Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but natural science is only one form of knowledge.

Skepticism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, History, & Criticism

Skepticism, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Philosophical skeptics have doubted the possibility of any knowledge not derived directly from experience, and they have developed arguments to undermine the contentions of dogmatic philosophers, scientists, and...

www.britannica.com

In other words I am a philosophical skeptic, where you are a sceintific skeptic and that is not the same.

So as a philosophical skeptic, you are skeptical of what exactly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So as a philosophical skeptic, you are skeptical of what exactly?

That I can know anything as in effect in the strong sense of objective.
And no, I am not a metaphysical solipsist. So don't go there.

 

[Nakosis]

That I can know anything as in effect in the strong sense of objective.
And no, I am not a metaphysical solipsist. So don't go there.

IOW, all knowledge we have is subjective to the POV of being a human?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, here is how I will do it. I will google it and rely on the books I already have written by different scientists.
I enjoy to learn how other people on forums understand science, but for what science is, I don't use forums.

And I will find other sources than just English language ones as they also have a bias.
In effect you are reporting your bias and I am reporting mine, but you are speical, because it seems you believe, that you don't have a cultural bias.

The scientific method transcends culture.

This is the point you seem to be not getting.

It matters not in which culture you find yourself.
If you wish to do a, say, medical clinical trial, the form and method and "best practice" will be the same, if it is to be conducted according the proper scientific standards , as if you find yourself in any other culture.

It matters not if you are a western atheist, a chinese buddhist, a japanes shintoist, and israeli jew, a pakistani muslim, or what-have-you.

You will have a control group, a group that gets the actual active drug, etc. And you as the researcher won't even know which subject is in which group. That will only be revealed at the end of the study when all data is collected and plotted and sealed. The same general form, methods and standards will be in place.

Your "culture" matters not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But where does the maps exist?

On paper, in your head, on the computer, wherever.

The model is not the thing being modeled.
The model is supposed to accurately reflect the thing being modeled.
This is why you test the model against the thing being modeled.
To see if it's accurate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That we understand and in effect act differently for certain behavoiur in the landscape.
In practice we have different cognitve schemata and it would properly show up if we were brainscanned.

So far for speaking in clear and plain terms....


I asked for what the practical difference is. I still have no clue.

 

[osgart]

No, not when we model humans for how they understand internally. We human also make models of us and models of how we make models.

You are in effect doing a strong form of dualism but it doesn't hold up.
Here is the non-natural science test. If there are maps and the landscape and the maps are not the same as the landscape, then where do the maps exist?

Science is practical knowledge gained for the benefit of it. If it is effective and works well it can be utilized. Science isn't meant to be an ultimate explanation of why things are the way they are. It's more about how the external world behaves, and what the natural world is doing. Beyond that it's all philosophical.

If there's an intrinsic nature to reality science isn't going to uncover it. It's scope is of the extrinsic behaviour of the natural world. That's why consciousness is elusive, and not well understood. We know consciousness by external behavior, and introspection from the first person perspective. There's no access to the private inner world of others. Same goes for gravity; it's known by how it behaves, and by patterns of external behavior.

 

[Quintessence]

As for the debate, do you know of any model of the universe that is only external and don't require internal understanding in part?

This is kind of an interesting question that's getting lost in the grass.

It probably goes without saying that reality and the universe is not dependent on human existence or human perception. As such, in the hypothetical, an innumerable number of models of reality and the universe are present that don't require the processing of any human to be present and correct. In practice, as a human every single one of these models is processed by the essential natures and limitations of being human; there is no purely external or "objective" model that doesn't pass through an inherently internal or "subjective" interface.

The best tools for attempting to bypass this are found in the arts (especially mysticism)... which is interesting to think about and rarely gets brought into the conversation. The problem (and strength) of the sciences is that it sets very stringent rules for how models are constructed that make an internal understanding (or rationalization) so essential as to be mandatory. The arts - especially mysticism - don't care about setting rules and permit wholly free and open exploration into what we can call trans-rational (beyond the rational) space. And it is there one can poke at the beyond - the place where the external models exist and can be experienced if one suspends rationalistic thought and one's internal filters and analysis. It... it's hard to explain to someone who doesn't practice mysticism, to be honest. Part of the point is that it can't be explained or packed up neatly into a set of rules like the sciences gift to us.

In any case, different paths are suited for different folks. Some folks can't handle the rule-bound nature of the sciences, some folks can't handle the anarchistic nature of the arts, some folks handle a bit of both. Wherever one falls in this trifecta that'll really shape how one understands things like "evidence" or assesses the importance of "objectivity" or the value of simple "experience" and so on. But no matter where one falls, at the end of the day it all has to be of some use to actual life and living; to not be too detached from the day-to-day. On the whole, I'd say the sciences provide a much richer foundation for the day-to-day; they're pragmatic and focused. Mysticism and the arts are often fleeting and ephemeral, unfocused and whimsical. Sometimes, I need that. Other times, the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is kind of an interesting question that's getting lost in the grass.

It probably goes without saying that reality and the universe is not dependent on human existence or human perception. As such, in the hypothetical, an innumerable number of models of reality and the universe are present that don't require the processing of any human to be present and correct. In practice, as a human every single one of these models is processed by the essential natures and limitations of being human; there is no purely external or "objective" model that doesn't pass through an inherently internal or "subjective" interface.

The best tools for attempting to bypass this are found in the arts (especially mysticism)... which is interesting to think about and rarely gets brought into the conversation. The problem (and strength) of the sciences is that it sets very stringent rules for how models are constructed that make an internal understanding (or rationalization) so essential as to be mandatory. The arts - especially mysticism - don't care about setting rules and permit wholly free and open exploration into what we can call trans-rational (beyond the rational) space. And it is there one can poke at the beyond - the place where the external models exist and can be experienced if one suspends rationalistic thought and one's internal filters and analysis. It... it's hard to explain to someone who doesn't practice mysticism, to be honest. Part of the point is that it can't be explained or packed up neatly into a set of rules like the sciences gift to us.

In any case, different paths are suited for different folks. Some folks can't handle the rule-bound nature of the sciences, some folks can't handle the anarchistic nature of the arts, some folks handle a bit of both. Wherever one falls in this trifecta that'll really shape how one understands things like "evidence" or assesses the importance of "objectivity" or the value of simple "experience" and so on. But no matter where one falls, at the end of the day it all has to be of some use to actual life and living; to not be too detached from the day-to-day. On the whole, I'd say the sciences provide a much richer foundation for the day-to-day; they're pragmatic and focused. Mysticism and the arts are often fleeting and ephemeral, unfocused and whimsical. Sometimes, I need that. Other times, the other.

Good post.
Well, I properly fall in the middle with a weird tendency of rational irrationalism. Yeah, I know, but as a skeptic I love false, wrong, meannigless and all those other limits to rationality, but I still try to understand it rationally if it makes sense.

 

[Yerda]

No, not when we model humans for how they understand internally. We human also make models of us and models of how we make models.

Agreed.

But we're going to arrive at the metaphor metaphor soon. Eventually this recursion stops making any sense and starts to resemble an acid trip.

You are in effect doing a strong form of dualism but it doesn't hold up.

Why do you say so?

Here is the non-natural science test. If there are maps and the landscape and the maps are not the same as the landscape, then where do the maps exist?

Wherever we leave them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Wherever we leave them.

Well, I leave them in the map-room which is not in the landscape as I have never been in the landscape, but always lived in the map-room.

The point being that it is a bad metaphor and overlooks that there are otherways to understand the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The scientific method transcends culture.

This is the point you seem to be not getting.

It matters not in which culture you find yourself.
If you wish to do a, say, medical clinical trial, the form and method and "best practice" will be the same, if it is to be conducted according the proper scientific standards , as if you find yourself in any other culture.

It matters not if you are a western atheist, a chinese buddhist, a japanes shintoist, and israeli jew, a pakistani muslim, or what-have-you.

You will have a control group, a group that gets the actual active drug, etc. And you as the researcher won't even know which subject is in which group. That will only be revealed at the end of the study when all data is collected and plotted and sealed. The same general form, methods and standards will be in place.

Your "culture" matters not.

No, because we can observe for different cultures different claims of what science is.
I already gave a link in Danish that had 3 kinds of science and your (sub-)culture only allows for 2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On paper, in your head, on the computer, wherever.

The model is not the thing being modeled.
The model is supposed to accurately reflect the thing being modeled.
This is why you test the model against the thing being modeled.
To see if it's accurate.

Yeah but not all words and understandings have objective referents. That is the first problem. The second is that e.g. the word the universe is self referential as it includes the human claiming there is a universe.
So for the part objective, yes does natural science all you like, but that you find that natural science important is for the word importand not science as it has no objective referent. Rather it is a part of your internal subjective model of how to make sense as you.

 

[Yerda]

Well, I leave them in the map-room which is not in the landscape as I have never been in the landscape, but always lived in the map-room.

But then the maps are also within the landscape. So you've been there the whole time.

The point being that it is a bad metaphor and overlooks that there are otherways to understand the universe.

Of course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So far for speaking in clear and plain terms....


I asked for what the practical difference is. I still have no clue.

E.g. how to trreat other human depends for certain case if you consider what is at play medical, social/cultural, indivudal or something else.
I have a book for profesionals about how to treat humans that for certain problems have several different models for understanding what the problem is and how to deal with it.
And only one of the model is medical, others are different again. If you have no clue that it is so for certain types of proffesional work and that the problem changes depending on what kind of model you use, then I can't help. I learned this in Danish. My books are in Danish and I don't have egnough words in English to searh for it.
I can try if you ask and see if I can find it in English.

 

[Balthazzar]

Now this is not just Danish culture as this can also be found in other cultures, but what science is, is cultural.
You give evidence for what science is as humam behaviour be observing people and asking people what science is to them, i.e. how they understand it.
So the evidence for what science is, is not indepedent of humans and has an elemant of being internal.
Now here is some Danish text about what science is in this culture:
"Naturvidenskaben undersøger fænomener i naturen for at finde de bagved liggende love, også kaldet naturlovene. I samfundsvidenskab og humaniora er man ikke på samme måde interesseret i love. Her retter man i stedet blikket mod forståelse.

I humaniora er man for eksempel interesseret i at forstå menneskets tanker ‘indefra’. Det vil sige, at man forsøger at forstå menneskers motiver, meninger og intentioner. Her handler det blandt andet om at forstå sproget, litteraturen, kunsten og historien."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

If you google translate you get this:
"Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.

In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history."

The key words for non-natural science being to understand from the inside.
And now I can ask this: For the claim that evidence matters, is that that evidence matters, with evidence from the method of natural science or is it a case of understanding it from the inside?

The same applies to what science is and what religion is, as in part both are about understanding from the inside using different norms for how to do so.
E.g. that there must be evidence as per natural science if I claim something, is not with evidence, but a norm for how I ought to behave.

So here is a very simple internal rule I use for the universe. Is it external or internal? If external, use natural science. If internal use more than natural science.
And now as a reductio ad absurdum. Since only the external is true and real, the parts in this text about internal understanding is not real at all. In fact, there are not even here as text and you are right now delusional as only the external is true and real.

So here is a simple test for internal. If it is internal, check if other humans can understand it differently. It is that simple.
And then please don't do the following becuase it works in both direction: If I can't understand what matters to you, then it doesn't matter to you. But it is different when it matters to me, because I am special and you are not.

And yes, how external and internal relates to each other, is so far as for all claims I have ever read internal. Regardless of science, religion or philosophy claimed as internal method. Not that there is no external part to the universe, but that there is no evidence, that it is the only part.

As for the debate, do you know of any model of the universe that is only external and don't require internal understanding in part?

The dynamics of life and how we relate to it as conscious beings. Sounds like a winner per person who have opportunity to experience life, the objective and subjective relationship between God and us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because we can observe for different cultures different claims of what science is.
I already gave a link in Danish that had 3 kinds of science and your (sub-)culture only allows for 2.

Your link in Danish said no such thing.
It talked about the difference between natural science and the social sciences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The dynamics of life and how we relate to it as conscious beings. Sounds like a winner per person who have opportunity to experience life, the objective and subjective relationship between God and us.

As long as you understand that to an atheist like me, God is not the same as to some other people as e.g. theists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah but not all words and understandings have objective referents. That is the first problem.

Which is why we develop jargon and symbolic languages like math.

The second is that e.g. the word the universe is self referential as it includes the human claiming there is a universe.

The universe = the space-time continuum. It contains, at least, everything we observe (like humans) and likely also additional things we haven't yet observed or don't have the ability to observe.

You seem to be the only one who thinks this is somehow confusing or a problem.

So for the part objective, yes does natural science all you like, but that you find that natural science important is for the word importand not science as it has no objective referent. Rather it is a part of your internal subjective model of how to make sense as you.

I can't make sense of these sentences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your link in Danish said no such thing.
It talked about the difference between natural science and the social sciences.

Well, it did:
"
"Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.

In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history."

"Traditionelt set opdeler man videnskab i naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab)."
Google translate that and you will get 3 kinds of science.