Is 'scientism' a thing, or just a slur?

[RestlessSoul]

Poetry, and Literature more broadly, have great value in my worldview.

I was certainly not asking you to list all the things that may fall under either category, I was simply asking for some clarification. I do not agree that the primary concern of Science is the discovery of technology, but yes, technology is a byproduct and can be a specific goal.

For my definition of Science, I provided:

​

As for Philosophy, I am in essence saying that Philosophy is Science without quality control.

And to your last comment, certainly Aesthetics need no justification to have value.

And I would also say that the desire to know and understand does not make one rapacious. You almost seem to be saying the whole enterprise of discovery is harmful and leads to misery, that only in ignorance shall we find bliss.

The desire for knowledge does not in itself make us rapacious, no. It is in our nature, this hunger for knowledge, along with all those other hungers which we never appear able to satisfy; like the scorpion that killed the frog and condemned them both to death, we cannot deny our nature.

We are a rapacious species. We take from nature without asking and we give nothing back. It's not only food and minerals and resources we tear from the grasp of poor Mother Earth, it is her secrets, her dignity, her mystery also. That is the point of the Shelley quote, which was written at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and at the apotheosis of the Enlightenment.

Science enables us to threaten the very existence of our planet, it has accelerated the pace at which we the parasite consume the host. Though of course science, being a tool, does not carry any blame for the bas uses we have put it to. Equally, when we put it to benign uses, it warrants no adulation.

You have observed yourself that man is the fatal weakness in all scientific endeavour, the speck of dirt that contaminates our own experiments. Science cannot help us to alter, moderate, or control our rapacious nature, nor our prejudice nor our fears nor our resentments. It has nothing to offer us in terms of morality. Maybe philosophers, visionaries, dreamers, can show us a way out, before it is too late. Before the parasite kills the host.

 

[PureX]

So physicists were forced out of their comfort zone and the best of them were forced to once again become philosophers. Philosophy is inquiry into the deepest foundational levels of any human intellectual activity.

The scientific process 'ran out of road', and they could only continue forward via the process of philosophical speculation and debate. I agree with this assessment, and welcome it. So long as it's being characterized honestly.

 

[cladking]

Every scientist knows that relative functionality does not equate to "truth". No scientist ever claims that they have discovered any truth. Nor even that they have proven any theory, true. Scientists understand full well that what they are investigating is ONLY whether or not a proposed theory about how some aspect of existence functions, does or doesn't, within the parameters of the experiment that we set up to test it. That's it. ... No truth. No proof. No wisdom. No meaning. No purpose. No God or not God. No moral or ethical imperatives, just 'this particular theory functions in this particular objectively tested context'. That's it. Everything else is 'scientism'. And it is clearly running rampant here on RF.

The thing is I can't disagree with anything you've said and agree with most of it. It is rampant here but it is rampant in the real world as well and this is far less evident especially to people like you and some others here who do know the nature of science. This is because we tend to accept the results of statistics, computer modelling, and induction especially when they are done well and the assumptions all seem valid. But this is exactly the problem with much of modern science and it's not limited to the mathematicalization in cosmology. The problem is so many of the assumptions that make sense and/ or are obviously true are not true or are true only from a specific perspective. So we get results that tend to be not reflective of any reality or any likely reality. Whole "scientific" fields can be founded on thin air often because branches of science usually incorporate knowledge in many other fields that isn't even real.

They say a little knowledge is dangerous and this is a problem here but far worse is that some of this knowledge isn't knowledge at all but false assumption.

19th century scientist were great men but their mistakes have never systematically been expunged from science. Sure, experiment no longer incorporates their errors but our models do and it is models that underlies our every action. We see reality in terms of such models (and many of us philosophical and logical models as well) and then our actions are guided by these "beliefs". Our models often have a 19th century clockwork aspect to them. Even metaphysical questions often are tainted by 19th century beliefs.

The level of discourse here is quite good even among the those to whom "scientism" applies but there still seems to be little actual communication between the different camps and different perspectives. I know this is unavoidable and is merely a reflection of what happens in real life where two people can actually engage in two distinct conversations. Sometimes it's almost like that here, as arguments and points are simply dismissed without comment or not even noted by the responder.

It's a wonder the human race functions at all with 7 billion different languages. I fully believe the "tower of babel" story is based in some sort reality and we are still speaking a confused language.

 

[PureX]

I get it. You want to preserve a home for artificial constructs of reality, where they can remain unmolested, ...

You couldn't be more wrong. There is no "real" vs "artificial". Those designations only exists in your materialist paradigm. In truth, the artifice is as real as anything else is. It's different, sure, but it's equally "real". Especially to us, because to us, our "artificial constructs of reality" ARE reality as we know it. In fact, it's only the reality that we DON'T know that "isn't real", to us. (Even though it is real, as well.)

And I certainly get why. You have shown deep concern that without objective morals and ethics external to humanity, anarchy will ensue and humanity will destroy itself.

Anarchy is ensuing and we are on a path to self-annihilation; because we have made no progress, or very little progress, in terms of establishing positive moral and ethical imperatives for ourselves, based on our innate collective value. Science has done nothing for us in this area of thought, and instead, has only served to increase our functional effectiveness. Like dropping a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys that don't yet know enough NOT to shoot each other with them.

However, I simply disagree with this. I think we can, as a species and at some future time, set aside our need for artificial constructs of reality, be confident in what is know, live peacefully in the known world, and be comfortable with there being a persistent, great unknown.

"At some time in the future" is becoming less and less of a possibility the deeper into that future we get. It would be quite "unscientific" of you to interpret the current behavioral evidence to imply this radical behavioral sea-change coming about in the future. You do know that, right?

And this does not mean imagination, wonder, awe, creativity all goes away when we give up artificial constructs of reality. Imagining, dreaming, speculating, guessing, hoping are all part of being human and all necessary to our continued development as a species.

ALL "constructs of reality" are artificial. Imagining, dreaming, speculating, guessing, these "constructs" are all just as real as trees and rocks and gravity and time are real.

It is not ideological radicalism to want what is consider to be real, upon which real life communal decisions are made, to actually be real. The more I look at this idea of scientism, the more confident I become that it is merely backlash from the perceived threat to the preservation of artificial constructs of reality.

No offense, dude, but from what I'm reading, you haven't even seen your way out of the darkened hole of philosophical materialism, yet. Let alone caught a glimpse of that ugly little demon, "scientism".

All this is not to say that the real problems that have been used to support the idea of scientism are not real problems, they are. But they are the same problems shared by every academic and professional discipline. That science is misused by the lay community, that poor science gets done, that some will exaggerate scope and meaning of findings, all this is expected by science because science acknowledges that it is we imperfect humans engaged in this process. What stands out in regards to science, is that science a least makes a concerted effort to identify and correct these issues. Can that be said of all other disciplines?

This isn't about the flaws of science, at all. Sure, every human endeavor has flaws. But this isn't about scientific malpractice. Scientism isn't science. It isn't even about science. This is about a bizarre new cult-like interpretation of philosophical materialism that uses a very false, inflated, idealized characterization of science to justify and maintain it's own very narrow, perverted, and irrational view of existence.

 

[PureX]

It's a wonder the human race functions at all with 7 billion different languages. I fully believe the "tower of babel" story is based in some sort reality and we are still speaking a confused language.

I would like to be hopeful but it's getting harder. We need wisdom, not more knowledge. We need to establish and agree on some moral and ethical imperatives that will govern the way we employ all this new functionality that science is giving us before we kill ourselves off with it. And "scientism" is clearly NOT going to do that, as it seems only to be intent on worshiping the functionality, itself, as the future cure for all this unbridled functionality. It's just plain nuts. And what's scarier then that, is that like all cults, the participants are blind as can be to their own induction. Can't see a thing outside the paradigm.

 

[MikeF]

You couldn't be more wrong. There is no "real" vs "artificial". Those designations only exists in your materialist paradigm. In truth, the artifice is as real as anything else is. It's different, sure, but it's equally "real". Especially to us, because to us, our "artificial constructs of reality" ARE reality as we know it. In fact, it's only the reality that we DON'T know that "isn't real", to us. (Even though it is real, as well.)
Anarchy is ensuing and we are on a path to self-annihilation; because we have made no progress, or very little progress, in terms of establishing positive moral and ethical imperatives for ourselves, based on our innate collective value. Science has done nothing for us in this area of thought, and instead, has only served to increase our functional effectiveness. Like dropping a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys that don't yet know enough NOT to shoot each other with them.
"At some time in the future" is becoming less and less of a possibility the deeper into that future we get. It would be quite "unscientific" of you to interpret the current behavioral evidence to imply this radical behavioral sea-change coming about in the future. You do know that, right?
ALL "constructs of reality" are artificial. Imagining, dreaming, speculating, guessing, these "constructs" are all just as real as trees and rocks and gravity and time are real.
No offense, dude, but from what I'm reading, you haven't even seen your way out of the darkened hole of philosophical materialism, yet. Let alone caught a glimpse of that ugly little demon, "scientism".
This isn't about the flaws of science, at all. Sure, every human endeavor has flaws. But this isn't about scientific malpractice. Scientism isn't science. It isn't even about science. This is about a bizarre new cult-like interpretation of philosophical materialism that uses a very false, inflated, idealized characterization of science to justify and maintain it's own very narrow, perverted, and irrational view of existence.

I think we understand each other pretty well.

As for artificial construct of reality falling away in the future, yes, it would be unscientific to expect a radical behavioral change, however, I was imagining more of a slow, glacial change.
Additionally, it was offered more as optimistic opinion and less a scientific inevitability. And when we consider the whole scope of human history, I really don't see my optimism as unwarranted.

Clearly, based on your last sentence, it seems this does all boil down to the threat to artificial constructs of reality from the "bizarre new cult-like interpretation of philosophical materialism that uses a very false, inflated, idealized characterization of science to justify and maintain it's own very narrow, perverted, and irrational view of existence."

 

[MikeF]

We need to establish and agree on some moral and ethical imperatives that will govern the way we employ all this new functionality that science is giving us before we kill ourselves off with it.

Hallelujah! Now we are talking! Yes, we human beings, ourselves, need to come to mutual agreement on all these issues that affect our current and future wellbeing. The ball is in our collective court and it is for us to decide. Let's drop all the conflicting artificial constructs of reality, which frankly serve to keep us divided, and start solving some problems.

 

[PureX]

I think we understand each other pretty well.

As for artificial construct of reality falling away in the future, yes, it would be unscientific to expect a radical behavioral change, however, I was imagining more of a slow, glacial change.
Additionally, it was offered more as optimistic opinion and less a scientific inevitability. And when we consider the whole scope of human history, I really don't see my optimism as unwarranted.

Clearly, based on your last sentence, it seems this does all boil down to the threat to artificial constructs of reality from the "bizarre new cult-like interpretation of philosophical materialism that uses a very false, inflated, idealized characterization of science to justify and maintain it's own very narrow, perverted, and irrational view of existence."

I just want to say that I do enjoy your conversation, and the way your mind thinks (at least in words). I am obviously not a fan of philosophical materialism, and I worry for you, perched on the precipice of "scientism" as you are, with your eyes clamped firmly shut, but in the end we're just 'talking'. So ... who knows.

 

[PureX]

Hallelujah! Now we are talking! Yes, we human beings, ourselves, need to come to mutual agreement on all these issues that affect our current and future wellbeing. The ball is in our collective court and it is for us to decide. Let's drop all the conflicting artificial constructs of reality, which frankly serve to keep us divided, and start solving some problems.

Well, I don't think we can drop them, because they are all we have. But we can ACKNOWLEDGE THEM for what they are. Real, yes, But also conceptual artifice. Which is why I keep iterating this as a mantra.

 

[MikeF]

I just want to say that I do enjoy your conversation, and the way your mind thinks (at least in words). I am obviously not a fan of philosophical materialism, and I worry for you, perched on the precipice of "scientism" as you are, with your eyes clamped firmly shut, but in the end we're just 'talking'. So ... who knows.

And I equally enjoy and value our conversations. Thanks!

 

[Augustus]

To what scientific method do you refer? There is no such thing as a singular method.

A philosophical argument again

I said 'a' scientific method though, not 'the' as I agree there is no singular method.

I disagree with your use that seems to make science synonymous with rational thinking of any sort though.

Ahhh. We are getting close to the light-bulb moment. If we move everything under one banner, and to be a member of that set means that reasoned and rational skepticism is applied to all set members, that no set member is immune from re-evaluation, and all activity within this set must be performed under principles and standards that provide the best possible quality control, then I do not see the problem.

In what you consider to be Science today, there have been ideas and theories that were shown to be incomplete or entirely wrong. These ideas then simply become part of the history of science and help document the journey. The work of many useless and bitter philosophers would be evaluated under the principles and standards of this new overarching banner, and if found to be useless, the proponents of those ideas would not become noble or important. They would simply be another part of the story of mankind's quest to answer general and fundamental questions.

How would this make any difference though?

There is good science and bad science, good philosophy and bad philosophy.

Philosophical ideas have always been subject to quality control and simply saying 'it's now called science' won't change a thing for better or worse.

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that calling it 'science' would mean it would be evaluated by scientists who are 'proper' intellectuals and would make short work of refuting these louche beret-wearing parasites.

Unsurprisingly, meaningful philosophical critiques tend to come from other philosophers, not scientists though.

For example, people often talk about falsifiability as a criterion for science. This was a philosophical argument against Marxism by Popper.

You seem to hold a position that Science is limited to some narrow scope or class of methodologies. That the tools of Science are limited to certain specific tools and science is only done when it is with these tools. Outside of this is Philosophy. Yet you already acknowledge the adaptability and evolving process of science when you said in post #85, “As science evolves and adapts, so do its philosophical foundations and assumptions, same as they always have done.” which indicates to me some understanding that the toolbox of science is in no way fixed and static.

I agree it's not fixed and static, what I disagree with is that you can ever have a scientific methodology that deals comprehensively with certain philosophical questions.

What scientific methodology will demarcate science from 'not science'?

What scientific methodologies will 'verify' principles of ethics? (once we have decided on our ethical principles science may be able to help us identify courses of action, but it can't generate the guiding principles)

I’m beginning to conclude that you are arguing to preserve Philosophy as separate from Science specifically because you want to protect Philosophy from quality control and verification. There seems to be an underlying fear that there are aspects of Philosophy (potentially large aspects, by your comments) that will not hold up under the standards set by Science.

Not at all. Ultimately you have redefined science far beyond its standard usage, and created what is basically a strawman version of philosophy to pit it against.

I think your belief that philosophy lacks 'quality control' bears no connection to reality. And your assumptions that if we said 'this is now science' that it would make the slightest bit of difference in regards to quality control seems fantastical.

 

[Augustus]

The period you describe seems to mark the divergence of Science from Philosophy. Are you saying that at this same time there was a change in the way 'non-science Philosophy' was practiced, that prior to this, Philosophy was performed the “old way”, and from this point emerged both Science and Modern Philosophy? And I certainly understand that all the changes we are speaking of are the result of evolving processes and that phraseology such as “the old way” is quite nebulous. I just want to clarify whether you are saying that what you consider to be Philosophy has undergone a change in practice that is distinct from how Philosophy was generally practiced before this point.

Philosophy has always changed. There were limited forms of empiricism in the Greek, Roman and Arabic philosophical traditions.

If you want an overview this is a good place to start and covers a lot (it will take several hours of your time though). While it is about science and religion, these were really inseparable in many ways.


Science religion and modernity lecture series

From an old thread: Science and religion: history

This is a fascinating series of lectures delivered as part of the prestigious Gifford Lectures series Edinburgh University by the academic historian of science Peter Harrison (formerly of Oxford University and now of the University of Queensland: just to clarify it is not 'religious apologetics').

It focuses on the relationship between religion and science in the Western tradition and is a comprehensive refutation of the 'conflict thesis' that exists in popular discourse (although long since discredited among historians).

It's not really presented as a refutation as such, more a comprehensive history of the development of both the concepts of religion and science throughout history.

More than simply making the point that the narrative of conflict between the disciplines is wrong, it really makes the point that it is nonsensical as neither religion or science in the modern usages of the term really existed prior to the 18th C.

Starting from the ancient Greeks, it argues that natural philosophy, which is often seen as proto-science bears little resemblance to modern conceptions of science. As the name suggests, natural philosophy was a branch of philosophy and had different aims to modern science rather than simply being the same thing under a different name.

For the Greeks philosophy was a method of cultivating virtue and the good life and science was a means to an end in this regard. 'Science' was thus an internal virtue rather than a reified discipline.

Moreover, the idea that science was a 'handmaiden of theology' was not a Christian formulation, but was Aristotelean in origin. Theology was thus intrinsic to Greek science.

With the rise of Christianity, the theological component of Greek knowledge was ignored due to being superseded by Christian theology, but natural philosophy always remained a discipline in which God played a significant role.

Due to certain theological beliefs such as the Fall of Man, Christian scientists like Boyle, Newton and Bacon rejected the Greek belief that reason alone was sufficient in order to practice natural philosophy. This gave rise to the experimental approach prevalent in modern science. At first this approach was widely mocked as being useless, and mainly gained social legitimacy (and thus funding and longevity) due to its perceived benefit to theology.

In the early modern period, science and religion transformed from being internal virtues to become externalised, reified concepts that developed into the modern terms as we would recognise today. This resulted in the modern idea that science, and society in general, progress on a gradually upward arc, and the contrasting belief that religion was regressive and held back progress. Prior to this, presenting such a view would have made little conceptual sense.

While I appreciate most people will have no intention of listening to 6 hours worth of lectures, the odd person might. I would especially recommend it to anyone who believes in the Conflict Thesis as it explains very clearly the massive flaws in such beliefs with recourse to numerous primary texts and analysis of historical data.

If you only watch/listen to one of them then I'd recommend 5 science and progress.

 

[cladking]

I would like to be hopeful but it's getting harder. We need wisdom, not more knowledge. We need to establish and agree on some moral and ethical imperatives that will govern the way we employ all this new functionality that science is giving us before we kill ourselves off with it. And "scientism" is clearly NOT going to do that, as it seems only to be intent on worshiping the functionality, itself, as the future cure for all this unbridled functionality. It's just plain nuts. And what's scarier then that, is that like all cults, the participants are blind as can be to their own induction. Can't see a thing outside the paradigm.

I believe an agreement on moral And ethical imperatives would follow better communication. We need to standardize the definitions of several hundreds of words to create a language for philosophy and science. We need a few words with fixed meanings so that parsing sentences more often occurs in "exactly" the way they are intended. The usage of abstractions would not always lead one astray if there were a few scientific words to help nail them down in their proper place.

There's even hope for those who have already become victims of scientism but that hope lies only in better communication. There is no reason everyone shouldn't be able to communicate ANY idea but as things stand, anything outside of a set of assumptions which all don't even share almost can't be communicated. Assumption should not have such power even in homo omnisciencis.

People deconstruct sentences to agree with their existing models/ beliefs. It's bad enough we experience reality in such terms but we must stop hearing one another like this. War and chaos ensue.

 

[tas8831]

There's even hope for those who have already become victims of scientism

"they didn't think like us, form language like us, seek to explain the natural world like us, fear death like us, laugh like us, drink too much beer like us......And I know this because, they did not drag tombs up ramps"

cladking of logical fallacies.

Assumption should not have such power even in homo omnisciencis.

No such thing, You just made it up.

People deconstruct sentences to agree with their existing models/ beliefs.

Like when you "deconstruct" old translations of translations of PT and pretend to have found the original hieroglyph writers 'true' intentions?

"grow a broccas area"

 

[cladking]

"they didn't think like us, form language like us, seek to explain the natural world like us, fear death like us, laugh like us, drink too much beer like us......And I know this because, they did not drag tombs up ramps"

cladking of logical fallacies.

And I never said one of these things. You probably think I did because you can't deconstruct my sentences as they are intended since you are the poster child of "scientism".

No such thing, You just made it up.

I've been saying the exact same thing right here for years but it's all news to you because you can't deconstruct my sentences as they are intended.

...original hieroglyph writers 'true' intentions?

They had no "intentions". They had no abstractions in their language and merely stated what they wanted to literally communicate literally.

This is relevant here only to the degree we can't talk like them. We can't invent such a language that humans can use for literal communication because it would be too complex. But we can borrow a page from Ancient Language and fix the meaning of a few hundred words so that sentences are parsed as intended more frequently.

 

[MikeF]

A philosophical argument again
I said 'a' scientific method though, not 'the' as I agree there is no singular method.
I disagree with your use that seems to make science synonymous with rational thinking of any sort though.
How would this make any difference though?
There is good science and bad science, good philosophy and bad philosophy.
Philosophical ideas have always been subject to quality control and simply saying 'it's now called science' won't change a thing for better or worse.
Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that calling it 'science' would mean it would be evaluated by scientists who are 'proper' intellectuals and would make short work of refuting these louche beret-wearing parasites.
Unsurprisingly, meaningful philosophical critiques tend to come from other philosophers, not scientists though.
For example, people often talk about falsifiability as a criterion for science. This was a philosophical argument against Marxism by Popper.
I agree it's not fixed and static, what I disagree with is that you can ever have a scientific methodology that deals comprehensively with certain philosophical questions.
What scientific methodology will demarcate science from 'not science'?
What scientific methodologies will 'verify' principles of ethics? (once we have decided on our ethical principles science may be able to help us identify courses of action, but it can't generate the guiding principles)
Not at all. Ultimately you have redefined science far beyond its standard usage, and created what is basically a strawman version of philosophy to pit it against.
I think your belief that philosophy lacks 'quality control' bears no connection to reality. And your assumptions that if we said 'this is now science' that it would make the slightest bit of difference in regards to quality control seems fantastical.

You are absolutely correct that I am reimagining how we look at what today is considered the separate disciplines of Philosophy and Science. And it is quite easy to dismiss any reimagining I may offer and remain perfectly comfortable in the status quo. I also have no illusions that only a very few, if any, might consider a reimagining of the relationship between, what is today, two separate disciplines. However, if thinking deeply about issues is the goal of both disciplines, and that no institution or belief should be beyond reexamination, then I think this exercise is quite appropriate.

I think we are both in agreement that, at least starting with pre-Socratic Western Philosophy, all of the areas of inquiry that are covered today by the two disciplines of Philosophy and Science, were, at one time, all under one label, the label Philosophy. Philosophy, Love of Wisdom, being the discipline or endeavor of asking general and fundamental questions, with the goal of getting true or real answers to those questions, or a full understanding of a subject.

And as you are aware, for their convenience, Philosophers began to group questions together relating to specific subjects, creating a hierarchy of categories and subcategories of Philosophy. But whatever the subcategory, be it broadly Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, or Ethics, all were still considered Philosophy, the asking general and fundamental questions with the goal of gaining a full understanding of the answers to those questions.

I think it is safe to say that we both agree that a significant change in attitudes occurred regarding the subcategory of Natural Philosophy around the 17th century such that a schism occurred. This schism resulted, eventually, into this subcategory of Philosophy branching off into what will become a separate and distinct discipline, later to be called Science.

Is it not important to ask why this schism occurred? What changed that a subcategory of Philosophy felt it no longer appropriate to be considered a part of Philosophy? After the schism, the overarching goals of the two disciplines were still the same, to obtain answers to general and fundamental questions. If the goals didn’t change, then is it the approach that is different? There is general consensus in the acknowledgement of the success of this off-shoot discipline to find answers and build an understanding of the questions it sets before itself. Is the success of this new discipline simply related to the types of questions asked, or is it more fundamental than that? Is it not important to examine what is the difference between the approach of these now separate disciplines that still have the same fundamental goal? What is gained by keeping them separate? What might be gained by bringing them together under the same fold? For me, these are important questions.

You say that I have created a strawman caricature of Philosophy, and that my characterization of Philosophy bears no connection to reality. That’s fine. However, I would like to look at one example that illustrates my concern. Let’s look at Philosophy's approach to mind and consciousness. What percentage of the philosophical works on this subject are based on any substantive understanding of how the central nervous system works? How should we consider such works that deal with the mind yet are not based on any understanding of how the central nervous system functions? Can they be considered anything more than speculation or the imaginings of the Philosopher?

Scientific Philosophy (Science) has means to convey the surety of ideas that seems to be lacking in Philosophy. Scientific Philosophy has fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Philosophy makes no such distinctions. Each Philosophical Study is presented as a finished work. Unlike Scientific Philosophy, whereby ideas that are found to be no longer valid are either revised or superseded and set aside (eg. Geocentrism), philosophical works seem immune to such fate. How many philosophical works on mind and consciousness have been removed from philosophical canon? Are none found to be lacking?

I would also say that philosophy regarding the mind is extremely anthropocentric. And really, this can probably be said of much of Philosophy. When considering the phenomena of mind and consciousness, what attention is given to the expression of these phenomena in other species? How are similarities and differences reconciled? I would consider any philosophical position incomplete if it did not address these issues.

The last point I’ll make is the observation that Philosophy is highly categorized. There are both advantages and risks to categorical thinking, and being fully aware of the risks is important if we are to use categories successfully. Here is a fun treatment of categorical thinking starting at minute 7:30 of the video:

Philosophy and Science seem to be siloed into very distinct categories. I think it is time to rethink that.

 

[tas8831]

And I never said one of these things. You probably think I did because you can't deconstruct my sentences as they are intended since you are the poster child of "scientism".

LOL! You are the poster child of Dunning-Kruger effect.

I've been saying the exact same thing right here for years but it's all news to you because you can't deconstruct my sentences as they are intended.

Nobody cares about your fantasies. You just make things up.

They had no "intentions". They had no abstractions in their language and merely stated what they wanted to literally communicate literally.

See? Made up nonsense.

This is relevant here only to the degree we can't talk like them. We can't invent such a language that humans can use for literal communication because it would be too complex. But we can borrow a page from Ancient Language and fix the meaning of a few hundred words so that sentences are parsed as intended more frequently.

Where is your "broccas" area? Maybe you can't 'talk like them' because they actually tried to understand the things they were pontificating about, and maybe could actually spell correctly.

"Take their word for "geyser" as an example. In the ancient language words were descriptive of what they were because they were representative of things rather than symbolic. In our language "geyser" has no meaning at all except as it can be correctly deconstructed from a sentence. The shapes of the letters have no bearing on the meaning of any of its definitions. We use words loosely since we are rarely understood anyway and most people have no idea of all the definitions of more than a few words. People are continually deconstructing the wrong meaning and this is why the ancients called our language(s) "confused". Look at our nnear total inability to communicate as an example. We act, hear, and see based on what we believe and we speak a language that is different to every listener."

Why would ancient Egyptians needed to have a word for "geyser"??

"Geysers are rare; most of the world’s active geysers occur in just five countries: Chile, Iceland, New Zealand, Russia, and United States of America. "

 

[MikeF]

Philosophy has always changed. There were limited forms of empiricism in the Greek, Roman and Arabic philosophical traditions.

If you want an overview this is a good place to start and covers a lot (it will take several hours of your time though). While it is about science and religion, these were really inseparable in many ways.


Science religion and modernity lecture series

From an old thread: Science and religion: history

This is a fascinating series of lectures delivered as part of the prestigious Gifford Lectures series Edinburgh University by the academic historian of science Peter Harrison (formerly of Oxford University and now of the University of Queensland: just to clarify it is not 'religious apologetics').

It focuses on the relationship between religion and science in the Western tradition and is a comprehensive refutation of the 'conflict thesis' that exists in popular discourse (although long since discredited among historians).

It's not really presented as a refutation as such, more a comprehensive history of the development of both the concepts of religion and science throughout history.

More than simply making the point that the narrative of conflict between the disciplines is wrong, it really makes the point that it is nonsensical as neither religion or science in the modern usages of the term really existed prior to the 18th C.

Starting from the ancient Greeks, it argues that natural philosophy, which is often seen as proto-science bears little resemblance to modern conceptions of science. As the name suggests, natural philosophy was a branch of philosophy and had different aims to modern science rather than simply being the same thing under a different name.

For the Greeks philosophy was a method of cultivating virtue and the good life and science was a means to an end in this regard. 'Science' was thus an internal virtue rather than a reified discipline.

Moreover, the idea that science was a 'handmaiden of theology' was not a Christian formulation, but was Aristotelean in origin. Theology was thus intrinsic to Greek science.

With the rise of Christianity, the theological component of Greek knowledge was ignored due to being superseded by Christian theology, but natural philosophy always remained a discipline in which God played a significant role.

Due to certain theological beliefs such as the Fall of Man, Christian scientists like Boyle, Newton and Bacon rejected the Greek belief that reason alone was sufficient in order to practice natural philosophy. This gave rise to the experimental approach prevalent in modern science. At first this approach was widely mocked as being useless, and mainly gained social legitimacy (and thus funding and longevity) due to its perceived benefit to theology.

In the early modern period, science and religion transformed from being internal virtues to become externalised, reified concepts that developed into the modern terms as we would recognise today. This resulted in the modern idea that science, and society in general, progress on a gradually upward arc, and the contrasting belief that religion was regressive and held back progress. Prior to this, presenting such a view would have made little conceptual sense.

While I appreciate most people will have no intention of listening to 6 hours worth of lectures, the odd person might. I would especially recommend it to anyone who believes in the Conflict Thesis as it explains very clearly the massive flaws in such beliefs with recourse to numerous primary texts and analysis of historical data.

If you only watch/listen to one of them then I'd recommend 5 science and progress.

Wanted to say I read this post, just don't have time yet to address it.

 

[PureX]

You are absolutely correct that I am reimagining how we look at what today is considered the separate disciplines of Philosophy and Science. And it is quite easy to dismiss any reimagining I may offer and remain perfectly comfortable in the status quo. I also have no illusions that only a very few, if any, might consider a reimagining of the relationship between, what is today, two separate disciplines. However, if thinking deeply about issues is the goal of both disciplines, and that no institution or belief should be beyond reexamination, then I think this exercise is quite appropriate.

I think we are both in agreement that, at least starting with pre-Socratic Western Philosophy, all of the areas of inquiry that are covered today by the two disciplines of Philosophy and Science, were, at one time, all under one label, the label Philosophy. Philosophy, Love of Wisdom, being the discipline or endeavor of asking general and fundamental questions, with the goal of getting true or real answers to those questions, or a full understanding of a subject.

And as you are aware, for their convenience, Philosophers began to group questions together relating to specific subjects, creating a hierarchy of categories and subcategories of Philosophy. But whatever the subcategory, be it broadly Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, or Ethics, all were still considered Philosophy, the asking general and fundamental questions with the goal of gaining a full understanding of the answers to those questions.

I think it is safe to say that we both agree that a significant change in attitudes occurred regarding the subcategory of Natural Philosophy around the 17th century such that a schism occurred. This schism resulted, eventually, into this subcategory of Philosophy branching off into what will become a separate and distinct discipline, later to be called Science.

Is it not important to ask why this schism occurred? What changed that a subcategory of Philosophy felt it no longer appropriate to be considered a part of Philosophy? After the schism, the overarching goals of the two disciplines were still the same, to obtain answers to general and fundamental questions. If the goals didn’t change, then is it the approach that is different? There is general consensus in the acknowledgement of the success of this off-shoot discipline to find answers and build an understanding of the questions it sets before itself. Is the success of this new discipline simply related to the types of questions asked, or is it more fundamental than that? Is it not important to examine what is the difference between the approach of these now separate disciplines that still have the same fundamental goal? What is gained by keeping them separate? What might be gained by bringing them together under the same fold? For me, these are important questions.

You say that I have created a strawman caricature of Philosophy, and that my characterization of Philosophy bears no connection to reality. That’s fine. However, I would like to look at one example that illustrates my concern. Let’s look at Philosophy's approach to mind and consciousness. What percentage of the philosophical works on this subject are based on any substantive understanding of how the central nervous system works? How should we consider such works that deal with the mind yet are not based on any understanding of how the central nervous system functions? Can they be considered anything more than speculation or the imaginings of the Philosopher?

Scientific Philosophy (Science) has means to convey the surety of ideas that seems to be lacking in Philosophy. Scientific Philosophy has fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Philosophy makes no such distinctions. Each Philosophical Study is presented as a finished work. Unlike Scientific Philosophy, whereby ideas that are found to be no longer valid are either revised or superseded and set aside (eg. Geocentrism), philosophical works seem immune to such fate. How many philosophical works on mind and consciousness have been removed from philosophical canon? Are none found to be lacking?

I would also say that philosophy regarding the mind is extremely anthropocentric. And really, this can probably be said of much of Philosophy. When considering the phenomena of mind and consciousness, what attention is given to the expression of these phenomena in other species? How are similarities and differences reconciled? I would consider any philosophical position incomplete if it did not address these issues.

The last point I’ll make is the observation that Philosophy is highly categorized. There are both advantages and risks to categorical thinking, and being fully aware of the risks is important if we are to use categories successfully. Here is a fun treatment of categorical thinking starting at minute 7:30 of the video:

Philosophy and Science seem to be siloed into very distinct categories. I think it is time to rethink that.

I think you're working way too hard at this fantasy of reunification between philosophy and science as the endeavors are different, and they have long ago shown themselves to be different, to us, through practice. It would certainly appear that there are four primary ways in which we humans try to understand our existential experience. Those are art, science, religion, and philosophy. And they are designated as separate endeavors because they are each addressing the mystery from a very different perspective. Art addresses the mystery by seeking out, capturing/depicting, exploring (and often testing) "what matters" to us. What has significance, and value, and meaning to us. Art explores who we are, and how we are, and shares what it finds with us all.

Religion explores the mystery of our own existence for the most part, behaviorally. As an interactive 'morality play'. Via religion, we humans seek out behavioral pathways through this existential mystery of being that we can then follow, and trust.

Science explores the mystery of existence through the mechanisms of it's physical function. It observes physical phenomena and devises experiments that will hopefully reveal something about how that observed physical phenomena is being generated.

While philosophy explores and tests the logical paradigms (chosen course of reasoning) that we use to try and make sense of this existential mystery of being. Science and philosophy are two very different fields of inquiry, pursuing two very different goals, and by two very different processes. And they always were. We just didn't recognize this early on. Not until we discovered the possibilities of devising physical experiments to test the physical functionality of a proposed theory about how the world works.

 

[MikeF]

I think you're working way too hard at this fantasy of reunification between philosophy and science as the endeavors are different, and they have long ago shown themselves to be different, to us, through practice.

To be fair, you are strongly motivated to maintain the status quo as you see it. I don't see you as being open to reassessments in regards to this subject.

It would certainly appear that there are four primary ways in which we humans try to understand our existential experience. Those are art, science, religion, and philosophy. And they are designated as separate endeavors because they are each addressing the mystery from a very different perspective.

This is certainly one way to categorize things.

Art addresses the mystery by seeking out, capturing/depicting, exploring (and often testing) "what matters" to us. What has significance, and value, and meaning to us. Art explores who we are, and how we are, and shares what it finds with us all.

I look at this category differently. For me the category represents communication of ideas. Art would broadly include the visual as well as Literature and Performance, etc. As communication, it can be used to communicate all the things you suggest above, but it can also communicate the silly and the mundane or simply non-sensical. This category is highly subjective. The artist may intend to communicate a particular thing, while the viewer or receiver of the communication may perceive or receive something entirely different. What may be meaningful to one is not universally meaningful, and that's ok.

Religion explores the mystery of our own existence for the most part, behaviorally. As an interactive 'morality play'. Via religion, we humans seek out behavioral pathways through this existential mystery of being that we can then follow, and trust.

For me, religion, the myth stories of religion, arose at our most primitive beginnings. This new species with a rational brain can now recognize event patterns, draw meaningful conclusions, and anticipate consequences. Now aware and able to anticipate all the random and uncontrollable threats in the world, our primitive ancestors imagined agency in these events and sought means to appease and control the agents of chaos and random misfortune. These early beliefs were passed to successive generations and evolved as human society evolved. And as you suggest, religion became intertwined throughout all aspects of society and culture. The myths of religion are mankind's subjective and emotional way of dealing with tragedy, misfortune, the unknown, and mortality.

Science explores the mystery of existence through the mechanisms of it's physical function. It observes physical phenomena and devises experiments that will hopefully reveal something about how that observed physical phenomena is being generated.

While philosophy explores and tests the logical paradigms (chosen course of reasoning) that we use to try and make sense of this existential mystery of being. Science and philosophy are two very different fields of inquiry, pursuing two very different goals, and by two very different processes. And they always were. We just didn't recognize this early on. Not until we discovered the possibilities of devising physical experiments to test the physical functionality of a proposed theory about how the world works.

And we certainly know my thought on these last two categories.

In regards to philosophy, I don't understand what you mean by exploring and testing logical paradigms. The way you have described things above, it seems both Science and Philosophy are exploring the existential mystery of being. So to me, the goal seems the same. So how exactly are they different?