Argument against "lacktheism"

[MikeF]

Except that is not what I posted.

That's true, but it would be both foolish and dishonest to presume that this consensus correlates with the truth of existence. Because we are just as prone to collective bias as we are to individual bias.

All it really does is create the illusion in our minds that we "know existence" when we don't, simply because we can recognize something about how physicality functions and can manipulate it. But we humans will happily accept this delusion over having to face the enormity and significance of what we don't know, for the comfort it brings us.

And looking at it with an unbiased eye; one that considers other aspects of our existence besides physical functionality, it's not a very good track record. In fact, it's a bit if a dismal failure apart from this. Which is why the scientism crowd ignore all other aspects of existence but physicality as 'immaterial'.

We don't need better medicine so rich people can live longer, or better guns and bombs and delivery platforms so we can kill each other easier. We don't need more entertainment or communication distractions feeding us ever more believable lies. And we don't need to be spending billions exploring outer space. We don't need more "objective intelligence". What we really need is more SUBJECTIVE intelligence. More WISDOM, not more knowledge. And that's not going to come from science. It comes from philosophy, and from art, and from religion. THESE are the areas we need to be focusing on right now, and in which we need to be trying to make advances. The combination of science and industrialized greed is killing us. And will kill us all if we don't find a way to stop ourselves being turned into raving self-destructive idiots by it.

You want more wisdom, more subjective intelligence, but how can that be accomplished without a factual understanding of human behavior and all the factors that influence it? The problems you describe are not those of science or industrialization, they are the problems derived from our innate instinctual behaviors, our inherited human nature. We are simply born with them and every generation has to come to terms with a population of individuals pre-wired to function in small bands of hunter/gatherers. Fortunately, we are malleable, adaptive creatures, with a capacity for reason and an ability to override reflexive instinctual responses.

I don’t see that we are killing ourselves either faster or in greater relative numbers than we have in the past. I would argue the reverse actually, and attribute the reversal to our ever growing understanding of ourselves and the Cosmos we live in. We are collectively wiser than our ancestors, just not uniformly so. I would argue that hanging on to antiquated belief systems born out of a more ignorant past contributes to that disparity.

If you want a better world, we have to come to terms with the reality we actually have, not the one we imagine exists.

 

[PureX]

You want more wisdom, more subjective intelligence, but how can that be accomplished without a factual understanding of human behavior and all the factors that influence it?

Most of the factors that influence our thinking and behavior are conceptual (metaphysical), which are beyond the reach of science. Individual and collective value and purpose aren't something that can be quantified and experimented on.

The problems you describe are not those of science or industrialization, they are the problems derived from our innate instinctual behaviors, our inherited human nature.

We humans have multiple 'natures' that are partly inherited, partly socialized into us, and partly personal choice. Science is not going to unravel that knot, just as it has not done so in the last 300+ years.

We are simply born with them and every generation has to come to terms with a population of individuals pre-wired to function in small bands of hunter/gatherers. Fortunately, we are malleable, adaptive creatures, with a capacity for reason and an ability to override reflexive instinctual responses.

I don’t see that we are killing ourselves either faster or in greater relative numbers than we have in the past. I would argue the reverse actually, and attribute the reversal to our ever growing understanding of ourselves and the Cosmos we live in. We are collectively wiser than our ancestors, just not uniformly so. I would argue that hanging on to antiquated belief systems born out of a more ignorant past contributes to that disparity.

If you want a better world, we have to come to terms with the reality we actually have, not the one we imagine exists.

Science has not made humans better humans because it is essentially an amoral endeavor. It's all about increased function, not increased wisdom, morality, or ethics. And your bizarre near-worship of it isn't going to help. Especially when it's so intent on ignoring and degrading the cognitive disciplines that can help us in this regard.

 

[PureX]

You want more wisdom, more subjective intelligence, but how can that be accomplished without a factual understanding of human behavior and all the factors that influence it?

Most of the factors that influence our thinking and behavior are conceptual (metaphysical), which are beyond the reach of science. Individual and collective value and purpose aren't something that can be quantified and experimented on.

The problems you describe are not those of science or industrialization, they are the problems derived from our innate instinctual behaviors, our inherited human nature.

We humans have multiple 'natures' that are partly inherited, partly socialized into us, and partly personal choice. Science is not going to unravel that knot, just as it has not done so in the last 300+ years.

We are simply born with them and every generation has to come to terms with a population of individuals pre-wired to function in small bands of hunter/gatherers. Fortunately, we are malleable, adaptive creatures, with a capacity for reason and an ability to override reflexive instinctual responses.

I don’t see that we are killing ourselves either faster or in greater relative numbers than we have in the past. I would argue the reverse actually, and attribute the reversal to our ever growing understanding of ourselves and the Cosmos we live in. We are collectively wiser than our ancestors, just not uniformly so. I would argue that hanging on to antiquated belief systems born out of a more ignorant past contributes to that disparity.

If you want a better world, we have to come to terms with the reality we actually have, not the one we imagine exists.

Science has not made humans better humans because it is essentially an amoral endeavor. It's all about increased function, not increased wisdom, morality, or ethics. And your bizarre near-worship of it isn't going to help. Especially when it's so intent on ignoring and degrading the cognitive disciplines that can help us.

 

[F1fan]

Most of the factors that influence our thinking and behavior are conceptual (metaphysical), which are beyond the reach of science. Individual and collective value and purpose aren't something that can be quantified and experimented on.

Metaphysics isn't valid description of how things work, it is a semi-religious belief or philosophy that makes many unwarranted assumptions. If you use this framework as a means to understand anything then i can see why you say life experience is subjective. @MikeF and others are critical of your way of thinking because it is inaccurate and misleading. Ironically you are critical of our more objective way of thinking because you claim it is subjective, yet it's you who delibrately uses subjective assumptions. We critical thinkers are more interested in understanding what is true about human exverience than you are. You want to manipulte experience in a way and treat it as inherent and informative.

The social science CAN and DOES examine human behavior, and offers broad explanations about how humans think and behave, including why a person would decide to treat metaphysics as a reliable basis for understanding.

We humans have multiple 'natures' that are partly inherited, partly socialized into us, and partly personal choice. Science is not going to unravel that knot, just as it has not done so in the last 300+ years.

More of your contempt for what science can do. How do you come to this conclusion, your bogus metaphysics?

Science has not made humans better humans because it is essentially an amoral endeavor.

So medicines that help people manage disorders and anxiety never happened? Therapies that help people move past their trauma and anxieties haven't happened? Technologies that help reduce pollution never happened? Nutrition that helps health and longevity never happened? Sports medicine that has made athletes better never happened?

That science is objective and not necessarily moral is irrelevant to how it has improved the lives of humans and humanity. The morality comes in how science is used. Some to help humanity, some decisions have harmed society. Science is a tool, how will it be used?

It's all about increased function, not increased wisdom, morality, or ethics. And your bizarre near-worship of it isn't going to help. Especially when it's so intent on ignoring and degrading the cognitive disciplines that can help us.

Here you go againt with your manufactured accusation of others who value what sicence can do to reveal what is true about the universe. It's your contempt that is noticable. I am very curious why you dislike science so much. You lack the curiosity of your own beliefs to even admit you have this problem.

 

[MikeF]

Most of the factors that influence our thinking and behavior are conceptual (metaphysical), which are beyond the reach of science. Individual and collective value and purpose aren't something that can be quantified and experimented on.

Perhaps if one adopts your unrealistically restrictive understanding of what science is or scientific inquiry. A scientific approach to inquiry and understanding is simply one that acknowledges the flaws and fallibilities both inherent and acquired by the inquirer, and employs measures to actively mitigate those flaws and fallibilities. To be beyond a scientific approach is to be beyond any approach.

We humans have multiple 'natures' that are partly inherited, partly socialized into us, and partly personal choice. Science is not going to unravel that knot, just as it has not done so in the last 300+ years.

And you have the word 'natures' in single quotes because, in then end, all the factors that play a role still culminate in the behavioral expression of an individual. The fact that you acknowledge the expression of human behavior as being multi-factoral as you have described is a testament to advancement in our scientific understanding of the human condition. The knot is unravelling despite your claims to the contrary.

Science has not made humans better humans because it is essentially an amoral endeavor. It's all about increased function, not increased wisdom, morality, or ethics. And your bizarre near-worship of it isn't going to help. Especially when it's so intent on ignoring and degrading the cognitive disciplines that can help us.

Whose morality and whose ethical standards? If each of us is unique with our expressed personality the result of a complex of numerous factors, then there is no single moral or ethical standard. What is left to us, then, is negotiation, compromise, and some eventual form of consensus.

As to science being perceived to "ignore or degrade" belief systems you portray as "cognitive disciplines", it makes me think of the folktale, "The Emperor's New Clothes". It becomes more and more difficult to maintain artificial constructs of reality as understanding of actual reality continually grows. Science is akin to the child in the story that blurts out that the Emperor has no clothes, shattering the ability for all to maintain the pretense that the naked Emperor is clothed.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps if one adopts your unrealistically restrictive understanding of what science is or scientific inquiry. A scientific approach to inquiry and understanding is simply one that acknowledges the flaws and fallibilities both inherent and acquired by the inquirer, and employs measures to actively mitigate those flaws and fallibilities. To be beyond a scientific approach is to be beyond any approach.

I understand science to be a process involving physical experimentation for the goal of determining the functionality of a theory. The theory stands within the parameters of the experiment, or it doesn't. And this is not a process that lends itself to the exploration of values, ethics, or other similar 'meta'-concepts.

I realize that the term 'science' is also used as an umbrella label that includes many pseudo-scientific pursuits like psychology and sociology in the same way that 'art' is used as an umbrella term that includes many pseudo-creative endeavors like decoration and entertainment. But I'm not inclined to muddy up the principal with these sorts of extraneous tangents.

And you have the word 'natures' in single quotes because, in then end, all the factors that play a role still culminate in the behavioral expression of an individual. The fact that you acknowledge the expression of human behavior as being multi-factoral as you have described is a testament to advancement in our scientific understanding of the human condition. The knot is unravelling despite your claims to the contrary.

No, it's really not. We are clearly sliding back into an era of corporate feudalism and an intellectual "dark age" very similar to the era of feudal fiefdoms before the dawn of science and the "enlightenment". Turns out the scientific light wasn't our beacon of hope after all. Greed and willful ignorance is clearly winning the day.

Whose morality and whose ethical standards? If each of us is unique with our expressed personality the result of a complex of numerous factors, then there is no single moral or ethical standard. What is left to us, then, is negotiation, compromise, and some eventual form of consensus.

Or "might makes right". Which certainly seems to be the preferred method not just among our rulers, but among many of our compatriots as well. And I see scientists doing mostly nothing to mitigate that. Because morality just isn't in their game plan.

As to science being perceived to "ignore or degrade" belief systems you portray as "cognitive disciplines", it makes me think of the folktale, "The Emperor's New Clothes". It becomes more and more difficult to maintain artificial constructs of reality as understanding of actual reality continually grows. Science is akin to the child in the story that blurts out that the Emperor has no clothes, shattering the ability for all to maintain the pretense that the naked Emperor is clothed.

Four percent of the universe is not exactly "unboxing reality". And as usual, you're completely ignoring all those aspects of existence that are not material.

 

[Alien826]

The pain is subjective. Not objective. Perception IS conception. The point is the presumption that existence is objective. Yet all we can ever know of it is via subjective conceptual experience. It may be our only theory, but whatever sense it makes is happening in our own minds.

What is objective is that hitting the thumb with the hammer will damage the thumb and (with some exceptions) cause pain, which is subjective, yes.

I didn't say there is no reality. I said reality is a fiction that we create in our minds.

Frankly, that seems to be the same thing.

Only because we can now travel further than to could in the distant past. And in the future, if we have one, the spherical Earth reality may well become an antiquated concept. The point here is that NONE OF THESE CONCEPTS IS WRONG. They are simply more or less applicable to our current experience. This is something that most people cannot or will not accept, because they are so invested in the idea of their being "right".

You think that at some future time people will believe that the earth is not (roughly) spherical? Seriously?

The problem is that we can't know which is which except via personal or collective experience. So the presumption that ANYTHING we think we know is "right", is just presumption. And an unnecessary one at that.

Everything is a mystery if we look close enough at it. And we need to be more honest with ourselves about this. Lest we fall for our own hubris.

Yes, we are all self-deceived in equal measure. Mostly because we are all structured to desire the same illusion.

So people agree on (most) aspects of reality through some kind of shared delusion? How does that operate?

When you have to jump to extreme and absurd conclusions like this, and then foist them onto your "opponent", you have already lost the debate.

It seemed that way, due to your almost universal rejection of "science". It might follow that you have some better alternative to science, and I posed an extreme question in the hope that you might explain.

Incidentally, I haven't lost the debate. It's just your subjective and inaccurate opinion that I have.

It's not about "more", it's about "better".

Good luck with that.

 

[PureX]

What is objective is that hitting the thumb with the hammer will damage the thumb and (with some exceptions) cause pain, which is subjective, yes.

Frankly, that seems to be the same thing.

To you. I know. But they very clearly are not the same things, as we are constantly having to discover. Whatever reality is, it's not what we think it is. You keep calling it "objective" as if that means you know it, but nothing is "objective" to we humans because WE are the subjects doing the experiencing and the comprehending, and we can never not be. So whatever it is you're calling "objective" it's forever beyond our comprehension. And anything that falls within our comprehension will be subjectively comprehended, by us ... the subjects doing the comprehending.

You think that at some future time people will believe that the earth is not (roughly) spherical? Seriously?

I think we will come to cognate the Earth as a holistic complex of interactive phenomena. And it's physical shape will not be of any great significance to us, anymore. Other aspects will have become more important.

So people agree on (most) aspects of reality through some kind of shared delusion? How does that operate?

What we cognate as reality, is an elaborate fiction. That fiction is both shared by us, and individualized by us. So we can and do both agree and disagree about it.

It seemed that way, due to your almost universal rejection of "science". It might follow that you have some better alternative to science, and I posed an extreme question in the hope that you might explain.

Why should I need to explain the importance of philosophy, art, and religion as human cognitive endeavors to you? How is it that you have come to feel they need justification? Is your obsession with science as the fountain of all truth so intense that it has blocked out all these other means of comprehending our eperience of existence? If so, that must be an awfully weird and small world you live in!

 

[Alien826]

Why should I need to explain the importance of philosophy, art, and religion as human cognitive endeavors to you? How is it that you have come to feel they need justification? Is your obsession with science as the fountain of all truth so intense that it has blocked out all these other means of comprehending our eperience of existence? If so, that must be an awfully weird and small world you live in!

Well, you don't need to obviously. I thought that as we were discussing the subject you might want to, but my bad I guess.

Anyway, we've probably been round this subject enough.

 

[PureX]

Well, you don't need to obviously. I thought that as we were discussing the subject you might want to, but my bad I guess.

Do you truly not understand that philosophy, art, and religion help us to explore and better understand our conceptual ideation of the existential experience, and can therefor provide us wisdom as opposed to mere knowledge? Wisdom being necessary to the appropriate application of the knowledge that science can provide us?

 

[F1fan]

I understand science to be a process involving physical experimentation for the goal of determining the functionality of a theory. The theory stands within the parameters of the experiment, or it doesn't. And this is not a process that lends itself to the exploration of values, ethics, or other similar 'meta'-concepts.

I realize that the term 'science' is also used as an umbrella label that includes many pseudo-scientific pursuits like psychology and sociology in the same way that 'art' is used as an umbrella term that includes many pseudo-creative endeavors like decoration and entertainment.

False, the social sciences follow the scientific method as does the physical sciences. The primary difference is that the minimum statistical standard is 95% for sociel science versis 99.95% for the physical sciences, The reason is that for social sciences it is more difficult to account for variables. Despite that minimum some experiments can reach a very high percentage. The study I did in college examined the attitudes towards science in regards to religious attitudes. I used the standard religiosity survey to assess the level of religiosity of the subject and then asked them to complete a true/false set of questions. The results showed a distinct correlation between religiosity and how science is is accepted. The higher the subject's religiosity the lower their attitude towards science, and the lower the religiosity the higher the attitude towards science. The statistical accuracy was 99.99%. Even I was surprised how religiosity correlated to attitudes towards science. I decided my experiment was to examine this due to what I have seen theists, like yourself, have inaccurate and prejudical attitudes towards science.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.​

​

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are now corrected.

But I'm not inclined to muddy up the principal with these sorts of extraneous tangents.

Don't sell yourself short, you muddy things as a habit.

No, it's really not. We are clearly sliding back into an era of corporate feudalism and an intellectual "dark age" very similar to the era of feudal fiefdoms before the dawn of science and the "enlightenment". Turns out the scientific light wasn't our beacon of hope after all. Greed and willful ignorance is clearly winning the day.

Tools are only as useful as the level of responsibility the user has. With a large minority of American citizens willing to support a corrupt person like Trump tells us the maturity and intellectual level of these people is quite low. It reminds me of the thing Chuck McGill said about his brother getting a law degree as like a "chimp with a machine gun". American conservatives have devolved to a point where they are much like chimps with machine guns.

The problem is why ideology is so attractive to undisciplined and immature human minds, and what can be done to remedy this huge fault. This includes political and religious ideology, much of which is now comingled aong USA citizens.

Or "might makes right". Which certainly seems to be the preferred method not just among our rulers, but among many of our compatriots as well. And I see scientists doing mostly nothing to mitigate that. Because morality just isn't in their game plan.

False. Here you are trying to vilify and demonize scientists as if they are the mindless monsters that create evil. And you do this as a theist.

Ethics in science is a crucial discussion. In fact ethics became a huge issue once atomic power was realized, and scientists like Leo Szilard and Einstein advocated for nuclear weapons to be demonstrated to an international audient instead of being used on civilian targets. It was Truman and military advisors that rejected this idea. More scintists like Jacob Bronowski toured the devastation of Hiroshima after the war and decided to formally discuss the ethics of science.

I'm currently reading Bronowski's Science and Human Values.

Bronowski once wrote: 'It is often said that science has destroyed our values and put nothing in its place. What has really happened of course is that science has shown in harsh relief the division between our values and our world.' He believed profoundly that science can create the values we lack by looking into the human personality, exploring what makes humans unique and their societies human rather than animal packs.​

​

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

I suggest you watch this clip from Bronowski's Ascent of Man series, where he testifies in Auschwitz that it isn't science that dehumanizes people, but dogma.

You are now corrected.

 

[Alien826]

Do you truly not understand that philosophy, art, and religion help us to explore and better understand our conceptual ideation of the existential experience, and can therefor provide us wisdom as opposed to mere knowledge? Wisdom being necessary to the appropriate application of the knowledge that science can provide us?

Yes these things can help to lead us to wisdom if factually based. I would say that all "wisdom" is not wise and the trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff (of which there is plenty in those areas).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you truly not understand that philosophy, art, and religion help us to explore and better understand our conceptual ideation of the existential experience, and can therefor provide us wisdom as opposed to mere knowledge? Wisdom being necessary to the appropriate application of the knowledge that science can provide us?

You seem to be stuck on the idea that empiricism precludes a rich and satisfying inner life or excludes things like art. You don't understand what the empiricist is telling you. He is telling you that empiricism is the only path to knowledge, not that that knowledge is all that there is to life. That knowledge is only a means to an end.

It is by using this method that the empiricist learns which experiences bring happiness and how the material world works in order to facilitate having them, that is, what's true about the world and how his body experiences it. Art and music can play a large role in that happiness, but one must discover this fact empirically and make it happen empirically.

If intelligence is the ability to get what you want by accumulating knowledge about how the world works, then wisdom is knowing what to want to find happiness. They're both knowledge discovered empirically if one knows how to go about accumulating it, and knowledge is the means by which we can facilitate a happier life for ourselves.

You do this too, but don't seem to realize it. You overlook the empirical basis for your getting pleasure creating and experiencing art - the trial-and-error aspect of learning how to create that which you find satisfying or stimulating. And because you don't realize that THAT is empiricism, which you seem to think is limited to the laboratory or observatory work of professional scientists doing formal science, you use words like materialism and scientism scoffingly.

 

[MikeF]

I understand science to be a process involving physical experimentation for the goal of determining the functionality of a theory. The theory stands within the parameters of the experiment, or it doesn't. And this is not a process that lends itself to the exploration of values, ethics, or other similar 'meta'-concepts.

Scientific inquiry is not restricted to quantitative methodology alone but may also use qualitative methodologies. Beyond that, human behavior is a biological expression, the expression of a physical organism. Scientific branches such as neurobiology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry all contribute to our understanding as well as other social sciences such as economics and political science. If research is conducted in these fields with the intent to mitigate investigator induced error, then they are conducting research scientifically. Your topics of values, ethics, or other “meta-concepts”(whatever that may be) can and should be addressed in a scientific manner if the intent is to do more than indulge some investigators' biased fancy, and subjective choices in those areas should be informed by current scientific understanding. When it comes down to what values, ethics, and morals should be adopted by society, it becomes a political matter as any choice in this regard is going to be a subjective one. Not everyone is going to feel exactly the same way on every single issue, but don’t we want everyone to be as well informed as possible when making such decisions? Of course this process has been occurring organically all through documented history. As society and culture change, values, ethics, and morals change and adapt to the new societal realities.

I realize that the term 'science' is also used as an umbrella label that includes many pseudo-scientific pursuits like psychology and sociology in the same way that 'art' is used as an umbrella term that includes many pseudo-creative endeavors like decoration and entertainment. But I'm not inclined to muddy up the principal with these sorts of extraneous tangents.

Ahh, disparage and discredit the social sciences so as to shield your “meta-concepts” from the lens of their scrutiny. Yes, it is near impossible to maintain the pretense that the Emperor is clothed when there are those who keep shouting out that he is naked.

Bad science will out. If poor studies are conducted in psychology or sociology, continuing work in those areas will highlight those poor studies in time, just as in any other scientific discipline. That is how science works. Nothing is sacred. There is nothing that cannot be re-evaluated. The same cannot be said for philosophy or religion.

I don’t see the term pseudoscience as a useful term. It makes it sound like it is partially valid. To my mind, one is either engaged in scientific inquiry, which can be done well or poorly, or you have charlatan science in which someone tries to apply the mantle or cache of science to their particular con. The health and beauty industry is chock full of charlatan science, in my view.

No, it's really not. We are clearly sliding back into an era of corporate feudalism and an intellectual "dark age" very similar to the era of feudal fiefdoms before the dawn of science and the "enlightenment". Turns out the scientific light wasn't our beacon of hope after all. Greed and willful ignorance is clearly winning the day.

Or "might makes right". Which certainly seems to be the preferred method not just among our rulers, but among many of our compatriots as well. And I see scientists doing mostly nothing to mitigate that. Because morality just isn't in their game plan.

This would be your subjective assessment of current affairs and one that may not be shared by everyone. Here we are in the realm of politics and social management. I personally think this process would be less hindered (it is never easy) if everyone engaged in this process within a reference frame of known reality instead of working from many different artificial constructs of reality, but that would be my subjective preference.

Four percent of the universe is not exactly "unboxing reality". And as usual, you're completely ignoring all those aspects of existence that are not material.

You have been throwing this idea out a lot lately, that we only know 4% of the Cosmos. You do this to imply that there is a strong possibility that some (most?) of that remaining 96% is fundamentally different from the reality we experience here on earth. This notion strikes me as being no different than our ancient ancestor who may have only had access to 4% of the Earth’s surface and envisioned entirely different realms above the clouds and below the earth, and beyond the ocean's horizon.

Yes, currently we can only observe some small percentage of the Cosmos, but to have an expectation that the physical properties and characteristics of reality are somehow different in the vast regions beyond our observation seems no different than imagining a kingdom of the gods just beyond the clouds.

 

[Kfox]

You have been throwing this idea out a lot lately, that we only know 4% of the Cosmos. You do this to imply that there is a strong possibility that some (most?) of that remaining 96% is fundamentally different from the reality we experience here on earth. This notion strikes me as being no different than our ancient ancestor who may have only had access to 4% of the Earth’s surface and envisioned entirely different realms above the clouds and below the earth, and beyond the ocean's horizon.

Our ancestors would have been correct to assume so, because you can’t look at just 4% of Earth's surface and assume everything else is like the 4% that you observed; there is much beyond your observation.

 

[MikeF]

Our ancestors would have been correct to assume so, because you can’t look at just 4% of Earth's surface and assume everything else is like the 4% that you observed; there is much beyond your observation.

Hmmm. I was referring to physical laws. Things like gravity and the properties of elemental atoms, for example. So, while I quite agree that there may be plenty of things that we have never seen or experienced before out there in the greater Cosmos, there is no reason to have an expectation that the laws of physics will be different. We may experience things that refine our understanding of the physical universe if we expand further into the Cosmos, but just as Einstein's relativity refined Newton's Classical Mechanics, the physical world remained the exact same world, we simply gained a better understanding of what was going on.

 

[PureX]

Scientific inquiry is not restricted to quantitative methodology alone but may also use qualitative methodologies. Beyond that, human behavior is a biological expression, the expression of a physical organism.

Human behavior is far more complex then that. But I guess you just can't or won't allow yourself to consider any other aspects of human existence than the physical as they do not align with your philosophical materialist paradigm.

Scientific branches such as neurobiology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry all contribute to our understanding as well as other social sciences such as economics and political science.

Yes, some. But they will never give is an accurate or meningful understanding of ourselves, by themselves.

Ahh, disparage and discredit the social sciences so as to shield your “meta-concepts” from the lens of their scrutiny.

Well, they aren't actually "science" any more than cake decorating is art. But they fall under the same oversized conceptual umbrella and so long as we ignore how they don't belong, we can always proclaim that they do.

I don’t see the term pseudoscience as a useful term.

An yet, it exists.

It makes it sound like it is partially valid.

That's about right ... 'partially valid'.

To my mind, one is either engaged in scientific inquiry, which can be done well or poorly, or you have charlatan science in which someone tries to apply the mantle or cache of science to their particular con. The health and beauty industry is chock full of charlatan science, in my view.

My, what a binary view. Let's try it this way: science to pseudoscience to fake science as a scale of genuine scientific inquiry.

This would be your subjective assessment of current affairs and one that may not be shared by everyone.

Can I or anyone else ever have anything BUT a subjective assessment ... of anything? I know you think so, bit so fat none of you worshipers of "objectivity" have ever been able to explain how this could be so, logically.

Here we are in the realm of politics and social management. I personally think this process would be less hindered (it is never easy) if everyone engaged in this process within a reference frame of known reality instead of working from many different artificial constructs of reality, but that would be my subjective preference.

Yes, except that no such thing exists. At least not that any of us can access. But let e guess, you think YOUR concept of reality should be the one that we all adhere to as our universal reference.

You have been throwing this idea out a lot lately, that we only know 4% of the Cosmos. You do this to imply that there is a strong possibility that some (most?) of that remaining 96% is fundamentally different from the reality we experience here on earth.

All it tells us is that we don't know nearly as much as the scientism cultists are constantly proclaiming. That 4% is so small that it's less than the margin of error. Which makes it effectively irrelevant. And yet to hear the scientism cultists talk, you'd think we know "objective reality" so well and so surely that only some minor details are left to be determined. When in fact the whole of it remain a huge mystery.

Which is WHY I consider them cultists, akin to religious fanatics. It's exactly that delusion of "knowing" that drives them both into a state of self-blindness.

This notion strikes me as being no different than our ancient ancestor who may have only had access to 4% of the Earth’s surface and envisioned entirely different realms above the clouds and below the earth, and beyond the ocean's horizon.

Yes, exactly. Only we describe these fantasms using maths while our ancestors used myths. But it's produces the same delusion of knowing in the face of our overwhelming ignorance.

Yes, currently we can only observe some small percentage of the Cosmos, but to have an expectation that the physical properties and characteristics of reality are somehow different in the vast regions beyond our observation seems no different than imagining a kingdom of the gods just beyond the clouds.

It's not just about how little we can "observe". It's about how little we understand any of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you just can't or won't allow yourself to consider any other aspects of human existence than the physical

Why should he or anybody else? There is no aspect of human or any other existence that isn't physical. All of our thoughts and feelings like everything else that is real - that is, that exists in space and time and interacts with other real things - are physical as best we can tell, which is not synonymous with material. The physical also includes energy, force, space and time.

they aren't actually "science" any more than cake decorating is art.

Of course cake decorating is art. One is making aesthetic decisions, arranging form and color to appeal to the eye.

you worshipers of "objectivity"

Why do you feel the need to demean those that reject your worldview?

All it tells us is that we don't know nearly as much as the scientism cultists are constantly proclaiming.

And more of your contempt for others. It makes you appear angry and insecure in your own position, unlike the people you demean.

It's not just about how little we can "observe". It's about how little we understand any of it.

This is YOUR cult and what YOU worship - postmodern epistemic nihilism. Does it make you feel intelligent or superior to tell others that they don't know as much as they think they do? Does it give you any advantage at all to think this way? I don't see how it could.

delusion of knowing

That's you telling the world how little you think YOU know, which you project onto others. I don't consider my knowledge or its value to me delusion, but apparently, that's how you think about your own thinking. My worldview, which includes my empirically acquired fund of knowledge, works well for me.

 

[MikeF]

It's not just about how little we can "observe". It's about how little we understand any of it.

How do you personally know how much or little we know of any of it? What if we have 60% of how the Cosmos works figured out? What if its 70% and the whole 100% of the Cosmos is simply an expression of the same mechanics of which we have more than half of it solved?

Here is the difference between you and I. My position is that the world is exactly as it appears to be and you have assumed there is more than what there appears, hidden in the unknow. The problem is, we cannot assume anything about what lies beyond the known, that is what is illogical. There is no reference upon which to claim how much is left to discover nor claim the nature of what may reside in the unknown or how it may be different from what is currently know. The best we can do is work with what we have and patiently build upon it, assuming nothing about what lies ahead.

 

[PureX]

You want more wisdom, more subjective intelligence, but how can that be accomplished without a factual understanding of human behavior and all the factors that influence it?

It begins by understanding that we will never have an understanding of all those things. Neither omniscience nor perfection is going to be possible. But we have a number of useful cognitive tools we can use to help us achieve some degree of wisdom with which to apply whatever actual knowledge we may manage to gain or possess.

The problems you describe are not those of science or industrialization, they are the problems derived from our innate instinctual behaviors, our inherited human nature.

... that science has done nothing to mitigate, and that industrialization has clearly exacerbated.

We are simply born with them and every generation has to come to terms with a population of individuals pre-wired to function in small bands of hunter/gatherers. Fortunately, we are malleable, adaptive creatures, with a capacity for reason and an ability to override reflexive instinctual responses.

And yet we continue to fail in that regard as warfare, starvation, disease, and brutality break out regularly among humans all across the globe. Just as we have for over 100,000 years. We learn nothing but how to kill each other more efficiently thanks to the industrialized application of science-derived knowledge.

I don’t see that we are killing ourselves either faster or in greater relative numbers than we have in the past. I would argue the reverse actually, and attribute the reversal to our ever growing understanding of ourselves and the Cosmos we live in. We are collectively wiser than our ancestors, just not uniformly so. I would argue that hanging on to antiquated belief systems born out of a more ignorant past contributes to that disparity.

If you want a better world, we have to come to terms with the reality we actually have, not the one we imagine exists.

Where do you see science creating these better humans and this better world? Star Trek is fiction. Where do you see the lack of art, philosophy, and religion making people wiser, and kinder, and less inclined to abuse and destroy each other? Where are you seeing scientists gathering together to discuss the potential moral harm their discoveries are enabling? Or the possible moral good their inquiries could be pursuing. Because I'm sure not seeing any of this.