Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[Aupmanyav]

Everything on the surface of earth including even the plates upon which oceans and continents sit float on the mantle. Only mountains depress the plate significantly but even feathers cause the plate to sink a little.

Yeah, fall of a feather reverberates all through the universe. Similarly, when I stamp my feet the whole universe shudders.

(this may be a repeat post)

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you are pointing to the latest view of things in science, if it changes then it changes and science goes according to the change. What is the problem in that? Relativity and Quantum Mechanics brought changes to science and science accepted them. What is the need or advantaqge to be bound to a stake?

Yes, in the end, science leads us to the same conclusion philosophy and religion reached millennia ago; that this fleeting, insubstantial world is a world of illusion.

“The hardest stone, in the light of what we have learned from chemistry, from physics, from mineralogy,from geology, from psychology, is in reality a complex vibration of quantum fields, a momentary interaction of forces, a process that for a brief moment manages to keep it’s shape, to hold itself in equilibrium before disintegrating into dust.”

- Carlo Rovelli

“The frank realisation that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant advances. In the world of physics we watch a shadow graph performance of the drama of familiar life…it’s all symbolism, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. Then comes the alchemist, Mind, who transforms the symbols…to put the conclusion simply, the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”

- Arthur Stanley Eddington

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes, in the end, science leads us to the same conclusion philosophy and religion reached millennia ago; that this fleeting, insubstantial world is a world of illusion.

“The hardest stone, in the light of what we have learned from chemistry, from physics, from mineralogy,from geology, from psychology, is in reality a complex vibration of quantum fields, a momentary interaction of forces, a process that for a brief moment manages to keep it’s shape, to hold itself in equilibrium before disintegrating into dust.”

Just because everything is a nebulous cloud of dust doesn't make it an illusion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just because everything is a nebulous cloud of dust doesn't make it an illusion.

Indeed, it’s our perception which creates the illusion

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indeed, it’s our perception which creates the illusion

I agree to that too. That is the position of Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) - 'maya'. Gods and prophets too belong to 'maya' and not to reality. Kabir (15th Century) said "Maya is a great deceiver, I know" (Maya bari thugini hum jani).

Sint Kabir

 

[Audie]

Yes, in the end, science leads us to the same conclusion philosophy and religion reached millennia ago; that this fleeting, insubstantial world is a world of illusion.

“The hardest stone, in the light of what we have learned from chemistry, from physics, from mineralogy,from geology, from psychology, is in reality a complex vibration of quantum fields, a momentary interaction of forces, a process that for a brief moment manages to keep it’s shape, to hold itself in equilibrium before disintegrating into dust.”

- Carlo Rovelli

“The frank realisation that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant advances. In the world of physics we watch a shadow graph performance of the drama of familiar life…it’s all symbolism, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. Then comes the alchemist, Mind, who transforms the symbols…to put the conclusion simply, the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”

- Arthur Stanley Eddington

There is very very little that
religion ever gets right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is very very little that
religion ever gets right.

Well, it is relative to what you consider religion and right. The problem is that both are not objective as such.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Indeed, it’s our perception which creates the illusion

Our perceptions will never render the world perfectly. They need constant monitoring and correction. Science handles that need. But no amount of science will ever make our perceptions error-free. Our perceptions DO portray the world though. The fact that we perceive anything at all suggests that something must be real.

If it turns out to be a bunch of quantum fields, fine. I don't think that has any spiritual implications.

We perceive things like "solidness" at the macro-level because, for all intents and purposes, the solidness is there. It is a physical property that manifests at a certain macroscopic level. Our perceptions about many such things are spot-on.

 

[cladking]

Our perceptions DO portray the world though.

No. They do not!

They portray what we believe and many believe that science already has enough answers to know what is what.

 

[vulcanlogician]

No. They do not!

They portray what we believe and many believe that science already has enough answers to know what is what.

So, you are saying that there is no strong correlation between what is perceived and what is discoverable through careful investigation?

 

[cladking]

So, you are saying that there is no strong correlation between what is perceived and what is discoverable through careful investigation?

I'm not sure how to answer this.

Obviously there is a lot of practicality in believing in science. If you can't learn it without believing in it then most individuals might be well advised to believe in it. Science is great for things like technology and getting a job. However one is very limited once he accepts science as his Savior and Peers as His Priests. It makes it almost impossible to see anomalies, create new science, or see that his beliefs will periodically become obsolete and replaced by new paradigms. The real problem though is that believers are prone to seeing everything in terms of equations, mathematics, and reductionistic science which can and will impact his personal life and how his life proceeds.

I'm a big fan of what people perceive and I believe it always and necessarily contains some or great amounts of reality. I did say "people" here and not "believers in science". Obviously believers' observations tend to be more repeatable but since we all see what we believe it follows that on any given thing most believers can be wrong.

I'm not sure the degree of correlation between perception and reality is all that important. The only thing that's truly important other than knowledge is the ability to predict/ prophesize and none of us are very good at this. Indeed, few even realize that prediction/ prophesy is the sole reason any science was ever invented and is the very "goal" of consciousness. In the modern world there is a strong tendency to discount accurate prediction as mere happenstance or some random event outside the control of scientists and everyone else.

Scientific observation and perception are not quite the same thing unless one is trained. But even the best observers are still at the mercy of their beliefs almost all the time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just because everything is a nebulous cloud of dust doesn't make it an illusion.

Agree. That's a misuse of the word illusion, which implies a meaningful misunderstanding of what one perceives, like mistaking a mirage for a desert oasis, or mistaking a crook for an honest man. Equating that with calling a table solid being an illusion is an equivocation error, since with the former examples, we are apt to make a costly mistake, but not with the latter. What am I saying when I call the table solid is that it occupies space, has weight, resists being moved, and doesn't flow like a liquid or gas. Yes, it's an illusion in the sense that we assume that things would be the same on the subatomic scale, but not in the sense that we are apt to make a mistake.

Assuming that we understand what we are looking at, is an image in a mirror an illusion? Technically, yes, but not in the same way as one thinking he sees another person in a room that's not there and starts talking to it.

I'm not sure the degree of correlation between perception and reality is all that important. The only thing that's truly important other than knowledge is the ability to predict/ prophesize and none of us are very good at this. Indeed, few even realize that prediction/ prophesy is the sole reason any science was ever invented and is the very "goal" of consciousness.

I agree with this. The purpose of memory is to record and recall what was. The purpose of the senses is to tell us what is. And the purpose of reasoning is to tell us what likely will be. To do this, we build amental map from those memories - what we think is true outside of consciousness that accounts for what is true in it - what works.

A lot of people spend a lot of hours dwelling on what's out there, using phrases like objective or absolute truth, but which of these is more important to us? I say it's the in-here part. The model doesn't need to be improved for as long as it accurately predicts future experience. I've given you the thought experiment where one somehow learns that he is actually a vat in a brain, and that he has no body. He sees a candle, and realizes that it's not really there, nor is his finger, so he wills his finger into the flame as always understanding that it is all illusion, and then feels the familiar pain of fire. This emphasizes the primacy of subjective experience over so-called objective reality from the perspective of the conscious agent, and here's why:

The word truth has no meaning divorced from any eventual decision-making process. The value of knowledge is to inform decisions and drive actions. Those actions then influence events in the external world, and those effects lead to objective consequences that modify experience, ideally in a predictable way. We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. Take away any of these elements and the word truth and knowledge refer to nothing more than an idea that one likes. And this describes both formal science and the empiricism of daily life, like looking both ways before crossing a street to effect the desired outcome of crossing safely.

one is very limited once he accepts science as his Savior and Peers as His Priests.

So what does that look like? I'm an empiricist, meaning that I believe that truth about reality only comes from experiencing it, and not from other "magisteria" or special ways of knowing. Although you didn't use the word, some call that scientism, which is meant in a derogatory sense as is the case with you here. And you see this perspective as limiting in the negative sense of the word - depriving one of useful insights. I see this limiting as the only defense against belief by faith, and thus a valuable tool. Many study how to limit thought in this prescribed way called critical thinking.

even the best observers are still at the mercy of their beliefs almost all the time.

That's feature of intellect, not a bug. The trick is to accumulate correct beliefs - those that allow one to successfully predict outcomes - and in so doing, construct a useful map of reality outside of consciousness, useful meaning one that gets us to our desired destination.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Our perceptions will never render the world perfectly. They need constant monitoring and correction. Science handles that need. But no amount of science will ever make our perceptions error-free. Our perceptions DO portray the world though. The fact that we perceive anything at all suggests that something must be real.

If it turns out to be a bunch of quantum fields, fine. I don't think that has any spiritual implications.

We perceive things like "solidness" at the macro-level because, for all intents and purposes, the solidness is there. It is a physical property that manifests at a certain macroscopic level. Our perceptions about many such things are spot-on.

Our perceptions interpret the flickering magic lantern show provided by our senses, in a manner which allows us to navigate the world. The version of the world we are capable of perceiving has to equate well enough to reality, in order for us to function in it.

A distinction should be drawn here between an illusion, behind which there is an underlying reality independent of the consciousness of the observer, and a hallucination, which is entirely a fabrication of that consciousness.

The mental and the physical have to correlate effectively. The body, the senses, have to inform the mind in a manner which is meaningful and practical, even if deceptive. But this symbiosis of mind and matter is necessarily limited and limiting. The senses are the tools of the mind, and the mind is the tool of the spirit. We are incomplete, and imbalanced, when we nurture mind and body, but neglect the spirit. But since the spirit is mercurial, and immaterial, it cannot be weighed, calibrated, or directly observed. Naturally it cannot be observed, because it is the observer; and the pupil cannot behold the iris. So how are we to know the spirit? There are no shortage of suggestions, fortunately, from those who have trod that path before us. Some interpretations, however, may be misleading; and we humans are easily misled.

Solidity, a quality of objects which is inarguably real from the perspective of the conscious observer, is the ultimate illusion. Whether we conceive of the building blocks of the material world comprising fundamental particles flickering in and out of existence*, as waves in space, or as fluctuations in a quantum field, physics tells us “All that is solid, melts into air.”

* “It is better to consider a particle not as a permanent entity but rather as an instantaneous event. Sometimes these events form chains that give the illusion of being permanent, but only in particular circumstances and only for an extremely brief period of time in each particular case.”
- Irwin Schrodinger

“An electron…is more pattern than substance. It is order. Thus we arrive at a strange place. We break things down into smaller and smaller pieces, but the pieces, when examined, are not there. Just the arrangements of them are. What then, are things?…if things are forms of forms of forms, and if forms are order, and if order is defined by us, they exist, it would appear, only as created by and in relation to us and the universe. They are, as the Buddha might say, emptiness.”
- Anthony Aguirre, Cosmological Koans

 

[cladking]

So what does that look like? I'm an empiricist, meaning that I believe that truth about reality only comes from experiencing it, and not from other "magisteria" or special ways of knowing. Although you didn't use the word, some call that scientism, which is meant in a derogatory sense as is the case with you here. And you see this perspective as limiting in the negative sense of the word - depriving one of useful insights. I see this limiting as the only defense against belief by faith, and thus a valuable tool. Many study how to limit thought in this prescribed way called critical thinking.

We all must take many things we are taught as gospel. First we must learn the same language and parse it similarly to the intention of the authors. We must construct models of our beliefs such that they are similar to state of the art and functional. Nobody has the time or inclination to pour over the details of every single experiment to form his own opinion about its relevancy and quality. We each take many things on faith.

The world grinds along with everyone having such similar beliefs that every individual can be placed in time and space by just reading a few sentences he has written. While I tend to think like a 19th century scientist there are ample ideas in my writing to place me in the 21st.

Experiment has shown that many of our foundational beliefs are not true. Logic and reason suggest there are better ways to see reality. It might be argued that these "better ways" are not pragmatic but I seriously doubt this can be true because history can be seen as a march toward better ways to view reality.

That's feature of intellect, not a bug. The trick is to accumulate correct beliefs - those that allow one to successfully predict outcomes - and in so doing, construct a useful map of reality outside of consciousness, useful meaning one that gets us to our desired destination.

Yes and no. I agree but there is no "intellect". Gathering correct beliefs is exactly the right way to go but it is absolutely necessary to remember that they are beliefs. Intellect is much more an aspect of language than anything real or tangible. We experience it as a result of learning language but it doesn't really exist.

It is our nature to believe we have the answers and for proof I offer the simple observation that we each have an explanation for everything we see and experience. This is why I've named our new (4,000 year old) species "homo omnisciencis". For 4000 years every individual has had an explanation for everything and these explanations arise from our time and place and are a product of language. Science changes one funeral at a time because we can't adapt to new beliefs.

It's not just this inability to adapt to new beliefs I'm calling "scientism"; it is the dogged refusal of many to even consider there are other beliefs or the inability to entertain them. Once we accept the dictates of "science" as unproven truths we become scientismists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We each take many things on faith.

I don't, but maybe we don't mean the same thing. I reserve the word for unjustified belief by academic standards for interpreting evidence as we might find in a courtroom or a laboratory. Faith-based beliefs are generally considered settled fact and since they weren't arrived at by applying valid reasoning to evidence to generate sound (correct) conclusions, they aren't tentative (less than certain and amenable to contradictory evidence). By contrast, everything I believe I believe for a reason that would convince a critical thinker, or, if he shows me that I'm mistaken, is revised.

Experiment has shown that many of our foundational beliefs are not true.

This is one of your many vague, unsubstantiated claims. If you are correct, you can demonstrate that you are. What foundational belief has been shown to be untrue by experiment? Skepticism, or the belief that one should not believe anything without a sound reason, or that nature can be partially predicted (deduction) by studying and generalizing about it (induction)?

but there is no "intellect"

Intellect is the ability to reason using symbols (language, math). It's the most evolved and useful form of intelligence.

Gathering correct beliefs is exactly the right way to go but it is absolutely necessary to remember that they are beliefs.

How could I forget?

It's not just this inability to adapt to new beliefs I'm calling "scientism"; it is the dogged refusal of many to even consider there are other beliefs or the inability to entertain them. Once we accept the dictates of "science" as unproven truths we become scientismists.

How could I not know there are other beliefs? And for how long does one need to entertain an idea after considering and rejecting them?

You writing is replete with warnings that the sky is falling, of wrong turns made and danger ahead, but you never flesh it out with substance. One would hope that you've seen things yourself that you can share that resulted from the unwary committing these errors you warn others of now. What did you see?

 

[cladking]

How could I not know there are other beliefs? And for how long does one need to entertain an idea after considering and rejecting them?

You writing is replete with warnings that the sky is falling, of wrong turns made and danger ahead, but you never flesh it out with substance. One would hope that you've seen things yourself that you can share that resulted from the unwary committing these errors you warn others of now. What did you see?

I believe the nature of these threats are irrelevant to this thread except to the degree they would not be threats at all if people could see them. The world is becoming a police state where the many serve the few. We waste massive amounts of wealth for the benefit of the few so even our garbage is becoming problematical. Then the garbage is used against the many. But people believe they are living in a golden age of not dragging everything they own and massive stones up ramps so they tolerate allowing criminals to live among the many and the suppression of individual rights to accommodate them. Meanwhile we are all about to become redundant due to machine intelligence and our leaders want lower populations in order to control total bovine flatulence.

The world jumped the shark back about 1958 and nobody noticed and today no one even cares because we're living on a beautiful rainbow infused bubble in a golden age of not dragging stones up ramps for our betters.

I don't, but maybe we don't mean the same thing. I reserve the word for unjustified belief by academic standards for interpreting evidence as we might find in a courtroom or a laboratory. Faith-based beliefs are generally considered settled fact and since they weren't arrived at by applying valid reasoning to evidence to generate sound (correct) conclusions, they aren't tentative (less than certain and amenable to contradictory evidence). By contrast, everything I believe I believe for a reason that would convince a critical thinker, or, if he shows me that I'm mistaken, is revised.

This is all fine and dandy. I'm a big fan (I was once a bigger fan) of state of the art in all areas of science. In most fields it's really the only game in town. But I've always known all knowledge is dependent on assumptions, perspectives, and definitions. All knowledge is eventually tweaked, rewritten, or totally overhauled in order to fit new experiment and new knowledge.

But science in the last few decades has splintered into more pieces than language did at the Tower of Babel. There are specialties within specialties within specialties. Science is still reductionistic and there are no specialties for putting it all back together. The obvious goes unheeded and unseen. Science and government have been pimped by the few. Greed, waste, and inefficiency rule.

"State of the art" no longer means quite what it used to. Sure expert opinion is still the way to go but it's no longer necessarily in agreement with all experiment and all empirical evidence. It merely agrees with experiment, evidence, and opinion within a tiny scientific niche.

This is no longer the 1960's. When the baby boomers who were rioting got a piece of the pie they enshrined the status quo so they and their families never had to give up even the tiniest crumb. The status quo rules.

This is one of your many vague, unsubstantiated claims. If you are correct, you can demonstrate that you are. What foundational belief has been shown to be untrue by experiment?

I've listed many of them numerous times. No one has really countered a single one of them. They are rarely ever noticed and when they are they are simply gainsaid or spur word games. There are many more I've never bothered to list because we can't even get past the most obvious ones.

Most of them are an outgrowth of language and are passed down as inductive logic or old wives tales. Many things that seem obvious because of the way we think simply are not true but we ignore the experiments that show it. Often we ignore the experiments because they are in the soft sciences which many of us hold in virtual contempt. Others are ignored because they don't fit our models. Other times we just don't know what to think. We tend not to see anomalies and brush off most mysteries with facile explanations. We tend to think there's only one way to properly view reality when in fact every way to view reality is equally valid though most are blinding instead of illuminating. We mistake learning for reality.

How could I forget?

Most believers do. In one breath they say nothing is ever proven in science and in the very next they say we know something is true because it's theory. You can't argue with someone who believes he has all the answers; homo omnisciencis. The human condition keeps us from even seeing the collapse of civilization until it's in the rear view mirror.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The world is becoming a police state where the many serve the few. We waste massive amounts of wealth for the benefit of the few so even our garbage is becoming problematical.

OK. I wasn't specific enough. I was thinking of a threat caused by science doing something wrong or losing its way. You've been arguing against science implying that its foundation is rocky, and you mentioned experiments revealing this. Now you're discussing public policy, governments, industry, etc.. Yes, they are creating problems with the fruits of science, the next looking like it will be what these people do with AI. But I don't see a problem for science there.

I've listed many of them numerous times. No one has really countered a single one of them. They are rarely ever noticed and when they are they are simply gainsaid or spur word games. There are many more I've never bothered to list because we can't even get past the most obvious ones.

I wrote, "If you are correct, you can demonstrate that you are." Even a link to a prior demonstration would suffice. I'm looking for one of the foundational beliefs you say has been shown to be untrue by experiment. Do you think that you did that here? I don't, which is why I am still looking.

Most believers do. In one breath they say nothing is ever proven in science and in the very next they say we know something is true because it's theory.

If by believers you mean empiricists, almost none say that. I've never seen it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Our perceptions interpret the flickering magic lantern show provided by our senses, in a manner which allows us to navigate the world. The version of the world we are capable of perceiving has to equate well enough to reality, in order for us to function in it.

This is Plato's analogy of the cave. Pure and simple. Only your view is fatalistic. It seems to assume there is no way out of the cave. Plato thought there was a way out: reason and clarity (and eventually understanding). Not that either of those come easy. And not you'll be able to convince a majority of others. Nor will you end up unerringly knowing the truth... BUT there is a way out of the illusion and deception.

I'm not a proponent of scientism. But not because of the reasons you are listing. Our empirical knowledge is not illusory knowledge. Only our understanding can be wrong. Our sense of "solidness" is true (in a manner of speaking). But if we take it to be an unconditional, brute quality of the object, that persists at the quantum level, we are mistaken.

Solidity, a quality of objects which is inarguably real from the perspective of the conscious observer, is the ultimate illusion.

Plato shared a metaphor of a ship. He intended it to describe how the mind understands the world. He likened the sails of the ship to our sense organs, and he likened the winds to sense data. In our daily lives, sense organs and sense data do most of the work from carrying from point A (ignorance) to point B (knowledge).

But, says Plato, in order to complete the journey, when we approach the rocky shoreline that lies between us and ignorance, we must take down the sails, and row, row, row ourselves into shore. We must use our minds to calculate what the senses have shown us. But, at this point, no more input from the senses is needed... just raw calculation of the intellect.

It is in this phase of "understanding" that we can discern that what we experience in the world (things like solidness) are by no means an illusion. Solidness is a real, physical property that emerges in certain molecules at certain temperatures.

The coffee cup sitting on my desk in front of me may be nothing more than an overlapping of subtle quantum fields. But the cup is still there. That's what the cup ultimately is: an overlapping of subtle fields. If the subtle fields are there, the cup is there.

So while I'm not a proponent of scientism, I AM nonetheless a proponent of realism. ie: there is some kind of reality out there, and it is not an illusion. It really exists. Science can help us to understand all empirical data available to us better than any other mode of understanding. There is no fact about the physical world that science doesn't describe better than any other methodology. Period.

I'm open to considering the possibility that the physical world is illusory (for the intellectual thrills at minimum), but I don't normally take such a view seriously when I try to pin down what I actually know. I'm fairly convinced that the physical world is real... quantum peculiarities don't mess with that assumption much at all.

 

[cladking]

OK. I wasn't specific enough. I was thinking of a threat caused by science doing something wrong or losing its way.

The problems are all caused by the ineffective and mean spirited way in which we practice and understand science. The wealthy buy whatever science is necessary to get what they want. When science and the desires of the few coincide which isn't really unusual, it is still used as a weapon.
But the real problem isn't our one party government (world) it is the simple fact that scientific knowledge has fractured into thousands of subsets; specialties. This creates enormous inefficiency as every organ of the state and business works against every other organ. You can't even call a company to complain any longer ands if you could they are deaf ears and no two departments can work together. The seriousness of this problem can not be overstated. There is no practical or applied science any longer.

These are in addition to the fact it will get worse and worse as new technology comes online.

I wrote, "If you are correct, you can demonstrate that you are." Even a link to a prior demonstration would suffice. I'm looking for one of the foundational beliefs you say has been shown to be untrue by experiment. Do you think that you did that here? I don't, which is why I am still looking.

...countless dozens of times...

There is a belief in human progress. There is a belief the intelligence fuels science. There is a belief that it's only natural that history starts 1000 years after writing was invented. There is a belief that we understand one another and that sentences have a single meaning. I could go on all day listing fundamental beliefs that are wrong and these beliefs often are involved with the definitions and axioms of science. "I think therefore I am" is the biggest load of twaddle ever.

If by believers you mean empiricists, almost none say that. I've never seen it.

No. Some empiricists are believers but I'm referring to scientismists.

 

[cladking]

So while I'm not a proponent of scientism, I AM nonetheless a proponent of realism. ie: there is some kind of reality out there, and it is not an illusion. It really exists. Science can help us to understand all empirical data available to us better than any other mode of understanding. There is no fact about the physical world that science doesn't describe better than any other methodology. Period.

From most perspectives this is true. The problem from every perspective is sometimes science is simply wrong. Even where they aren't wrong there can be better ways to view the reality.