going happily along without us for almost 14 billion years. So it seems to me that if we want to learn anything, starting with the assumption that we are the most "real" part of the Universe could be a bit misleading.
Completely missed the point.
The universe can and probably has continued in our absence for billions of years. We cannot know anything of the universe sans our interpretive, meaning-making perspective. One of those - one - is science. There are others.
But the point you missed is that the everyday meaning of things has a much better claim to be the most important, the most real or actual, than one that claims we need to understand what we experience at its molecular level, or "objective" level (both examples) to know what is real or actual. Most of the time, anyway.
What do you mean by the "everyday meaning of things"? And why does it have a "better" claim?
The world is one, we split it up into parts and assign things like "meaning" to those parts.
For example, speaking about minds without taking into account what is known about brains is at best incomplete. If you want to speak about what is "real" ignoring atoms and molecules will not get you very far.
Is your claim that our subjective "knowledge" is what is important and any "objective" reality is either unimportant or unknowable? If not then what is it?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
FFS. I'm actually starting to wonder if I'm a masochist. Why do I keep engaging?
The everyday meaning is pretty much what it sounds like. I'm not sure how to make that clearer.
For the zillionth time, I am NOT advocating ignoring the scientific description. Seriously, what is going on with you people that you read all of these posts as if there is this "either/or" foundation to what I'm saying. It took Croesus several attempts, and I'm still not sure he/she got it.
The molecular level of phenomena is not being ignored. It is also not being unduly prioritised, as if that's what is actually real, and the everyday experience of things is less significant. I'm arguing that it should be the opposite.
And as to the rest - think about it. If you can figure out a way to get to some kind of pure "objective" reality that is completely absent the meaning-making of the observer, there's a committee who want to award you a Nobel prize. Or, I have a bridge to sell you.
--------------------
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
I apologise for all the snark in that lost post. It was gratuitous, and probably better left for hell.
--------------------
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
orfeo wrote:
I have a Science degree. Occasionally I encountered people who looked at me like some kind of weird freak for studying science at the same time as going to church, because in their mind there was no room for both - as if 3 years of chemistry, biochemistry and neuroscience was proof enough that science was The Answer.
I just extracted this from a very good post. I've found this a lot working as a psychotherapist, as people get muddled up about pharmacology being used in treatment, and then therapy, which is based on a relationship.
Well, obviously, it's not either/or. Of course, the relationship aspect can itself be analyzed, but none the less, it's about things like intimacy and trust, which are lived.
I think this is one reason that Freud is often attacked for not being scientific, since at the time, and still even now, people are unsure how to place things like intimacy. In a sense, Freud invented the psychoanalytic space, which is itself something very human.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Don't think it's necessarily scientism to think that science is the basis of the most valuable human learning that has taken place. In what ways do we know more than people a hundred years ago, if not in the STEM fields ?
I've found Brian McLaren's analysis of Genesis facinating. He loses the mainstream Christian intepretation of one big Fall that screws up humanity, and instead points out that the narrative is actually about lots of mini-falls, which are often related to technological advancements.
Each time humanity masters a new technology, it brings a new peril to humanity, a new moral failure. From the hunter-gathering of Eden, to the pastoral farming of Cain and Abel, to the masonry of Babel, each time, the new technology is part of the story of human failure.
Whether it's scientism or not, I don't know. But I do think that it's incredibly dangerous to separate the STEM part of human development apart from the moral and philosophical parts, even to think it's the technology that's the important bit, and the other bits are secondary. Just because we CAN do something (the STEM part, doesn't mean we should). And, when we can do something, doesn't mean we shouldn't seriously consider the consequences that go with that. The two go hand in hand.
This too is the story of Nobel, and it's more pertinent today than ever, given that our technological advancements are coming much faster than ever before. It's not saying that development is bad, but that every new discovery brings a new danger, a new thing to wrestle with and master. It says that, yes, in many ways we know much more than we did 100 years ago, but coupled with (and as a result of that), we may have possibly lost some wisdom, or need some new wisdom to deal with that knowledge.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You've never heard of passive aggressive?
Since you're such a fan of definitions, Wikipedia has that as: "indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible".
I suppose Susan is exhibiting a deliberate failure to agree with you.
Having had many conversations with SusanDoris in the past, I know that she knows empirical science is not able to prove or disprove the existence of God. Yet she persists in asking leading questions with smiley faces and being all polite and pretending she's really interested in changing her mind about her faith and doesn't understand what's going on.
I'm just surprised at how often people fall for it.
I'm also surprised by you defending her. It's cute but not necessary. She's very wiley behind all those smileys and works hard and consistently to point out her faith that God doesn't exist.
The fact that her faith is not backed up by objective fact seems to matter not whit (even tho it is supposed to matter very much to her).
Which proves that strong atheism is not a rational position, but an emotional one: usually in reaction to a strong negative experience in the faith the person is rejecting.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my experience, those aboard this ship ( and on other online websites and articles ) that state themselves to be atheists do not come from the position of your "agnostic" atheism, they come from a very strong anti-position that ridicules theism with such analogies like Justinian has provided: leprechauns, moon made of cheese, Santa Claus and the flying spaghetti monster to name a few.
In my experience atheism is hard line and seeks to ridicule faith as being irrational. Different from your experience perhaps but there you go.
In my experience, there are many aboard this ship whose strawman description of atheists has nothing at all in common with my own atheism or that of any other atheists I know. On at least one previous thread someone even tried to redefine "atheist" to better match their strawman. There may be a few anti-theists who resemble portions of that strawman, but they are only a very small (though sometimes vocal) minority. But the strawman is a convenient way to ridicule and dismiss all atheists without actually understanding their views.
Sort of like assuming that all Christians believe YEC and actively support the Inquisition: there may be a few that do, but it isn't a useful premise to use as a base for your interactions with Christians as a whole.
I would suspect, based on my experience, that you actually interact with many atheists who don't meet your strawman definition, but you might not notice because they don't always advertise that they are atheists - they just get on with life like normal people.
Why would one get the impression here on the ship that most atheists are militant anti-theists? Probably because most threads about atheism already assume they are, and the topics are so foreign to the rest of the atheists that we have nothing to contribute. Often for me the starting assumptions are Not Even Wrong.
Which, of course, is similar to why the term "Christian" has acquired a negative connotation in many circles - those who most strongly and publicly self-identify with the term often are those on the fringe who are doing the most to damage society.
Yes. Good post. Your vocal assholes make you look bad just like our vocal assholes make us look bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Why would one get the impression here on the ship that most atheists are militant anti-theists? Probably because most threads about atheism already assume they are[
Because the threads are responding to the vocal assholes and vocal assholes are only to happy to oblige when they take part. The assholery (IMO) stems not from not believing in God, but in ridiculing theists who do.
We don't see many of you more rational moderate types around as much. It would be better if we did.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And Evensong you were the one who brought up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by its noodly appendage.
I was simply pre-empting what was only a matter of time after your moon made of cheese and Santa Claus analogies which were a deliberate dig at what you perceive to be the stupidity of belief in God.
But thank you for the blessing of your non-existent God.
May you be touched by the Holy Spirit that has real evidence for it's existence.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But it doesn't have any meaning apart from the observer's thoughts or feelings about it.
Correct. The difference between us is that you seem to think that's a problem.
quote:
You could argue, as you seem to be, that the event is objectively real regardless of the observation. But if the observer is required in order for it to have meaning, it has no real significance apart from the observer.
Again, correct.
quote:
As human beings, we interpret. We think and feel about what happens. There is no way behind that. We cannot experience pure objectivity, free of our thoughts and feelings about them.
I don't disagree. We are subjective beings responding subjectively to an objective reality. Now, that obviously means that anything and everything we think about that reality is going to be subjective - but the reality itself remains objective.
quote:
But it still can't get us behind the fact that, if we agree that an event has some kind of objective reality that's free of the interpretive meaning-making of the observer (and that's still an if), we have no access to it.
That doesn't change the fact that it exists, though.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Where should they be placing their faith then?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Evensong wrote:
Because the threads are responding to the vocal assholes and vocal assholes are only to happy to oblige when they take part. The assholery (IMO) stems not from not believing in God, but in ridiculing theists who do.
We don't see many of you more rational moderate types around as much. It would be better if we did.
Well, I see a lot of moderate and rational atheists, as I go off and read atheist forums. Well, also, I grew up in a family of atheists, and there were some who hated religion (my grandfather), and some who were indifferent to it (my dad). They're a mixed bunch, surprise, surprise.
--------------------
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 Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
...As human beings, we interpret. We think and feel about what happens. There is no way behind that. We cannot experience pure objectivity, free of our thoughts and feelings about them.
I don't disagree. We are subjective beings responding subjectively to an objective reality. Now, that obviously means that anything and everything we think about that reality is going to be subjective - but the reality itself remains objective.
...
isn't this one of the issues? If the observer interacts with the universe, then the universe interacts with the observer - anything that constitutes life OR has processes that occur in the same medium as the thing that creates the interaction (i.e. quantum soup) interacts. So it's not unreasonable to say that everything is conscious in some manner of speaking. The reality only remains objective if it cannot participate.
Which is one reason I rather like Sheldrake's morphic resonance as a principle - and since he's demonstrated it with crystalline structures, even non-organic matter really does interact with this universal consciousness that pervades everything. And although it's not even necessary to invoke a God to get this quantum level interaction, something God-like is at the very least emergent from this.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Where should they be placing their faith then?
I think that science has helped us and is also presenting us more and more with the tools to self-destruct. It hasn't of itself got a moral purpose, and at the moment it is not a part of the ecosystem that we rely on - it tweaks where it doesn;t understand. Frankly, I don't think that we have yet cone to terms with the internal combustion engine - we still have no clear vision of how that fits into an ecology of life, so we just keep producing more to an economic limit - another human construction that has no moral or ecological basis. So we have to put our faith in something else - otherwise there is no end to the destructive possibilities of science and applied science/technology - other than its economic limit.
--------------------
"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 Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Where should they be placing their faith then?
I'll respond to this rather than your response to my posts, because we are basically in agreement about everything you responded to.
I do not at all regard the fact that we are meaning-makers as a problem. Where we differ, as I surmise from your earlier posts, is in the way we think is most useful and should be prioritised in understanding reality as we experience it. You will correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you to be saying that this objective reality which we have no objective access to should be regarded as primary. This to me is where we run into problems, because we start to approach the world as if the ordinary meaning we make of it is somehow not reflective of the actual reality, which must be objectively verifiable (and I'm aware that the same accusation could be levelled at the modern religious worldview, which in many cases trains adherents that the ordinary, everyday reality is inferior in some sense to spiritual reality - but perhaps that owes more to Platonism than what we are talking about here. Dunno).
Anyway, in answer to your question to orfeo (and in full understanding that he can provide his own), I would say that one of the problems of prioritising this objective, supposedly empirically verifiable understanding (which we haven't actually established we can access anyway, but let's assume that we can to a limited extent) is that it trains us away from the everyday sense we make of the world, which is where most of us spend most of our time living and experiencing the stuff that happens to us. The answers we may seek to the vast majority of our challenges are going to be found here, and it is this that should be primarily understood as the actual, the real. It is that existential - to use that term in an idiosyncratic but hopefully not unhelpful way - experience of the world that we should be regarding as the most real.
I hope that made some sense.
[ 11. October 2014, 11:53: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Where should they be placing their faith then?
How many answers do you want? Everything, and nothing. People should be using their senses and their mind and their experience and their knowledge and living life and trying to make the world a better place or just muddling their way through it. People should be engaged in their own quests, not assuming that someone else has done everything for them. People should be asking questions. People should be restless. People should not be behaving as if it's all sorted.
People should recognise just how damn MESSY it all is. I mean, I actually worked out some time ago that one of my basic drives/desires is to try to impose order on the universe, but I'm also smart enough to know that the universe doesn't cooperate.
Going around declaring that science has all the answers doesn't satisfy me any more than going around declaring that God has all the answers. Either might be true in some ultimate sense, but frankly that doesn't help me. I want to learn about the world, and the more I learn the more I realise I don't know. (There's a deep irony here, in that scientists actually need the kind of curiosity and dissatisfaction that scientism precludes.)
And I have to go through the day, whether I sense God's presence or science's workings or I don't. Certainly, belief in God doesn't seem to preclude me from having bad days or even bad fucking years. God doesn't do my job for me. Even if he's in some way helping me do my job, he's pretty darn patchy about it. God doesn't stop me from getting depression (and I was stunned by seeing someone's glib declaration the other day that depression was basically people not having God in their lives - that particular Christian is going to be up shit creek without a paddle if THEY ever get depressed because they'll believe they did something wrong to make God abandon them). Science doesn't seem to stop me getting depression either. But both sometimes seem to assist in reducing its effects.
I suppose I occasionally envy those who can resolve the world into one neat little box, declare that it works and no other boxes are needed. I envy their blindness. I can't shut my eyes like that. I can't just pretend that whatever my working viewpoint is at the time has no loose ends.
People shouldn't be placing their faith in any one place as some kind of end point. People should be placing their faith in whatever they need to at that moment at time, based on what they know and recognising what they don't know. Whether it's faith in God, faith in science, faith in the power of love, faith in family, friends, colleagues, professionals (I put faith in an employee of the gas company the other night to check there wasn't a leak by trusting he'd know more than I would about how to perform such a check) or faith in themselves. It's not all one thing one time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Is that it? That there are people so scientifically illiterate as to believe a crock of shite like that?
I don't buy it as a common reason for the snarl. I'll tell you for why. I can spend time on a thread like the meaning of morality in materialism a while back talking about different levels of explanation, supervenience etc until I'm blue in the face and I can pretty much guarantee that someone will turn up and blather on about scientism if anything vaguely related to science is mentioned. In that case it was itsarumdo and he called it "sciencism, aka the religion of science."
As Dafyd said, there is a conflation of materialism/physicalism with this beast called scientism. Evensong did it explicitly with the post that kicked this whole thing off:
quote:
While science vs faith is certainly a false dichotomy, scientism or scientific materialism vs faith is not.
The thing is, materialism/physicalism is a philosophical position that, whether you agree with it or not, can be defended. It takes some knowledge about what it does or does not say to make a critique. On the other hand, snarling out scientism seems to be a good enough response when, as Croesus - echoing Dan Dennett - said right at the top of the thread, discussion turns to some bit of science people don't like very much, be it evolution, consciousness or whatever.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
Wanted to edit that last bit, meant to say "neuroscience" not "consciousness".
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Atheism against anything but Love I fully understand and am that atheist. Atheism denying Love is understandable too, because Love is limited to, by, in us. To our realising, invoking it. And there might as well not be anyone else behind that.
But there is.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Is that it? That there are people so scientifically illiterate as to believe a crock of shite like that?
I don't buy it as a common reason for the snarl. I'll tell you for why. I can spend time on a thread like the meaning of morality in materialism a while back talking about different levels of explanation, supervenience etc until I'm blue in the face and I can pretty much guarantee that someone will turn up and blather on about scientism if anything vaguely related to science is mentioned. In that case it was itsarumdo and he called it "sciencism, aka the religion of science."
As Dafyd said, there is a conflation of materialism/physicalism with this beast called scientism. Evensong did it explicitly with the post that kicked this whole thing off:
quote:
While science vs faith is certainly a false dichotomy, scientism or scientific materialism vs faith is not.
The thing is, materialism/physicalism is a philosophical position that, whether you agree with it or not, can be defended. It takes some knowledge about what it does or does not say to make a critique. On the other hand, snarling out scientism seems to be a good enough response when, as Croesus - echoing Dan Dennett - said right at the top of the thread, discussion turns to some bit of science people don't like very much, be it evolution, consciousness or whatever.
Right. Because that's exactly what's happened here. No one has articulated why they think scientism is faulty, or engaged at all with a philosophical critique of it, or materialism, or faith. It's just been snarling about science-y stuff people don't like.
Have you been reading along at all, or just dropping in and out?
--------------------
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 goperryrevs:
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.
Obviously, the scientific method has a far better chance of finding solutions, but a rational consideration of this point takes into account that there are always questions which will remain as don’t knows, aren't there. It seems to me that it is the believers, e.g. mostly in religions, who do not want to accept that people like me are not blind faith scientismists’ but have feet firmly on the ground and do their best to avoid metaphorical blinkers. 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.
***
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.
Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo
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).
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.
I wish I’d heard more about Godel years ago – it’s only in recent years that I have.
I hope all this makes sense - I’d copied and pasted more, but all the posts since thenmake the thoughts I’d had at the time out of date!
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
It matters that people have faith that science is going to solve everything for them, because that faith is so utterly misplaced.
Is that it? That there are people so scientifically illiterate as to believe a crock of shite like that?
You apparently missed the part where I pointed out that this included some of my fellow BSc students back in the day. They were not "so scientifically illiterate". But I will agree that they believed a crock of shite.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Nothing obvious about it, SusanDoris. Assumed, axiomatic, a priori - but not obvious. And you have not established anything of the kind.
--------------------
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
Unless you know the metaphysical basis, assumptions for simplifying/formulating the equations/model and the assumptions that have been made in experimental design, every single scientific paper is a hall of mirrors. A lot of the above are fairly well defined and known and standardised for anyone in a particular filed, and for science in general, but actually, there are a lot of hidden assumptions that are not considered because they are just not thought about enough. I got really angry at one point when reading medical research papers because of the way the authors clearly had skated over initial assumptions to the point that the design was a load of old crock, an then they "critically instrumented" lots of animals to perform their ill-designed experiment, all to no end use other than cause animals pain and fill the journals with yet more confusing useless data.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: Obviously, the scientific method has a far better chance of finding solutions
How high do you estimate the chances that the scientific method will find the ideal way to govern a country? Things like this have been tried you know, and they've turned out a disaster.
Science has a very good track record in some things. It's unbeatable in explaining physical things to us. But it's terrible in finding answers to other 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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Right. Because that's exactly what's happened here. No one has articulated why they think scientism is faulty, or engaged at all with a philosophical critique of it, or materialism, or faith.
And do you really think what you have been doing is critiquing materialism? A materialist analysis of love, say, does not necessarily, even commonly, involve atoms or neurons. Materialism says that it can be reduced to them, but an adequate description would have to be done at the appropriate level - involving the psychological, social, physiological, whatever. Only an eliminative materialist like Patricia Churchland would think it desirable to talk of love in terms of chemicals.
And yes, formulations of scientism have been made here that are explicitly self refuting, others that are claimed to be circular at one or more remove, but no one has demonstrated anyone actually admitting to such a belief, so that was all a bit academic.
And we have had some, I think you are one, who seem to know exactly what will and won't turn out to be amenable to scientific investigation before a hypothesis has been formulated to test and suggesting no would worry if only science would keep in its box. I'm sorry, you don't get to tell scientists what the limits of science will turn out to be.
@Orfeo
quote:
They were not "so scientifically illiterate
I don't care what their qualifications were. At the risk of going all no true Scotsman on you, if they believe science is this close to a full understanding of anything they are scientifically illiterate.
[ 11. October 2014, 15:03: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
The first part of the last post was at Dark Knight.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Um, yeah, I am suggesting some things are not amenable to scientific investigation. I see some of the posts on this thread have registered with you, but clearly not all.
And no, I haven't critiqued all forms of materialism, but yes I certainly have been critiquing some. You need to read more closely.
I am becoming more and more convinced that my assessment of you was correct.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Dark Knight
I couldn't give a monkey's fuck what your assessment of me is in Hell, I'd need to respect what you write here for that. Right from the get go you were insisting that if science kept within its boundaries, no one would complain. Who the fuck should care about you think the boundaries of science will turn out to be? Yesterday's demons are today's mental illnesses, and their status was changed by scientists doing their stuff. The philosophers of science would do theirs afterwards.
Funnily, it seem that pretty much everyone who engages with you doesn't understand your arguments. Maybe you need to make better ones.
[ 11. October 2014, 17:18: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Funnily, it seem that pretty much everyone who engages with you doesn't understand your arguments. Maybe you need to make better ones.
Mark me down as someone who does understand his arguments. Even when we've crossed swords, which we have done with "fuck you" vehemence more than once, it was because he was wronger than a drooling idiot on stupid juice, not because I didn't understand him. To be fair, he'd probably tell a different story (or a similar story with the names changed).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
The above attempts to import arguments from Hell to Purgatory, and responses thereto (and that includes yours, mousethief), have been referred to admins.
Quit.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, sir.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
