What are some examples of scientism?

[Quintessence]

To add to the "why postulate anything as ethereal?"

Think about why we create the artificial construct that is currency. The actual physical stuff currency is made out of doesn't have much if any practical value (you can maybe burn it or wipe your rear with it). Yet we use it as an abstract representation of other things because it is more convenient to pretend these bits of paper have value than to trade and barter actual goods with actual practical value. It's an abstract idea we agree upon for a particular purpose. Metaphysical concepts in religions can have similar utility purpose.

 

[PureX]

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".

It's weird watching someone fight so hard to discredit an idea that they don't understand at all. So much pointless bluster.

 

[Erebus]

That's the crux of the issue right there. Why postulate anything as being ethereal? What informs such a speculation? If it isn't observable or measurable in any way, how do we know such a thing exists?

Well as I say, my view is that we can't know if such a thing exists. I could be misinterpreting you here but I get the impression you feel the same way?

As to why people might believe it exists or how such a thing was even thought up in the first place, that's something I think actually can be explored scientifically. Psychology, anthropology and archaeology can all touch on afterlife beliefs for example.

*Edit* I realise here that I've contradicted a previous assertion that the soul is better off being explored from a philosophical perspective and not a scientific one. On reflection, I would say that I was wrong and that some of the sciences can add something of value to discussions about the nature of the soul. They may not be able to determine whether or not the soul exists but they can help inform our understanding of it as a social/psychological construct.

Well, it quite depends on the nature of the error, right? Goodyear discovered the vulcanization of rubber, by accidentally spilling pure rubber and sulfur on a hot stove, or so the story goes.

Certainly and it also depends on the field in question. As a quick example, in an earlier post I said, "That's a question for the philosophers." Which you took to refer to classical philosophers. That's not actually what I said and it was honestly just a throwaway line on my part. My imprecise writing and your misinterpretation of what I meant resulted in an interesting discussion on the role of scientists as philosophers (I find it interesting at least and I hope you do too!).

That's one example wherein human fallibility produced something of value and I would argue that the art of debate would be worse off without human fallibility. Getting to the truth of a matter is only one reason to debate after all. Learning new things, coming to understand an alternative perspective or even just flexing your rhetorical muscles are also valid reasons to debate.

And all we can do is be patient until such a stumbling block can be resolve, yes?

Well like I said above, it depends on the field. Sometimes it's best to reduce human error as much as possible, sometimes it's best to accept it.

Is there right or wrong in literary fiction? Expressing thoughts, ideas, values, aspirations, fears is nether right nor wrong. We can certainly look to what informs those expressed ideas and consider whether they have merit to us personally, or reflect real or possible aspects of society or the human condition on the whole.

Whether there's right and wrong in fiction would take a dissertation to answer properly. The short answer as I see it is... sort of?

There are certainly rules and conventions to follow but also valid reasons to break them. I remember one occasion where a tutor criticised a student's story for being unrealistic. The student argued that the story was actually true and he was recounting a recent interaction with his flatmate. The tutor then told him that just because the story was true, that doesn't make it realistic.

Having knowledge does not require using that knowledge, especially in a negative way. Knowledge acquisition is a building process, questions answered yesterday provide the platform upon which to ask and work on new questions that when answered provide a platform in the future upon which to continue this process. I do not think there should be limits on knowledge acquisition, at least not permanent ones, and I also agree there are conditions that require ethical restraint in using or implementing acquired knowledge. However, these are decisions to be made and reevaluated by each generation and are not static and fixed. We have the capacity to grow into our every expanding understanding of ourselves and the cosmos.

I think we're mostly in agreement here, though I suspect I have a much grimmer image of what humanity is than you do I tend to assume that if knowledge can be used to cause harm, it almost certainly will be.

Methods are specific to the problem under consideration. One does not use a space telescope to study cell nuclei nor an electron microscope to study far off galaxies. In the realm of ethics, for example, we are talking about the management or regulation of human behavior. It would seem to me that a thorough understanding of human behavior and the factors that impact it would be a pre-requisite in making informed choices regarding ethics.

I think you're partially right here in that ethics does frequently concern itself with human behaviour and therefore an understanding of human behaviour is necessary. I would argue that ethics also encompasses much more abstract notions though. A common criticism of certain scientific endeavours for example is to say that scientists are "Playing God." I would say that tackling (or dismissing) that accusation hinges more on broader ethical questions than just those concerning human behaviour. Is it fundamentally wrong to create a human/pig hybrid for example? If it is, what makes it wrong? If not, what makes it okay?

 

[PureX]

Yes, our thoughts are abstractions, but that does not mean we cannot use them to describe and understand reality.

You're missing the point. The point is that those meta-conceptions are themselves, "real". They are meta-physically real. As opposed to being physically real. They define "real", for us. And more important then that, they are a transcendent reality. A reality that affords possibilities that did not and could not exist, otherwise.

The physical realm cannot produce a bicycle. Bicycles couldn't and wouldn't exist were it not for the ream of the metaphysical; where imaginary combinations of things, interacting, can produce a result greater in possibility than any of the parts, or combination of the parts, otherwise could.

 

[MikeF]

You're missing the point. The point is that those meta-conceptions are themselves, "real". They are meta-physically real. As opposed to being physically real. They define "real", for us. And more important then that, they are a transcendent reality. A reality that affords possibilities that did not and could not exists, otherwise.

The physical realm cannot produce a bicycle. Bicycles couldn't and wouldn't exist were it not for the ream of the metaphysical; where imaginary combinations of things can produce a result that is greater possibility than any of the parts, or combination of the parts, other wise could.

Yes, but the abstract concept of a bicycle is synthetic to reality, it corresponds or comports with the characteristic and properties of the real physical world. Just as we can imagine a bicycle, we can also imagine a unicorn (cliché, I know ). Since abstraction is infinite, boundless, if our intention is to talk about that which is real or possible in the real world, then we require some methodology to verify our thoughts and ideas remain synthetic to reality. Karl Popper referred to this as the Problem of Demarcation. Popper's solution to demarcation between what is purely abstract construction and abstract constructions synthetic to reality was his Falsifiability standard.

Our imagination is boundless in the realm of abstractions. However, not all we imagine can be made real in reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but the abstract concept of a bicycle is synthetic to reality, it corresponds or comports with the characteristic and properties of the real physical world. Just as we can imagine a bicycle, we can also imagine a unicorn (cliché, I know ). Since abstraction is infinite, boundless, if our intention is to talk about that which is real or possible in the real world, then we require some methodology to verify our thoughts and ideas remain synthetic to reality. Karl Popper referred to this as the Problem of Demarcation. Popper's solution to demarcation between what is purely abstract construction and abstract constructions synthetic to reality was his Falsifiability standard.

Our imagination is boundless in the realm of abstractions. However, not all we imagine can be made real in reality.

There is no real physical world. You can't observe that. It is an abstract construct in your mind. If I were to ask you to point the real physical world, you couldn't. It is a rule in your mind where you label certain experiences as unreal and others as the real physical world. No different than some versions of God.

You really don't get it do you? If I ask you to point to a black cat, you could find one and do that. But you can't point to the real physical world, because it is an idea in your mind and you can't find it among all of your external sensory experiences.

 

[MikeF]

There is no real physical world. You can't observe that. It is an abstract construct in your mind. If I were to ask you to point the real physical world, you couldn't. It is a rule in your mind where you label certain experiences as unreal and others as the real physical world. No different than some versions of God.

You really don't get it do you? If I ask you to point to a black cat, you could find one and do that. But you can't point to the real physical world, because it is an idea in your mind and you can't find it among all of your external sensory experiences.

Is the cat real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is the cat real?

No, and neither is it unreal.

Here is how real works. It depends on cognitive contexts.

Try to imagine a pond. Now it is not a real pond, because you imagine it, but it is real that you can imagine it. In the pond are 2 ducks, a real duck and a decoy duck. The decoy duck is not a real duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

Do you get how real works now? It is a cognitive construct, that depends on context. Subjectivity is real as subjective, but unreal as objective. But your subjective rule for real is that only the objective is real. The problem is that your rule is not real according to itself. So you use an unreal rule.

 

[MikeF]

No, and neither is it unreal.

Here is how real works. It depends on cognitive contexts.

Try to imagine a pond. Now it is not a real pond, because you imagine it, but it is real that you can imagine it. In the pond are 2 ducks, a real duck and a decoy duck. The decoy duck is not a real duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

Do you get how real works now? It is a cognitive construct, that depends on context. Subjectivity is real as subjective, but unreal as objective. But your subjective rule for real is that only the objective is real. The problem is that your rule is not real according to itself. So you use an unreal rule.

If you want to consider abstract constructs as real, that's fine. How do you distinguish between referencing an actual cat that you have to feed and the abstract concept of the cat in ones mind? I assume for you they both qualify as real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you want to consider abstract constructs as real, that's fine. How do you distinguish between referencing an actual cat that you have to feed and the abstract concept of the cat in ones mind? I assume for you they both qualify as real.

You don't understand it, do you? I can talk about God without believing in God and I can talk about real without believing in real.

I don't have the same cognition as you. I don't believe in real, because I don't have to. I have a life without the concept of real as one I personally use. And without a real physical world.
Before we can get any further about this, you have to learned when you use 1st cognitive constructs and models and then learn that there are other ones than yours. You are not a we for all humans, no matter how much you claim a real physical world.

You are as much a product of culture as everybody else and there was a time without the concepts of a real physical world and yet there were humans in it. You are doing philosophy, not science.

 

[PureX]

Yes, but the abstract concept of a bicycle is synthetic to reality, it corresponds or comports with the characteristic and properties of the real physical world.

Yes, and then it TRANSCENDS them! That's the point, and the significance. A bicycle is a very real set of possibilities that were not and could not have been possible by physical means, alone. It was the phenomenon of meta-physicality that gave existence (and reality) to those possibilities.

To ignore this quite amazing existential achievement because of some weird obsession with physicality-as-reality is, to me, just plain nuts! And yet I am seeing this happening all the time among the 'scientism' crowd, here, and elsewhere. Constantly down-playing and minimizing and if possible, erasing any indication that reality involves anything more than physicality.

Just as we can imagine a bicycle, we can also imagine a unicorn (cliché, I know ). Since abstraction is infinite, boundless, if our intention is to talk about that which is real or possible in the real world, then we require some methodology to verify our thoughts and ideas remain synthetic to reality. Karl Popper referred to this as the Problem of Demarcation. Popper's solution to demarcation between what is purely abstract construction and abstract constructions synthetic to reality was his Falsifiability standard.

Our imagination is boundless in the realm of abstractions. However, not all we imagine can be made real in reality.

We ALREADY MADE THEM REAL by imagining them as such. An imagined unicorn is a REAL PHENOMENON. And it offers us possibilities that the physical realm, by itself, cannot. You can't seem to understand this, however, because you are insisting that if the unicorn cannot physically exist, it cannot exist. But it ALREADY exists. And it already opens up new possibilities that transcend the restrictions of physicality.

It worries me that you think this somehow does not count as existing. Or that it should be afforded no existential credibility. Because to me, this is a very weird and very real conceptual phenomena that has had a persistent presence among various cultures and is therefor a representational archetype of some sort. The last thing we should be doing with this sort of phenomena is dismissing it as meaningless because it's "not real".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and then it TRANSCENDS them! That's the point, and the significance. A bicycle is a very real set of possibilities that were not and could not have been possible by physical means, alone. It was the phenomenon of meta-physicality that gave existence (and reality) to those possibilities.

To ignore this quite amazing existential achievement because of some weird obsession with physicality-as-reality is, to me, just plain nuts! And yet I am seeing this happening all the time among the 'scientism' crowd, here, and elsewhere. Constantly down-playing and minimizing and if possible, erasing any indication that reality involves anything more than physicality.
We ALREADY MADE THEM REAL by imagining them as such. An imagined unicorn is a REAL PHENOMENON. And it offers us possibilities that the physical realm, by itself, cannot. You can't seem to understand this, however, because you are insisting that if the unicorn cannot physically exist, it cannot exist. But it ALREADY exists. And it already opens up new possibilities that transcend the restrictions of physicality.

It worries me that you think this somehow does not count as existing. Or that it should be afforded no existential credibility. Because to me, this is a very weird and very real conceptual phenomena that has had a persistent presence among various cultures and is therefor a representational archetype of some sort. The last thing we should be doing with this sort of phenomena is dismissing it as meaningless because they "aren't real".

Here is one I love. It plays with real, because it is both real and unreal:

 

[PureX]

Here is one I love. It plays with real, because it is both real and unreal:

Yes, it underlines many assumptions and contradictions; a painted image of an object is an object, but not the object being depicted. And yet we make these kinds of faulty assumptions all the time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here you go @Jose Fly

And no, MikeF you just have another cognition than me. That is all.

Sorry, I don't see that as an example of someone believing that science is the only means to answer all questions.

 

[blü 2]

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

Black boxing has always been a part of formulating hypotheses, of course.

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.

On the one hand I accept we can learn useful things from studying the neurology of other animals. On the other hand, there's a central body of research work that's always addressed the human brain directly.

Still, I don't think we're much in disagreement on the point. Genuine problems with reductionism indeed remain for us materialists, but that's what problems are for.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I must be losing it ... for a moment I thought some purely imaginary being called "mikkel_the_dane" had posted here ...

 

[cladking]

Black boxing has always been a part of formulating hypotheses, of course.

Yes. It can be a highly effective method for discovery or reverse engineering.

The problem in this case is more the box than the contents. Without understanding that the nature of the box is consciousness that arises from the workings in the box we don't even know the box's dimensions nor the difference between what's inside and what's outside. We have ephemeral boundaries, definitions, and characteristics none of which can be solved through reduction.

This is why I keep calling for us to start over; adopt new paradigms. I believe even the cosmological problems will have their solutions partially contained in this black box.

On the one hand I accept we can learn useful things from studying the neurology of other animals. On the other hand, there's a central body of research work that's always addressed the human brain directly.

I believe that while animal behavior is far more complex because it's primarily dependent on experiential knowledge that its study is far simpler and more easily seen.

Addressing the human brain directly is virtually impossible if I am correct because its function is derived from what that individual chooses to believe. Much of the brain is still digital but thought is entirely symbolic and analog which are anathema to reality.

While learning useful things about animals or humans is certainly possible we can not learn how brains operate or the nature of that operation without even a working definition for "consciousness".

Still, I don't think we're much in disagreement on the point. Genuine problems with reductionism indeed remain for us materialists, but that's what problems are for.

It's entirely possible that science is not so stuck as it appears to be. I'm hardly a peer. But I keep coming back to a simple truth; no matter how many times and in how many ways I "prove" that ancient people didn't think and used linear funiculars to build it is ignored. No matter how many of my predictions come true it is ignored. This certainly suggests to me that I'm right about not only modern metaphysics but also natural metaphysics and its relationship to consciousness. It even explains the density of Egyptologists where nothing else seems to work.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, and then it TRANSCENDS them! That's the point, and the significance. A bicycle is a very real set of possibilities that were not and could not have been possible by physical means, alone. It was the phenomenon of meta-physicality that gave existence (and reality) to those possibilities.

Um … the bicycle was the creation (or phenomenon) of a human brain, a brain that uses abstract systems of thought to label, organize, and reason upon. Is this what you mean by meta-physicality?

To ignore this quite amazing existential achievement because of some weird obsession with physicality-as-reality is, to me, just plain nuts! And yet I am seeing this happening all the time among the 'scientism' crowd, here, and elsewhere. Constantly down-playing and minimizing and if possible, erasing any indication that reality involves anything more than physicality.

Well, you can call us scientismist crazy all you like but abstract systems of thought are physical. They are a product of the very physical central nervous system. If for example, the first person to imagine a bicycle dies soon after, never having told anyone of his imagined concept nor made an effort to draw or build a bicycle, that abstract creation of a bicycle is lost to the cosmos at brain death. That concept of a bicycle only existed in that person's brain in neurochemical form with the physical properties of neurochemical thought processes. It did not have the physical properties of an actual bicycle, subject to the laws of physics and made of matter/energy, nor could that abstract conception interact with other physical objects in the world. This is the extent or limit of your metaphysicality.

We ALREADY MADE THEM REAL by imagining them as such. An imagined unicorn is a REAL PHENOMENON. And it offers us possibilities that the physical realm, by itself, cannot. You can't seem to understand this, however, because you are insisting that if the unicorn cannot physically exist, it cannot exist. But it ALREADY exists. And it already opens up new possibilities that transcend the restrictions of physicality.

I do not think anyone is arguing that the abstract construct of a unicorn is not a real thought in people's brains, the product of neurochemical processes in the CNS. And no one is arguing that we cannot use abstract systems such as language or visual arts to communicate our thoughts and ideas about unicorns.

Although what we imagine in abstraction, the abstract constructs, are not restricted by physical laws, thoughts in general are bound by the laws that govern neurochemical thought processes. If one wants to implement their abstract concept in the physical world, that implementation would be restricted to physical laws even if the imagined concept is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is my example of it from @Jose Fly 's thread:

As I said in that thread, this looks to me like scientism: a video by Dawkins, designed with emotive music and dreamy shots to encourage a sense of mystery, awe and wonder, in an attempt to get science to push the buttons in the human psyche that religion is commonly thought to push.

This strikes me as example of overreach, whereby science is elevated to another job, beyond understanding of nature, by offering it as an alternative to religion. It's clumsy, inappropriate and ridiculous. I think Dawkins has given up on this nonsense nowadays.

I like Dawkins. I really enjoyed his Christmas lectures. But as he integrated his personal views on atheism into his perspectives on science, I became increasingly less interested in what he had to say.

 

[blü 2]

The problem in this case is more the box than the contents. Without understanding that the nature of the box is consciousness that arises from the workings in the box we don't even know the box's dimensions nor the difference between what's inside and what's outside. We have ephemeral boundaries, definitions, and characteristics none of which can be solved through reduction.

I'm not sure we can say that with great confidence. The past is full of occasions when the great insight was to solve the problem by identifying the key basics ─ as with Newton and gravity, or the refining and re-refining of the concept of the elementary particle, both through history and into the quantum age ─ so that we look down and find a new footing to build up from. Insight as an essential part of analysis, you could say.

It seems to me that each of these insights is another link in the reductionist chain. But of course we presently have a lot of missing links.

And I think this is how we'll get to understand our brains.

(Relevant to your early remarks, I also think studying the societies of our fellow-primates is capable of making us more aware of our own evolved traits. I quoted some observations of Yudkowsky >here< as an idea worth thinking about.)

This is why I keep calling for us to start over; adopt new paradigms. I believe even the cosmological problems will have their solutions partially contained in this black box.

Can you indicate what these new paradigms might be, or what categories they'd address? Or is it a case of, we'll know them when we see them?

It even explains the density of Egyptologists where nothing else seems to work.

You're in line for a Nobel with that one!