Facts vs evidence

[Ella S.]

Yeah, but we still if we have to name science in a more narrow context use natural science.
In fact we have two words for humaniora or humanities. That one and human science and you can find a difference between the 2.

When I first read your post, I thought it was incredibly fair and completely agreed. Then I thought about it a bit more and felt like this dismisses the social sciences, because they often still use measurable observations to test falsifiable hypotheses, particularly in behaviorism. Self-report scales have some issues, but they're also still a measure.

Then I thought about it a little more. Psychiatry, psychology, and sociology are a lot looser on these rules of harder science. "Terror management theory" and "evolutionary psychology" are incredibly unscientific, for instance, and there has been no dirth of papers calling into question the discrete diagnostic criteria found in the DSM and the ICD.

I do think more rigorous science can be done in these fields and I personally know a few psychologists who are trying to be at the forefront of that push. Psychiatry has a degree of intersectionality with the medical sciences and neuroscience, and when they come together many insights can form. They just don't work together as often as they probably should if psychiatry wants to maintain itself as a serious scientific discipline.

Still, I think generally, the social sciences are more scientific than not, but I can understand their exclusion.

 

[Ella S.]

I would disagree with this position. If something is impossible then it cannot be logically possible. To my mind, logically possible means that within a specified abstract system, something is logically possible if it does not violate the defining elements, properties, and rules of that particular system. For example, we have the abstract system that corresponds to, or is synthetic to, realtiy, the real world, or the physical world, however you wish to label it. The boundaries, properties, and rules of this system are exactly those of the real world, by definition. This is the system in which we use the abstract tools of language and mathematics to communicate our thoughts and ideas related to the real, physical world. Beyond this system slaved to reality, we can create an infinite variety of abstracts sytems, from mathematics to the imagined world of Harry Potter, each with its own set of defining elements, properties, and rules.

Given all of that above, before the first airplane was built and flown, it would be correct to say that the idea of an airplane was logically possible, for although no such thing yet existed, it was possible within the rules and properties of the system to which the logic is being applies. Likewise, we can imagine an interaction between characters found in the Harry Potter book series that involved the use of magic, but was not an interaction that occurred within the book series. We can characterize the use of magic in our imagined interaction as logically possible based upon the rules and charateristics of magic in the fictional world established by the author J.K. Rowling.

The big hinderance in determining what is logically possible in our system synthetic to the real world is that we do not know all the defining elements, properties, and rules of acual reality, of what we want our "Real World" abstract system to remain synthetic to. Your position would have us freely put all that is infinitely impossible into the set of that which is possible, and I see that as a problem. First and foremost, it masks or obfuscates the reality that we do not know all the defining properties and rules of reality. In my opinion it is much better to say "The possibility is unknown as we have insufficient information upon which to make a determination." than it is to say "It is possible because it has yet to be proven impossible." The former speaks more clearly to the actual state of things.

I think you're describing alethic possibility in general, including nomological possibility, and misusing the term "logical possibility." Logical possibility only refers to the fact that something does not break the laws of logic such as the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. Logical impossibility is knowable a priori, just based on the way terms are defined.

Knowing the rules of a particular setting requires a posteriori logic, though, which is a less epistemically strong of possibility that can include, for instance, temporal and nomological possibilities. Hang on, let me get a tertiary source on the topic:

Subjunctive possibility - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MikeF]

I think you're describing alethic possibility in general, including nomological possibility, and misusing the term "logical possibility." Logical possibility only refers to the fact that something does not break the laws of logic such as the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. Logical impossibility is knowable a priori, just based on the way terms are defined.

Knowing the rules of a particular setting requires a posteriori logic, though, which is a less epistemically strong of possibility that can include, for instance, temporal and nomological possibilities. Hang on, let me get a tertiary source on the topic:

Subjunctive possibility - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks Ella. I'll take a look.

 

[PureX]

How funny. I would suggest non-believers in imagined entities would argue that believers in imagined entities believe in said entities because they can’t handle the unknown, and here you see the non-believers as having problems handling unknowns.

Yes. Much the same as the scientism crowd does with their fantasy of science: using it to pretend they have or can solve the great mystery of existence. Which, I suspect, is why they have such a bug up their butts about religious people doing the same thing with their personified gods.

We humans tend not to like unsolvable mysteries. It reminds us of our profound vulnerability when we are not in control. So a lot of us prefer to hold to an illusion of control (knowledge) gained through religion or scientism.

As to the universality of your meta-idea of “God”, I am skeptical that homo sapiens of some 200,000 years ago would recognize your universal meta-idea of “God...

The fact that you had to go that far back to establish a significant difference is a pretty good indication of the general universality if the idea. The scope of the mystery may have increased over time, but the basic concept of god as the embodiment/solution to the mystery hasn't changed.

What you refer to here is the persistent explanation of the gaps in our understanding. As the gap has narrowed, the meta-idea filling in the gap has evolved and adapted, from multiple animalistic and anthropomorphic entities, to a singular abstract and amorphous entity.

Much like your imaginary presumption that the 'gap' has narrowed (thanks to the new scientism god). When in fact we still have no idea whatever of the source, sustenance, or purpose of all that exists. Or even of the boundaries.

It really appears that the universal meta-idea is fear of the unknown, and for whatever reason, the unknown must be masked in some way.

Well, we do agree on this at least. What you aren't seeing, however, is how scientism is as much an imaginary resolution to this fear as the religious god-depictions you atheists so loathe, are.

As to why non-believers argue against imagined entities, as social animals living in large groups, what people believe can negatively impact the lives of others in the group. If beliefs in imagined entities are a source of negative impacts, folks are going to address that.

Unfortunately, the anti-religionists are arguing with the wrong culprit. And can't see that because they are as guilty of imbibing in the real culprit as the religious theists they oppose, are.

 

[PureX]

From my experience, many of them don't see the mysterious (or mystical) side to the world as insoluble. I sure didn't for many years and my impression is that my fellow atheists think I'm a bit weird insofar as I do now.

Just as many religious people see God as the solution to the mystery of existence, and so no longer need wonder or worry about it, as many atheists see science as the solution to the mystery, and so no longer need to wonder or worry about it. It's why we are seeing this new cult of 'scientism' happening, where people are raising science to the evel of being the sole means of gaining wisdom and truth.

Yet there are still theists that can appreciate and respect the great mystery of being, just as there are still atheists that can do the same.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I can live with that. The fact that there are subjective phenomena at all seems miraculous from a typically physicalist perspective. I'm hoping that some clever person can shed some light on this mystery in my lifetime.

You might find this interesting

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I first read your post, I thought it was incredibly fair and completely agreed. Then I thought about it a bit more and felt like this dismisses the social sciences, because they often still use measurable observations to test falsifiable hypotheses, particularly in behaviorism. Self-report scales have some issues, but they're also still a measure.

Then I thought about it a little more. Psychiatry, psychology, and sociology are a lot looser on these rules of harder science. "Terror management theory" and "evolutionary psychology" are incredibly unscientific, for instance, and there has been no dirth of papers calling into question the discrete diagnostic criteria found in the DSM and the ICD.

I do think more rigorous science can be done in these fields and I personally know a few psychologists who are trying to be at the forefront of that push. Psychiatry has a degree of intersectionality with the medical sciences and neuroscience, and when they come together many insights can form. They just don't work together as often as they probably should if psychiatry wants to maintain itself as a serious scientific discipline.

Still, I think generally, the social sciences are more scientific than not, but I can understand their exclusion.

It is interesting to think about in regards to this one:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

The trick is that social science involve human measurement of being human qua being human, where as natural science in the end relies on objective measurement as independent of human subjective evaluation.
And yes, you can learn to do human measurement as objective and rational, but it is not the same as in natural science.

 

[Ella S.]

It is interesting to think about in regards to this one:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

The trick is that social science involve human measurement of being human qua being human, where as natural science in the end relies on objective measurement as independent of human subjective evaluation.
And yes, you can learn to do human measurement as objective and rational, but it is not the same as in natural science.

How is it not? Sure, different measures are being used, but you don't use Mohs Hardness Scale on stars, and those are both measurements used in the natural sciences.

The problem becomes when we interpret behavior or self-report scales as giving us information about invisible "objects" like the "mind," in my opinion. Two great examples of this in psychology are the subconscious from Freud and the collective unconscious from Jung. Both thoroughly pseudoscientific, but that doesn't mean all of psychology makes those mistakes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is it not? Sure, different measures are being used, but you don't use Mohs Hardness Scale on stars, and those are both measurements used in the natural sciences.

The problem becomes when we interpret behavior or self-report scales as giving us information about invisible "objects" like the "mind," in my opinion. Two great examples of this in psychology are the subconscious from Freud and the collective unconscious from Jung. Both thoroughly pseudoscientific, but that doesn't mean all of psychology makes those mistakes.

Well, yes. I can do naturalism without doing the mind as special in a special way.
But if we take e.g. Schein's model of organizational culture and apply it in the wild, you actually hit a cognitive measurement problem. Does a given person in effect do automated reactive cognition or meta-reflective cognition? So the use of Schein requires a brain in another sense that say to measure an objective property in the reality independent of minds. Minds as parts of the world and natural.

 

[MikeF]

I think you're describing alethic possibility in general, including nomological possibility, and misusing the term "logical possibility." Logical possibility only refers to the fact that something does not break the laws of logic such as the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. Logical impossibility is knowable a priori, just based on the way terms are defined.

Interesting. I would start by saying that it seems concepts or theories of modality are not entirely settled. Your link and other sources appear to attach the warning every other paragraph that such and such is controversial or does not have universal agreement.

So, if I understand correctly, logical possibility refers solely to whether the statement contains a logical contradiction. Therefore, in terms of domains or abstract systems, referring to logical possibility means evaluating the statement within the domain of logic, the abstract boundaries, properties, and rules of logic, and stripping or disregarding any links to other domains an element in the statement might contain, like the proper name of an object in the real world.

It seems that nomological possibility is used when the logic of the statement, having passed the logical possibility test, evaluates the statement within the domain synthetic to the real world. So here the properties of energy/matter and natural laws, for example, would be applied to test for contradiction.

What term would one use for domains other than that of logic or the real world? Mathematics is considered its own domain with its own foundational axioms and rules. What term would apply to refer to mathematical logical possibility. Then too, when speaking of the world of Harry Potter, how do we refer to possible contradictions with the properties and rules that govern that imaginary world?

Perhaps since any use of logic first must comply with the domain of logic in its structure, perhaps the term logical possibility can be used with any domain so long as the domain to which logic is applied beyond that of logic itself, is either explicitly stated or implied by context, obviously the former being the most clear. Those who specialize in the field of logic will obviously have their conventions specific to their discipline, but for the layperson, perhaps my scheme is acceptable.

Knowing the rules of a particular setting requires a posteriori logic, though, which is a less epistemically strong of possibility that can include, for instance, temporal and nomological possibilities.

I would ask whether there is anything other than a posteriori logic. Certainly one must either learn the rules of a particular domain or make them up.

I found this graphic in trying to acquaint myself with the terms being used, and I think it speaks to a fundamental problem in philosophy in general:



Here is my version:

Within my category of how and what we think would be all our abstraction of thought and all the abstract systems we create, be it logic, language, the world of Harry Potter, etc.

 

[MikeF]

Much like your imaginary presumption that the 'gap' has narrowed (thanks to the new scientism god). When in fact we still have no idea whatever of the source, sustenance, or purpose of all that exists. Or even of the boundaries.

Excellent point! You are absolutely right! (aside from the “new scientism god” thing )

You are right to chastise me on this point and I will work to not make this mistake in the future. Certainly, without any understanding of the scope of “all that is”, there is no way to judge how close we are to knowing all that is.

It is appropriate to say, however, that we know alot more today than even those of two hundred years ago, let alone of that of our earliest ancestors. We have a track record that shows we can know something about the world and in ways that make a difference.

You mention purpose to all that exists, and unless you entertain the possibility that there is no purpose, requiring a purpose would represent a bias on your part.

Yes. Much the same as the scientism crowd does with their fantasy of science: using it to pretend they have or can solve the great mystery of existence. Which, I suspect, is why they have such a bug up their butts about religious people doing the same thing with their personified gods.

This is hyperbole. If all the mysteries were solved there would be nothing for scientists to do. Right? If you know of individuals that claim humanity knows all there is to know scientifically, I would say they are a fractional minority well outside the mainstream. To paint all advocates of science in such a way is simply negative propaganda.

There is a difference between claiming science can solve unanswered questions and saying that if outstanding questions can be answered, it will be done through a scientific approach, for this is our only option as opposed to simply making answers up.

We humans tend not to like unsolvable mysteries. It reminds us of our profound vulnerability when we are not in control. So a lot of us prefer to hold to an illusion of control (knowledge) gained through religion or scientism.

The success of science in answering questions is not an illusion. It works. So, we can either be patient and wait and see what becomes of our efforts, or we can make stuff up. I am firmly in the former camp. Where do you see yourself?

The fact that you had to go that far back to establish a significant difference is a pretty good indication of the general universality if the idea. The scope of the mystery may have increased over time, but the basic concept of god as the embodiment/solution to the mystery hasn't changed.

Like a true propagandist, edit the quote to fit the biased impression you wish to create.

Here is what I said:

As to the universality of your meta-idea of “God”, I am skeptical that homo sapiens of some 200,000 years ago would recognize your universal meta-idea of “God”, nor of 10,000 years ago. We are born into a present reality, and many beliefs and ideas are embedded into us well before we can think critically about them.

I started the thought experiment 200k years ago and had us move through time up to 10k years ago. That is a very large swath of human existence in which your meta-idea would be unrecognizable or incompatible. The only commonality over that time, and to which we agree, is fear of the unknown and a desire to find a way to control the uncontrollable.

Well, we do agree on this at least. What you aren't seeing, however, is how scientism is as much an imaginary resolution to this fear as the religious god-depictions you atheists so loathe, are.

Again, a biased slant. Science has answered tons of unknowns. We know the etiology of many illnesses, we have a much better handle on our location relative to other celestial bodies, including a much better understanding of their composition. The list goes on and on. These questions are being resolved in a non-imaginary way. You can nay-say all you want, but saying it doesn’t make it true.

Unfortunately, the anti-religionists are arguing with the wrong culprit. And can't see that because they are as guilty of imbibing in the real culprit as the religious theists they oppose, are.

That culprit being humanity itself?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You mention purpose to all that exists, and unless you entertain the possibility that there is no purpose, requiring a purpose would represent a bias on your part..

That is an absurdity .. to suggest that everything we see has no purpose.
What you mean, is that you see the purpose of things when you want to see it,
and claim that things might not have purpose when it suits you.

 

[PureX]

It is appropriate to say, however, that we know alot more today than even those of two hundred years ago, let alone of that of our earliest ancestors. We have a track record that shows we can know something about the world and in ways that make a difference.

This point is nowhere near as significant as most of the people that make it realize.

Lets imagine that we know .01% of what there is to be known about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And that is .01% more than what humans knew about it 500 years ago. Then let's imaging that what we currently know is only .000001% and that 500 years ago what we knew was .01% of that. Do you see where this goes? When we have NO IDEA what there is to be known, we have no idea how much of that we know, now, or new 500 years ago.

So although it sounds reasonable to assume that we know SOMETHING, and that it's something more than what we used to know, that presumption isn't nearly as impressive as it might appear when we actually consider just how much we DON'T KNOW, and that it's SO MUCH that we can't even know how much it is.

Real scientists understand this. Just as they understand that science does not seek "the truth" of anything. But only seeks the predictable functionality of a proposed theory about how physicality functions. But the 'scientism' crown does not recognize any of these limitations, as they elevate science to the level of some divine endeavor that can and will eventually discover all there is to know about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

But of course it will not. Which is why we humans still engage in philosophy, art, religion, and mysticism.

You mention purpose to all that exists, and unless you entertain the possibility that there is no purpose, requiring a purpose would represent a bias on your part.

I agree. But given the fact that existence exists at all, and that it does so very elaborately and specifically, it appears to have been purposeful.

This is hyperbole. If all the mysteries were solved there would be nothing for scientists to do. Right?

Scientists generate theories about how physical phenomena function and then they test those theories to see if the theory functions as predicted. Given that the more theories we test and find functional, the more new theories they generate, I'd say the process is unlikely to run out of fuel ... ever. And as stated, science is only able to investigate the physicality of existence. And that certainly is not the sum total of all that is.

There is a difference between claiming science can solve unanswered questions and saying that if outstanding questions can be answered, it will be done through a scientific approach, for this is our only option as opposed to simply making answers up.

It's a load of nonsense regardless. Existence embodies far more than just the physical phenomena that science can investigate. Even science tells us that: see the great "singularity" mystery (of existence before physicality existed).

The success of science in answering questions is not an illusion. It works.

But it can't answer those questions: the metaphysical questions about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. So lets stop worshipping science as if it can or will. It can't and it never will. It's like using a ruler to measure a sunset. They aren't part of the same language.

So, we can either be patient and wait and see what becomes of our efforts, or we can make stuff up. I am firmly in the former camp. Where do you see yourself?

Making stuff up is what we humans do. Everything you think you know about the "world" is made up in your mind, based on a jumble of sensory data that your body experienced and your mind has sifted through using it's imagination and some logic (and a few other tricks). And that's as much "truth" as we're ever going to get. So let's stop pretending we know the truth of things, when we wouldn't know if it were the truth even if it were the truth. And let's start pursuing relative honesty, instead.

That's where I stand on this.

I started the thought experiment 200k years ago and had us move through time up to 10k years ago. That is a very large swath of human existence in which your meta-idea would be unrecognizable or incompatible. The only commonality over that time, and to which we agree, is fear of the unknown and a desire to find a way to control the uncontrollable.

Bingo. And that is the essence of the many mysteries that we humans have labeled "god" from the dawn of time. And you are right that we personified those mysteries hoping that we could achieve some way of coercing favor (throwing the virgins into the volcano to appease it's wrath).

"God" is the personification of the unknown, and the unknowable. And the reason we personify it is to try and find some way of making peace with it. And with our fear of it. In that regard it's not much different from 'scientism' except for the overt personification.

The substance of all the gods throughout history is the great mystery, and our fear of it. A mystery that holds the power of life and death over us.

That culprit being humanity itself?

That culprit being our fear of the great mystery of being. And our desire to accept any illusion of control over it that helps us alleviate that fear.

 

[MikeF]

This point is nowhere near as significant as most of the people that make it realize.

Lets imagine that we know .01% of what there is to be known about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And that is .01% more than what humans knew about it 500 years ago. Then let's imaging that what we currently know is only .000001% and that 500 years ago what we knew was .01% of that. Do you see where this goes? When we have NO IDEA what there is to be known, we have no idea how much of that we know, now, or new 500 years ago.

So although it sounds reasonable to assume that we know SOMETHING, and that it's something more than what we used to know, that presumption isn't nearly as impressive as it might appear when we actually consider just how much we DON'T KNOW, and that it's SO MUCH that we can't even know how much it is.

Real scientists understand this. Just as they understand that science does not seek "the truth" of anything. But only seeks the predictable functionality of a proposed theory about how physicality functions. But the 'scientism' crown does not recognize any of these limitations, as they elevate science to the level of some divine endeavor that can and will eventually discover all there is to know about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

But of course it will not. Which is why we humans still engage in philosophy, art, religion, and mysticism.

I agree. But given the fact that existence exists at all, and that it does so very elaborately and specifically, it appears to have been purposeful.

Scientists generate theories about how physical phenomena function and then they test those theories to see if the theory functions as predicted. Given that the more theories we test and find functional, the more new theories they generate, I'd say the process is unlikely to run out of fuel ... ever. And as stated, science is only able to investigate the physicality of existence. And that certainly is not the sum total of all that is.

It's a load of nonsense regardless. Existence embodies far more than just the physical phenomena that science can investigate. Even science tells us that: see the great "singularity" mystery (of existence before physicality existed).

But it can't answer those questions: the metaphysical questions about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. So lets stop worshipping science as if it can or will. It can't and it never will. It's like using a ruler to measure a sunset. They aren't part of the same language.

Making stuff up is what we humans do. Everything you think you know about the "world" is made up in your mind, based on a jumble of sensory data that your body experienced and your mind has sifted through using it's imagination and some logic (and a few other tricks). And that's as much "truth" as we're ever going to get. So let's stop pretending we know the truth of things, when we wouldn't know if it were the truth even if it were the truth. And let's start pursuing relative honesty, instead.

That's where I stand on this.

Bingo. And that is the essence of the many mysteries that we humans have labeled "god" from the dawn of time. And you are right that we personified those mysteries hoping that we could achieve some way of coercing favor (throwing the virgins into the volcano to appease it's wrath).

"God" is the personification of the unknown, and the unknowable. And the reason we personify it is to try and find some way of making peace with it. And with our fear of it. In that regard it's not much different from 'scientism' except for the overt personification.

The substance of all the gods throughout history is the great mystery, and our fear of it. A mystery that holds the power of life and death over us.

That culprit being our fear of the great mystery of being. And our desire to accept any illusion of control over it that helps us alleviate that fear.

Man, we are looking at and talking about the same sow, you just want to put lipstick and a straw hat on it.

 

[MikeF]

This point is nowhere near as significant as most of the people that make it realize.

Lets imagine that we know .01% of what there is to be known about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And that is .01% more than what humans knew about it 500 years ago. Then let's imaging that what we currently know is only .000001% and that 500 years ago what we knew was .01% of that. Do you see where this goes? When we have NO IDEA what there is to be known, we have no idea how much of that we know, now, or new 500 years ago.

So although it sounds reasonable to assume that we know SOMETHING, and that it's something more than what we used to know, that presumption isn't nearly as impressive as it might appear when we actually consider just how much we DON'T KNOW, and that it's SO MUCH that we can't even know how much it is.

I'm sorry, but this cracks me up. You chastize me for claiming we are closing the gap on the unknown and yet you seem quite certain as to the quantity of what there is left to know. So in your informed opinion, how do YOU know that there is so much we don't know that we can't even know how much it is?

I thought the fact that it is unknown means we have no idea, not even you. For all you know we could be in the end-game and will have it all wrapped up in the next 100 years.

 

[PureX]

I'm sorry, but this cracks me up. You chastize me for claiming we are closing the gap on the unknown and yet you seem quite certain as to the quantity of what there is left to know.

I posted: "When we have NO IDEA what there is to be known, we have no idea how much of that we know" (thus far). And yet you somehow have managed to understand this as my being "quite certain as to the quantity of what there is left to know". Please explain to me how you derived the latter conclusion former statement.

I thought the fact that it is unknown means we have no idea, not even you. For all you know we could be in the end-game and will have it all wrapped up in the next 100 years.

If we were anywhere near gaining omniscience, we would know that we were nearing it. Because the more we know, the more we would know what is left to be discovered. And because we have no idea at all what is left to be discovered, or even what could or could not be discovered by us, it is logical to surmise that we are nowhere near reaching omniscience. AND that science is not going to be the tool that achieves that point.

 

[MikeF]

I posted: "When we have NO IDEA what there is to be known, we have no idea how much of that we know" (thus far). And yet you somehow have managed to understand this as my being "quite certain as to the quantity of what there is left to know". Please explain to me how you derived the latter conclusion former statement.

Welp, let's jus see watcha said, shall we?

So although it sounds reasonable to assume that we know SOMETHING, and that it's something more than what we used to know, that presumption isn't nearly as impressive as it might appear when we actually consider just how much we DON'T KNOW, and that it's SO MUCH that we can't even know how much it is.

Not gonna argue with you. I'll let the readers decide for themselves.

If we were anywhere near gaining omniscience, we would know that we were nearing it. Because the more we know, the more we would know what is left to be discovered. And because we have no idea at all what is left to be discovered, or even what could or could not be discovered by us, it is logical to surmise that we are nowhere near reaching omniscience.

You are continuing to contradict yourself here. How much experience do you have with gaining omniscience, by the way?

You state the more we know the more we would know what is left to be discovered. You seem to agree with me that we know a helluva lot more than our earliest ancestors. So either we have a better understanding today of what is left to be discovered, as you suggest in the first part above, or because what is unknown is unknown, we will never have an idea of what and how much is left to be discovered, which you fall back to in the second part above. Again, I'll let the readers decide.

AND that science is not going to be the tool that achieves that point.

Again, quite funny. Any other readers out there chuckling?

Let's see. Science has gotten us to the level of understanding we have of the cosmos and ourselves that we have today but it is not able to continue to uncover whatever is yet to be discovered and known? What do you know about the unknown and currently unknowable that you can make a definitive declaration that Science, or the process of scientific investigation, will be unable to continue to grow our understanding of the cosmos and ourselves? Are you claiming you possess some sort of privileged omniscience?

I would also challenge this concept of "the great mystery". What evidence do you possess that would permit such a characterization of what is unknown and currently unknowable? Based on the historical record, all of what we have learned about the cosmos and ourselves has not changed the reality of the world we find ourselves in. The same laws of nature that apply to us today were the exact same that applied to our earliest ancestors. The sun still rises and sets as it has always done for life on earth. The winds blow, seasons change, rivers flow downhill. All we are doing and all we have ever done is get a better understanding of what has always been directly in front of us. Knowing exactly how all this started is not going to change the reality of what we are born into, live in, and then cease to exist in. There is no mystery here. It is what it is. The challenge is living. The challenge is discovering what we can do within this reality. Discovering what is possible, and has always been possible, within the physical laws of the cosmos.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So although it sounds reasonable to assume that we know SOMETHING, and that it's something more than what we used to know, that presumption isn't nearly as impressive as it might appear when we actually consider just how much we DON'T KNOW, and that it's SO MUCH that we can't even know how much it is.

This is a common precursor to a pitch for special ways of knowing. It begins by diminishing empiricism and implying that it is insufficient. You frequently use words like myopic, blind, materialism, and scientism in this context. Your problem is the same as the creationists: all you have are attempts to diminish empiricism and no argument in support of any other way of knowing. The creationist tells us about pathways not yet elucidated and bones not being proof of anything because he has nothing to show in support of his theistic intuitions.

But the 'scientism' crown does not recognize any of these limitations, as they elevate science to the level of some divine endeavor that can and will eventually discover all there is to know about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

This claim has been rebutted. Rejecting other ways of knowing is not elevating science (empiricism) to divine status. It's rejecting sterile methods of inquiry. Look at all of the other ways of knowing man has suggested over the ages like doing horoscopes or using crystal balls or Ouija Boards. They're all sterile. Not one produces useful knowledge. And the advocates of those special ways of knowing are also offended by their faith-based methods being rejected. The creationists hate being excluded from mainstream scientific journals, at times invoking conspiracies of exclusion. We had them in my work, medicine, where people without academic degrees, respected credentials, or licenses and without controlled studies in support of their claims wanted to be accepted by as equals having an equivalent contribution to make by mainstream medicine, but weren't for their lack of understanding and rigor, and the sterility of their methods. And the people looking for respect for the religious magisterium as a legitimate other way of knowing.

So, you've joined these people, declaiming those who actually do make a contribution to knowledge that can improve the human conditions essentially have swelled heads with too little understanding to fathom or quantitate, but who foolishly think they know something or have accomplished anything.

Existence embodies far more than just the physical phenomena that science can investigate.

Not to anybody's knowledge. As far as we know, physical and real are synonymous. This is another area where the soft thinker with other ways of knowing has a complaint. He wants his other world that has no discernible qualities accepted as a real thing, and so attempts to diminish physicalism (naturalism) as myopic. This is how he attempts to elevate his bag of air - by his condemnation of its rejection as overemphasis on what actually works and calls it scientism.

it can't answer those questions: the metaphysical questions about the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

Nobody can. If the answers can't come from the empiric study of nature, the questions can't be answered. Pretenders everywhere will make unfalsifiable claims and offer them as answers, but they aren't knowledge (demonstrably correct ideas) and so don't deserve to be called that.

Nor need we have those answers. Nor do we need to guess what they might be, there being no utility in such guesses (see below).

So lets stop worshipping science as if it can or will.

The worship of science is your fantasy of what goes on in the heads of the empiricists who reject the claims of those who think they have special ways of knowing but have nothing to show for it. Critical thinkers understand the limits of empiricism, but don't take that to mean there are valid alternative ways of knowing.

"God" is the personification of the unknown, and the unknowable. And the reason we personify it is to try and find some way of making peace with it.

It sounds like what you mean by making peace with uncertainty is giving it a name.

You'll have to speak for yourself on that one, I'm afraid. Like most humanists, I'm very comfortable with agnosticism, by which I mean that when one has two or more logically possible answers but no way to rule any in or out, he says, "I don't know" and stops there, comfortable that this is the proper position to take given the available evidence. He has no existential angst as you suggest. But this is psychologically untenable for many, like a coin standing on its side in a moving vehicle that will pick a side very soon. They need an answer and will settle for a guess.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

And I'd refer you back to my metaphor of corrective lenses. This god idea meets a need that you and many others have the way eyeglasses do for people with blurry vision, but that there are also a significant number of people don't have that need. Glasses only corrupt the vision of somebody with perfect sight. You think that everybody should try on your new way of seeing, but many don't want glasses. They find less than no value there. And so you demean them for placing too much trust in their eyes, which you attempt to denigrate by calling it 'uncorrected visionism' rather than scientism, and say that they worship their native vision because they aren't interested in glasses.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Based on the historical record, all of what we have learned about the cosmos and ourselves has not changed the reality of the world we find ourselves in..

Of course it has..
The values in society, and hence way of life, has changed drastically in the last few decades.

 

[MikeF]

Of course it has..
The values in society, and hence way of life, has changed drastically in the last few decades.

In language, a particular label can have multiple meanings. Does your reference to my use of the word "reality" match my use and the context in which it was used? No.