What are some examples of scientism?

[RestlessSoul]

Professor Brian Cox likes to make the observation (which by his own admission, is not intended to be taken too seriously) that the only question philosphy can ask which science can never answer, is; "What does it mean to live a finite, fragile life, in an infinite eternal universe?"

I don't know how familiar Prof Cox is with the works of Leo Tolstoy, but the great Russian thinker was exercised by the same question, phrased almost identically (only in Russian). Tolstoy took the question very seriously indeed; depressed and contemplating suicide, for him it was existential. He couldn't get an answer from either science or philosophy, since the natural sciences tend to deal with the measurable, while philosophy deals with the ineffable.

The only resolution of these apparently irreconcilable paradigms, according to Tolstoy, was to be found in religion; and not in the religion of the elite or the intelligensia, but in the simple, profound faith of the Russian peasants.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That objectivity is in a relationship to a subjective brain and to choose to be objective, is a subjective act of cognition, not observation.

You think you are explaining it, but you really aren't.

I ask again: what does that mean in practice?

If all you are saying is that all thinking and reasoning happens in a fallible brain, then congratulations - you managed to state the obvious.

Yes, if input "2+2" in a calculator, then I need to use my eyes to read it and my brain to process it to recognize the outcome of 4. Big whoop. What's your actual point? Do you even have one?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, not what you said in that post.

In that post, you just said that we can't observe a person thinking, having feelings or having understanding.

I explained how you were wrong on all three counts.

If you were talking about something ELSE then those 3 specific things, then write better posts.

You can't, that is what is called theory of mind in psychology. Not all humans can do that, yet some of can still see, where as blind people can't see, but some of them understand that you have thought.

 

[PureX]

"External to the self" is a meta-ideal that has no material substance and no material proof. It is exactly as "make-believe" as the meta-ideal referred to as 'God'. And yet the philosophical materialist has based his entire reality paradigm on it's not being "subjective". It's an absurdly incoherent proposition.

There is no reality "apart from you" except by your own ability and choice to imagine that it's so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't, that is what is called theory of mind in psychology. Not all humans can do that, yet some of can still see, where as blind people can't see, but some of them understand that you have thought.

So in your opinion, it is impossible to tell the difference between a brain in which thinking and feelings are active on the one hand, and a brain that is dead on the other?


You expect me to take you seriously?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More meaningless word salad.

My response to your post was perfectly on point.
If you really meant something else then what you wrote in said post, then write better posts.

Don't blame me for your own shortcomings.

So how do you see more meaningless word salad? Please state their observable properties.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More word salad that has nothing to do with your original post nor my original reply.
It's not even a proper response to the follow-up post that you are now replying to.

All I can do at this point is shrug my shoulders and walk away.

So unless you plan to take it back on point instead of this meaningless drivel, that's exactly what I'll do.

How do you observe meaningless as for its observable properties?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So in your opinion, it is impossible to tell the difference between a brain in which thinking and feelings are active on the one hand, and a brain that is dead on the other?


You expect me to take you seriously?

You really don't understand what subjectivity is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"External to the self" is a meta-ideal that has no material substance and no material proof. It is exactly as "make-believe" as the meta-ideal referred to as 'God'.

Is it?

Tell you what. I'll start a fire. You then go stand in the place where I said that I created a fire.
Then repeat that to me instead of screaming out that you are being burned alive.

Meanwhile, pray to your god to set me on fire.

See which one of us will burn first.

And yet the philosophical materialist has based his entire reality paradigm on it's not being "subjective". It's an absurdly incoherent proposition.

You base your reality on the exact same external reality as I do.
Which is exactly why you will be refusing to go stand in that place where I just created a fire.

There is no reality "apart from you" except by your own ability and choice to imagine it's so.

Then go stand in that place where I created a fire and then tell me again that external reality is "imaginary".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think you are explaining it, but you really aren't.

I ask again: what does that mean in practice?

If all you are saying is that all thinking and reasoning happens in a fallible brain, then congratulations - you managed to state the obvious.

Yes, if input "2+2" in a calculator, then I need to use my eyes to read it and my brain to process it to recognize the outcome of 4. Big whoop. What's your actual point? Do you even have one?

What are the observable properties of in practice?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You really don't understand what subjectivity is.

This nonsense of yours is exactly why I originally put you on ignore.
I took you off yesterday and I already regret it.

It seems you are still playing the same silly game of absurdity.

Yes, yes, sure... everything is subjective. Nothing is objective. The world only exists in our imagination.
Whatever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it?

Tell you what. I'll start a fire. You then go stand in the place where I said that I created a fire.
Then repeat that to me instead of screaming out that you are being burned alive.

Meanwhile, pray to your god to set me on fire.

See which one of us will burn first.




You base your reality on the exact same external reality as I do.
Which is exactly why you will be refusing to go stand in that place where I just created a fire.



Then go stand in that place where I created a fire and then tell me again that external reality is "imaginary".

Well, you never explain this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This nonsense of yours is exactly why I originally put you on ignore.
I took you off yesterday and I already regret it.

It seems you are still playing the same silly game of absurdity.

Yes, yes, sure... everything is subjective. Nothing is subjective. The world only exists in our imagination.
Whatever.

How do you observe the properties of nonsense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are the observable properties of in practice?

Welcome back to my ignore list.

You managed to get back on it within 24 hours.

 

[cladking]

If you can argue your position you're fine.

As we continue to explore, map, and seek to explain the functions of the brain ─ a work in progress of course ─ I think we'll continue to find that it's an extraordinary example of biochemistry and bioelectricity. Why would we expect otherwise?

Because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We are studying the brain reductionistically and as a black box problem and will never be able to understand it as such.

Animal brains must be understood before we have a chance to understand our own and they are no less complex. For many practical purposes they are far more complex.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I I take it by "meta-physicality" you mean "an entirely immaterial form of existence" ─ please correct me if that's wrong).

I also define "real" as existing in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

So unless there's something real in that sense, there isn't anything for the physical sciences to study. And if it's real, the physical sciences can and will study it.

On that basis, I can't agree that proceeding to conduct the physical sciences on the basis that no meta-physicality is involved is "scientism".
I think humans have emotional needs that can be satisfied by art, religion and philosophy, so I don't think they're pointless. I also think that's why we find forms of supernatural belief in virtually all cultures ─ and that the decline in supernatural belief has among its causes the availability of better information about reality.
As we continue to explore, map, and seek to explain the functions of the brain ─ a work in progress of course ─ I think we'll continue to find that it's an extraordinary example of biochemistry and bioelectricity. Why would we expect otherwise?

He means subjectivity in practice.

And I define you as nothing, therefore it is a fact that you are nothing. I win by definition and you are nothing and that is a fact.

 

[MikeF]

Excellent questions! I'll do my best to answer properly.

I'm one of the people the author of the piece disagrees with in that I'm unconvinced that science is equipped to answer the question, "do we have a soul?" in the first place. If a soul doesn't have physical properties, isn't purely a product of the imagination or exists in some ethereal realm that doesn't adhere to the laws and restrictions of our own world, then its existence or non-existence can't be explored by science at all. I'm personally agnostic towards that interpretation of a soul but if you ask the people who firmly believe in them if the soul has physical properties, their answer will usually be "no."

In this case, the author and I are at an impasse. While I certainly see the value in studying the central nervous system, psychology and neurochemistry, I'm unconvinced that by doing so we're studying that particular interpretation of the soul. As such, I feel that this interpretation is better examined via disciplines such as philosophy and ethics. The pragmatic approach (does soul belief cause more harm or good?) would be one way to address that subject. If the actual existence of the soul is unknowable, would we be better off believing in it or not believing in it?

That would be one distinction between studying the soul and studying the planets. Planets certainly do have physical properties and are absolutely within the purview of the sciences. I think that this is the main cause of valid accusations of scientism: a failure to accept the limitations of science.


Now the question of whether or not scientific knowledge should be suppressed if it would cause more harm than good is an interesting one to me. I'm not sure I can give a firm answer to that. As a hypothetical, if a scientist discovered a means of inflicting eternal suffering on somebody, do you feel they have a responsibility to share their findings or destroy them? If they shared their findings, I guarantee that their discovery would be put to use.

As a general rule, I think that the acquisition of knowledge is a worthy endeavour, even if that knowledge is acquired purely for its own sake. In the specific example of geocentrism you provided, I would say that the new knowledge shouldn't be suppressed. If it turned out we could definitively prove there is no such thing as an immortal soul (which again, I'm not convinced we can do) I'm much more 50/50. I would personally love to know the answer to that! However, I'm also aware that it would destroy a lot of people.

Again, what is science, what does it mean to have a scientific approach to solving problems and answering questions? In my view, it simply means that it is acknowledged and accepted that human beings are imperfect and fallible in a wide variety of ways, and those imperfections and fallibilities can affect or impact any investigative process.

I would ask why any line of inquiry should be shielded from mitigating the introduction of human error in the investigative process.

To touch briefly on your comments regarding a soul, you state that you are "unconvinced that science is equipped to answer the question, "do we have a soul?"" Again, we are talking about people. Scientific investigation is conducted by human beings. If resources are not available to scientists to tackle this question, then they are not available to anyone, right?

Your statement also begs the counter-question, "Is anyone equipped to even positively assert the existence of a phenomenon labeled 'soul'. " If the answer is yes, then why is that not available to a scientific investigator? If the answer is no, then there is no reason to assert such a concept other than as a speculation, which is fine, but that speculation still has to correspond to what we currently know and observe.

I'm sorry I can't give a firm answer to your question there but I'm also not convinced it's even wise to give a firm answer. How do you balance the acquisition of knowledge against the impact that knowledge would have? That's a question for the philosophers.

A philosopher is a human being, just like all of us. If science is philosophy that acknowledges the fallibility of the human investigator and takes steps to mitigate that fallibility, what is gained by kicking the problem back to classical philosophy? The classical philosopher is still a human being with the same access to information as anyone else. What advantage does a classical philosopher have over a scientist?

No matter your answer to that question though, I'll reiterate my main complaint about the line I quoted. The author claims nothing would be lost. I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly and I'm curious to know your thoughts on it.

I certainly agree with you that something would be lost for some people. But this would be true for any case in which a belief is strongly held in error, for example a breach of trust. This phenomenon is not restricted to religion, wouldn't you agree?

 

[sayak83]

You think you are explaining it, but you really aren't.

I ask again: what does that mean in practice?

If all you are saying is that all thinking and reasoning happens in a fallible brain, then congratulations - you managed to state the obvious.

Yes, if input "2+2" in a calculator, then I need to use my eyes to read it and my brain to process it to recognize the outcome of 4. Big whoop. What's your actual point? Do you even have one?

Ok. I will try a different way to explain this.
Detection of color is different from the "having" of the subjective experience of color.
Performing of logical operation is different from the "having" of the subjective experience of thought and inner monologue.
Detection and response to useful and harmful external stimuli is different from the subjective "having" of emotional states.
If I myself did not have first person experiential states and observed my own behaviors that are correlated to these inner experiential states, I would never be able to infer the existence of these first person inner experiential states in others from their acts and behaviors. So a thought experiment can go like this:-

Assume an alien Turing Machine (basically a super-duper computer) with exceptional detectors and enormous processing power, but with no inner mental experiential states, comes to earth to study the behavior of organic brains. In time, based on our behaviour, it creates a perfect theory based on neurochemical signaling pathways of how the brain computes through the day-to-day problems and navigates through its life. It can explain all external brain-body behaviour. But what could possibly induce it to say that in addition that "Aha! That bit of chemical signaling potential gradient among these 75 nerve cells imply an inner experience of blue is generated!" What could possibly be a material " atom-based" model for this inner experience field we find ourselves immersed in all day!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, what is science, what does it mean to have a scientific approach to solving problems and answering questions? In my view, it simply means that it is acknowledged and accepted that human beings are imperfect and fallible in a wide variety of ways, and those imperfections and fallibilities can affect or impact any investigative process.

I would ask why any line of inquiry should be shielded from mitigating the introduction of human error in the investigative process.

To touch briefly on your comments regarding a soul, you state that you are "unconvinced that science is equipped to answer the question, "do we have a soul?"" Again, we are talking about people. Scientific investigation is conducted by human beings. If resources are not available to scientists to tackle this question, then they are not available to anyone, right?

Your statement also begs the counter-question, "Is anyone equipped to even positively assert the existence of a phenomenon labeled 'soul'. " If the answer is yes, then why is that not available to a scientific investigator? If the answer is no, then there is no reason to assert such a concept other than as a speculation, which is fine, but that speculation still has to correspond to what we currently know and observe.



A philosopher is a human being, just like all of us. If science is philosophy that acknowledges the fallibility of the human investigator and takes steps to mitigate that fallibility, what is gained by kicking the problem back to classical philosophy? The classical philosopher is still a human being with the same access to information as anyone else. What advantage does a classical philosopher have over a scientist?



I certainly agree with you that something would be lost for some people. But this would be true for any case in which a belief is strongly held in error, for example a breach of trust. This phenomenon is not restricted to religion, wouldn't you agree?

You don't seem understand that you can't solve everything by external sensory experience.

So how do you with external sensory experience observe an error? What are the observable properties of an error?

 

[RestlessSoul]

You think you are explaining it, but you really aren't.

I ask again: what does that mean in practice?

If all you are saying is that all thinking and reasoning happens in a fallible brain, then congratulations - you managed to state the obvious.

Yes, if input "2+2" in a calculator, then I need to use my eyes to read it and my brain to process it to recognize the outcome of 4. Big whoop. What's your actual point? Do you even have one?

Congratulations, you're an instrumentalist. The Tyson quote under your posts confirms this btw. This explains why you struggle to communicate with idealists. But perhaps you should consider that instrumentalism is itself an anti-realist stance. In concerning himself only with what can be shown to be real, the instrumentalist abandons the scientific realist's ambition to uncover underlying ontological truths about nature.


instrumentalism (noun)

1. a pragmatic philosophical approach which regards an activity (such as science, law, or education) chiefly as an instrument or tool for some practical purpose, rather than in more absolute or ideal terms.