Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[exchemist]

Reality is physical, and it extends far beyond the range of our cognizance. Reality is also conceptual, and varies, endlessly and infinitely, relative to cognitive perspective. Reality thinks. Reality lives. We are a part of it, and it is a part of us. But it is also far more than us, and extends far beyond us individually and collectively in ways we cannot even conceive of.

The scientific method is one tool that we have available to us in trying to expand our cognitive experience of it. But it's just one tool. And it's quite limited in it's usefulness. Still, it's a good tool, and we should use it.

But now there has come among us this new meme of "scientism", in which reality has been reduced to the realm of physicality, and human consciousness has been therefor separated from it and dismissed as an accidental evolutionary anomaly, while scientifically (physically) derived factuality has been elevated to being the building blocks of 'the truth of all that is'.

Thus, tools like imagination, fantasy, practice, intuition, and faith are spurned as meaningless "placebos" for the weak-minded and needy, because they are of little use against "objective physical reality". The only reality that is "real" to those given to this new scientism meme.

OK. Thanks for unpacking at last.

I have a good deal of sympathy for much of what you have written here. This now seems to me consistent with the apparent existence (to collective human senses), of reliable patterns and relationships in nature, such as F=ma or E²= p²c² + m²c⁴, or what have you. These we use to design aeroplanes or calculate the yield from atomic bombs and so on, with apparently reliable results, and to expand our minds to take in the subtlety of nature.

Where you and I evidently part company is that I think these patterns, in view of their predictability and reliability, must signify - or at least are most usefully treated as - a concrete reality independent of our senses that we grope towards.

As you say, the science toolkit is just one toolkit available to the human mind to make sense of its experience, but for the exploration and harnessing of nature it is a very powerful one.

 

[Audie]

The idea that faith is "just a placebo" (meaning a false result) for the foolish and weak-minded is a very common idea espoused by those who have succumbed to "scientism".

Oh? Who has said that? I've not see it.
I asked for an example, Plz provide one.

The part about "foolish and weak minded"-
"Scientism" tends to refer to people who are foolish / facile in their application
of science, so do we have a possible pot v kettle here?

As for placebo, unless one holds that every religion, sect, spiritualist
idea, etc and blah is utterly valid, then placebo may
well apply to somewhere between some. Some grt plscebo,
somev get money or power. "Bread and the circus"

We all know that some towering intellects have been theists, so,
the statement that it is believed to be for the weak minded
by enough to make it a very common idea is, I think, false on the
face of it. You will need to provide some evidence-or take it upon
yourself to improve yourself, and not ascribe falsely to others
what may be your problem.

I've not seen anyone I can recall, doing what you say is common.

NOR have I seen anyone who has fallen to the grim and unnatural vice
of "scientism". Lots and lotsof victimd od "spiritusl" circus- circus.

As the word scientism is open to some variation as to what it means,
please define it as you see it, so we are at least not talking past
eachother.

Plz define

I asked for an examples, you said scientism is common.
If it is, give an example

I dont think you can.

 

[Audie]

Not sure why you have chosen to make such an issue of my use of the adjective respectable. From the context in which I used it, I should have thought it would have been fairly obvious that I intended to draw a contrast with "scientism", which - according to my understanding - is not generally not thought of as respectable. As to your question of by whose criteria scientism is unworthy of respect, Karl Popper's, for example. But I'm not sure this is particularly interesting for either of us.

By the way, I think I have done you an injustice. Following further discussion with some of the parties on this thread, I think you may well be quite right that scientism is indeed abroad here!

Could you give us an example?

 

[exchemist]

Could you give us an example?

Post 118 seems to me to smell of it, as does post 1329 of this thread: Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

I may be wrong of course, but I feel now I was too hasty in doubting PureX's contention.

 

[PureX]

As for placebo, unless one holds that every religion, sect, spiritualist
idea, etc and blah is utterly valid, then placebo may
well apply to somewhere between some. Some grt plscebo,
somev get money or power. "Bread and the circus"

The placebo effect works because FAITH WORKS for we humans, often when nothing else will. The placebo is just the means of activating it. As are the various "gods" one might choose to place that faith in. But the scientism-ists want to disparage the function and value of faith all together, as well as whatever "placebo" one would choose to place their faith in, by labeling it all hokum, or trickery; dishonestly employed by fools and dilettantes who choose not to 'know any better'. If you haven't seen this happening on these boards then you just aren't reading them. Or you're not understanding what you're reading.

 

[PureX]

OK. Thanks for unpacking at last.

I have a good deal of sympathy for much of what you have written here. This now seems to me consistent with the apparent existence (to collective human senses), of reliable patterns and relationships in nature, such as F=ma or E²= p²c² + m²c⁴, or what have you. These we use to design aeroplanes or calculate the yield from atomic bombs and so on, with apparently reliable results, and to expand our minds to take in the subtlety of nature.

Where you and I evidently part company is that I think these patterns, in view of their predictability and reliability, must signify - or at least are most usefully treated as - a concrete reality independent of our senses that we grope towards.

As you say, the science toolkit is just one toolkit available to the human mind to make sense of its experience, but for the exploration and harnessing of nature it is a very powerful one.

It is, if controlling nature to our own advantage is our ultimate goal. But unfortunately, this singular goal has not been serving us as well as many of us seem to be presuming it has. In that for all the wonderments of our newfound control of nature (through science), we do not seem to have gained any mastery over human nature, at all. And as a result we are now as likely to annihilate ourselves with this powerful tool, as not.

So why have we come to this bizarre position in human development? I think it's because our obsession with learning to control nature to our own advantage has over-ridden other, even more important goals, like understanding ourselves as part of that nature that we so want to control. I think the HOW of existence has obscured and dismissed the WHY of it for a lot of modern humans. And this is NOT boding well for us as a species. "Scientism" is one of the recent labels being applied to the new ideology that seems to be fueling this particular form of thought-blindness.

 

[PureX]

When we use the scientific method to remove personal bias we learn all sorts of cool and interesting stuff. For most of us, knowledge is a worthy goal.

The only thing science can reveal to us is how the physical world works. This gives us the ability to manipulate it to our own advantage. And that is a powerful tool. But that's all it is. It is not a gateway to wisdom, or truth. Yet there are many here who seem to believe that it is the ONLY gateway to truth, and that our ability to control and manipulate physical existence IS wisdom and truth. And in this belief they are neglecting any interest in pursuing real wisdom or truth.

 

[Audie]

The placebo effect works because FAITH WORKS for we humans, often when nothing else will. The placebo is just the means of activating it. As are the various "gods" one might choose to place that faith in. But the scientism-ists want to disparage the function and value of faith all together, as well as whatever "placebo" one would choose to place their faith in, by labeling it all hokum, or trickery; dishonestly employed by fools and dilettantes who choose not to 'know any better'. If you haven't seen this happening on these boards then you just aren't reading them. Or you're not understanding what you're reading.

I find it extraordinary that you can regularly encounter people, a whole category of them, who are unaware of, go out of their way to deride, the efficacy of placebos.

Plx direct me to such.

Oh,did you forget this observation I made-

The part about "foolish and weak minded" charge, hurled supposedly by scientismits?

"Scientism" tends to refer to people who are foolish / facile in their application
of science, so do we have a possible pot v kettle here?

 

[Audie]

The only thing science can reveal to us is how the physical world works. This gives us the ability to manipulate it to our own advantage. And that is a powerful tool. But that's all it is. It is not a gateway to wisdom, or truth. Yet there are many here who seem to believe that it is the ONLY gateway to truth, and that our ability to control and manipulate physical existence IS wisdom and truth. And in this belief they are neglecting any interest in pursuing real wisdom or truth.

"Wisdom" and "truth" are of course, matters for much debate and definition, as to what they are.

Some have held that it was a wise act to get on a camel and try to follow a star.

You refer so many times to these "many" who seem (to you, perhaps?) that science is the only gateway to truth.

If you can find them, I'd suggest you ignore such fools.
They certainly know nothing of science which dealeth not in "truth", nor yet in "wisdom"no more than does, say, accounting

 

[ecco]

. The universe THINKS!

Do you think? What gives you the ability to think? Brain Cells.

The Universe does not have brain cells.

 

[ecco]

The idea that faith is "just a placebo" (meaning a false result) for the foolish and weak-minded is a very common idea espoused by those who have succumbed to "scientism".

The idea that faith is "just a placebo" (meaning a false result) for the foolish and weak-minded is a very common idea espoused by those who have a grasp on reality.

 

[Audie]

You are a part of the universe. You are aware of your existing within the universe. Therefor, the universe is aware of it's own existence, through you.

This is an astonishing fact of reality. The universe THINKS! And you are one of it's 'brain cells'. Yet science cannot study any of this. Because this view of reality is not "objective". It is not a "material fact" that can be tested by the scientific method. And so it is being ignored by scientists (and even more-so by the scientism-ists). It is being left to philosophers to ponder and debate, and to the religionists to act upon in life as they think appropriate, or not, and to the artists to speculate and fantasize about and spew back at us. But it's not taken as a meaningful truth, is it. And yet within this observation we could find meaning and purpose for ourselves as existential beings. We could even justify our desire to understand the nature of reality as something more than a mere animal's need to control it's circumstances to further it's own survival. We could see ourselves as more than mere clever accidents of evolution.

But all these possibilities are lost, and wasted, because this observation is not digestible food for the "objective reality = truth" brigade. Scientism, and it's fantasy of an "objective reality" existing and acting apart from us as the fountain of all truth has blinded us to all sorts of amazing new ways of seeing ourselves and our relation to and within existence. While it then distracts and entertains us with all sorts of functional goo-gaws as proof of it's unquestionable superiority. From my way of thinking it's just as stifling as any absolutist religious dogma ever was.

It is a wonderfully romantic idea, that the universe is self aware.
That there are organisms aware of their surroundings is implicit in
their being life. Self-awareness is a step up from that, and noticing
the universe, an extension of awareness of environment.

That the universe is self aware is romanticism, not a fact of reality.
Minute specks in the universe think. The universe does not, no more
than the battleship thinks because the captain does.

'brain cells'. Yet science cannot study any of this.

Science cannot study brain cells?

It is not a "material fact" that can be tested by the scientific method. And so it is being ignored by scientists (and even more-so by the scientism-ists). It is being left to philosophers to ponder and debate

Lets see- it is an astonishing fact of reality that the universe thinks.
According to you. But it is not a "material fact". An immaterial fact?

What is there there, to study, if a scientist were to want to?

Of course it is a matter for philosophy students to talk over,
late into the night perhaps, at a little round table with a drip-
candle in a wine bottle. Idle if entertaining talk, that will never
go anywhere.

While it then distracts and entertains us with all sorts of functional goo-gaws as proof of it's unquestionable superiority

What an extraordinary dichotomy you've set up. Whatever "it" is, v
the noble quest for truth and wisdom-as represented, by,
all the moldy superstitions, cults, seers, religions?

What?


fountain of all truth has blinded us to all sorts of amazing new ways of seeing ourselves and our relation to and within existence

It may be that there are a few idiots out there who think that "scientism"
is the "fountain of all truth", tho who would pay any attention to them, I dont know.

Meanwhile, actual science, as practiced and understood by sensible people
gives us such as the images from the Hubble.

If you seek those who are blinded to the wonders of life, look no further
than your friendly neighborhood fundy.

 

[Audie]

Do you think? What gives you the ability to think? Brain Cells.

The Universe does not have brain cells.

It does in the same sense that a battleshiop does. If the crew is on board.

Is the battleship thus self-aware? Leave that for the "philosophers" to discuss over a bottle of wine.

 

[Audie]

The idea that faith is "just a placebo" (meaning a false result) for the foolish and weak-minded is a very common idea espoused by those who have a grasp on reality.

Ah as a "false result". What is that?

Everyone knows that faith has healing powers, etc.

But whar is this false result?

I can think of one example, maybe. I asked a Mormon missionary how he
could believe such a ridiculous story, as how the gold books came into
the hands of J Smith.

He said he doubted, so he prayed. Fervently, I suppose. It took days,
but the answer came to him, all as they say, unbidden. YES, Yes, it is all
True".

Ok then! Hadda of been god; thanks boss, now I believe.

of course, anyone who has stewed over a problem knows that happens,
and that if he'd just kept praying, pretty soon it would come back
as NO, it is all Phony!.

False results, anyone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does in the same sense that a battleshiop does. If the crew is on board.

Is the battleship thus self-aware? Leave that for the "philosophers" to discuss over a bottle of wine.

I find beer to be a better beverage for BS sessions. Wine goes better with fine dining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As to "Sciencism", that appears to be a simply a false charge. Scientific evidence is evidence used for questions that science can answer. That is what this thread is about. It is not about morals, those arguments tend to be outside the real of science. It is not about the existence nor nonexistence of gods. It merely deals with the questions that science can answer.

 

[exchemist]

Do you think? What gives you the ability to think? Brain Cells.

The Universe does not have brain cells.

But he is part of the universe, as are we all. So the universe most certainly does have brain cells!

I think his point in part is that we do not stand outside the universe, looking in. We are a part of it that can look at the rest.

 

[exchemist]

The only thing science can reveal to us is how the physical world works. This gives us the ability to manipulate it to our own advantage. And that is a powerful tool. But that's all it is. It is not a gateway to wisdom, or truth. Yet there are many here who seem to believe that it is the ONLY gateway to truth, and that our ability to control and manipulate physical existence IS wisdom and truth. And in this belief they are neglecting any interest in pursuing real wisdom or truth.

I think that is too dismissive. Science reveals to us how the world seems to work, yes. But the goal is far from restricted to being able to manipulate the world to our advantage. We didn't all want to be engineers, noble profession though it is! I would contend science is a source of profound and deeply satisfying knowledge and wisdom too, even though our models remain provisional and we agree the map is not the territory. That is not to say it is the only source of wisdom and knowledge, obviously. If it were, we would have nothing but science departments at our universities.

 

[ecco]

Do you think? What gives you the ability to think? Brain Cells.

The Universe does not have brain cells.

But he is part of the universe, as are we all. So the universe most certainly does have brain cells!

I think his point in part is that we do not stand outside the universe, looking in. We are a part of it that can look at the rest.

No. His point was that the universe is self aware, that IT can think.

 

[exchemist]

No. His point was that the universe is self aware, that IT can think.

Exactly. If you and I and he are thinking, it is thinking, n'est ce pas?

I mean, I don't know what inferences one can usefully draw from such an observation, but it seems logically unassailable to me.