Faith in science?

[Brian2]

First, the language and manner of the opening post of the thread did not reflect a knowledge of science. Second a poor use of the concept of faith. An extreme 'arguing from ignorance' does not propose a constructive discussion on the problem of consciousness.

Third, not unfair at all. I object to what is called the "hard problem" of consciousness. Of course there are unknowns concerning consciousness, but that will always be true concerning the frontiers of science. Your source actually agrees with me.

"Consciousness as we have been discussing it is a biological process, explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms, and whose raison d’etre can in principle be accounted for on evolutionary grounds. To be sure, it is still largely mysterious, but (contra Dennett and Churchland) it is no mere illusion (it’s too metabolically expensive, and it clearly does a lot of important cognitive work), and (contra Chalmers, Nagel, etc.) it does not represent a problem of principle for scientific naturalism."

© Prof. Massimo Pigliucci 2013

The quote you gave does reflect a faith in science and a faith in naturalism when there seems to be no evidence for it except that faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The evidence is the track record of success of the scientific method, which outclasses all other methods of inquiry that have been tried / proposed in the history of mankind.

8000 years of relying on "visions" and "dreams" and ancient stories of supernatural stuff, lead to combatting desease with bloodletting and exorcisms.

While just 200 years of scientific inquiry landed man on the moon.

Now we have a stone, a piece of rock, and success. They are the same. You can see both in the same sense. Hold them and do other things with them as per your physical body. They both have dimensions and other with instruments measurable properties.

 

[Altfish]

What is that supposed to mean?

That you can't call something scientific if it is not based on evidence.

 

[Altfish]

Science might use evidence but that does not mean that there is evidence for the belief that science will one day find the answers or the belief that the answers are in the realms that science is stuck in.
Science is a tool for physical answers.
Many people may not necessarily think that science will definitely find answers to everything, but that does not stop those people from seeing the answers as lying in physics and chemistry etc somewhere.
It may not be a faith in science as such but it is a lack of faith in other possibilities, even if that may be the direction that some problems in science point to.
For some people it is a rejection of other possibilities.

The definition of science is something like..."the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
So, if it falls outside that, then no, science won't help.

 

[WalterTrull]

Am I excercising faith in science?

Yeah, physical science. I have more faith in spiritual science. It sort of answers a lot more questions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That you can't call something scientific if it is not based on evidence.

Okay, does evidence have a limit?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now we have a stone, a piece of rock, and success. They are the same. You can see both in the same sense. Hold them and do other things with them as per your physical body. They both have dimensions and other with instruments measurable properties.

I have no idea what is supposed to mean or how it address the points raised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, physical science. I have more faith in spiritual science. It sort of answers a lot more questions.

What is "spiritual science" and how does it "answer a lot more questions"?

Give a practical example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, does evidence have a limit?

I don't understand the question. Rephrase?

 

[exchemist]

I have to admit that I have never quite understood what the 'hard' part of the question of consciousness is. But, I also disagree with Chalmers about the coherency of p-zombies.

Saying something is physically identical to a conscious being but not conscious sounds like saying one system is physically identical to another but has a different temperature. It seems to me that both the temperature and the conscious state are determined by the physical situation, if known in detail.

But, I have to admit a similar difficulty understanding the meaning of the term 'qualia'. Does the quale of 'seeing red' also encompass the emotional response (in which case it is NOT indecomposable) or is it merely the sensation of the redness itself (in which case, what is the difference with sensory detection)?

Well yes exactly and I agree about the zombies. The sensation of redness for one person might - conceivably - be the sensation of greenness for another (though I bet it's not). We can't know as we are not them and there is no objective way to get a handle on "the sensation of redness".

It feels to me as if Pigliucci is right and there is a category mistake in demanding that science explain "experience", when it is inherently subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea what is supposed to mean or how it address the points raised.

Success is an objective as observable eternal sensory experience thing with physical properties. E.g. weight, so how much does this success you mentioned weigh?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand the question. Rephrase?

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Morality, utility, aesthetics and religion are the limits. And of course metaphysics in general.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Success is an objective as observable eternal sensory experience thing with physical properties. E.g. weight, so how much does this success you mentioned weigh?

You're making zero sense. I can't take this seriously. You know better.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Morality, utility, aesthetics and religion are the limits. And of course metaphysics in general.

None of which have anything to do with the point being discussed, so what's your point?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're making zero sense. I can't take this seriously. You know better.

Better is is an objective as observable eternal sensory experience thing with physical properties. E.g. weight, so how much does this better you mentioned weigh?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of which have anything to do with the point being discussed, so what's your point?

Well, it started with, that science is the best tool, we have. I would like evidence for that. Just like I want evidence for your success.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Better is is an objective as observable eternal sensory experience thing with physical properties. E.g. weight, so how much does this better you mentioned weigh?

Repeating nonsense won't make it not nonsense.

The success of a methodology pertains to the ability to come up with accurate answers when applied to problems.
Science is the most successful methodology in that sense.

I have no idea what you are on about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it started with, that science is the best tool, we have

.... to study the natural world.

. I would like evidence for that

I already gave it to you.
You handwaved it away with BS.

Just like I want evidence for your success.

The fact that you're reading this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Repeating nonsense won't make it not nonsense.

The success of a methodology pertains to the ability to come up with accurate answers when applied to problems.
Science is the most successful methodology in that sense.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Problems weigh what? What are the objective physical properties of problems? What is the scientific theory of problems?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

.... to study the natural world.
...

What is the natural world?