Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[MikeF]

Arguing in good faith means trying your best to understand your opponents perspective, present it accurately, when in doubt interpret it charitably, (within reason as we are time limited) trying to respond to the whole argument (at least its key points) etc.

Do you see these discussions as necessarily adversarial? You refer to one’s “opponent”.

I agree that one should strive to understand their interlocutors perspective, which I would also characterize as fully identifying and acknowledging subjective preferences.

I would also agree that one should respond to the whole of an argument, but surely there are times in a discussion in which certain points can be found lacking and therefore set aside. Not every point in an argument is valid or relevant.

Bad faith would be misrepresenting ideas either on purpose or with complete disregard for accuracy, interpreting words in the most uncharitable manner, wilfully ignoring corrections (or my personal favourite, when you correct their misrepresentation they accuse you of "moving the goalposts"), repeatedly ignoring key arguments and finding something minor to quibble etc.

I think it goes without saying that what constitutes key arguments and minor quibbles can be directly related to one’s subjective preferences and on that basis there would be understandable and perhaps irreconcilable differences of opinion.

We are all biased and as this medium of ciommunication is perfectly designed for miscommunications and misunderstandings so these alone don't make something bad faith, although if you have to correct the same misunderstanding half a dozen times, you might start to assume they are not really trying their best to accurately present your views.

Certainly.

I post for a variety or reasons, but will sometimes make an argument to make me think about the argument as it is something I'd like to think about and discussion focuses the mind.

In real life, I rarely discuss the kind of things I discuss here.

Not as much as I'd like, as those kinds of topics aren't that common here, sometimes I will make an argument because I want to read something and it gives me the motivation as I acquire books and articles at about 100 times the rate I read books and articles.

There are lots of reasons for posting, but we are mostly here for entertainment (intrinsically motivated learning is also a form of entertainment imo)

Not much different for me. The forum definitely facilitates opportunities to discuss topics that are not often found IRL.

While nothing is wrong, in general with what you say, we have one major benefit when we are personally accused of having a certain motivation, in that we can easily see which ones are very far from the truth (even if we often can't see our specific biases, we know which ones are so wide of the mark as to be easy to rule out).

Me mentioning your potential biases was largely the result of having being unsuccessful in getting you to stop repeating the same error by directly stating the reasons it was incorrect. Was just a different tack.

How do you respond when someone said something about you that you know to be incorrect? What do you do if they keep repeating it?

Try a different tack.

Anyway, I'm happy to say that, on RF I have been accused of:

Pro-science bias
Anti-science bias
Pro-philosophy bias
Pro-woo bias
Bias against religion because I'm an atheist
Bias against atheism
Bias because I'm religious
Pro-Christian bias
Pro-Muslim bias
Anti-Muslim bias
Bias because I am a Muslim
Bias because I am a Christian
Bias because I am a Protestant
Bias because I am a Catholic
Anti-Catholic bias
Anti-pagan bias
Bias because I am a conservative
Bias because I am a liberal
Anti-communist bias
Anti-capitalist bias
etc. etc.



(Many of these for presenting absolutely standard positions and supported with peer-reviewed scholarship. It's almost as if, in general, people have a tendency to assume bias on the part of people who disagree with them...)
So tend to find it less than thrilling to have to correct claims of bias from a perspective that I don't actually hold.

OH my, that is quite a list.

Do you feel anything on that list hits the mark? Did anyone guess correctly?

Perhaps you’re just an unprincipled contrarian.

So, for example, if you argue I want to "limit science" and shield philosophy from rational scepticism, I know this to be false and that any imagined motivation behind my desire to do these must also be false.

Got it. I guess the only point of confusion is whether rational skepticism can be effectively applied outside of a scientific framework. Or put another way, does philosophy incorporate the necessary framework to effect rational skepticism?

Certainly there is a difference between claiming rigor and actually exercising it.

What I am arguing is that we need more rational scepticism regarding the unreliable sciences, how we deal with their outputs, and how we should operate in areas where we don't have reliable scientific information (an will not have it for the forseable future).

Assigning appropriate confidence to work product is indeed important. How we are to proceed in the social sphere is also very important. That being said, much of what occurs in the social sphere really boils down to personal subjective preferences which have to be addressed politically. A lot of social science involves analysis of these subjective political choices and acts as a mechanism to provide feedback. Much of what social actions, programs, and institutions amount to is an ongoing experiment conducted with a trial and error methodology. Success or failure is judged by how well subjective goals have been met, goals that can change over time.

Usually folk who adopt a fake religious/irreligious persona to troll do so very clumsily and for a handful of posts before getting bored. It's not like it brings any real long-term benefit for people interested in meaningful discussions with community members.

I was just having some fun with it. I agree here.

Re: "Is it wrong to point out similarities a contextual set of words and actions have with those expressed by others?" I'd say it's something we should be careful about as we assume unrelated beliefs "cluster" (for example pro-gun and anti-abortion).

While these may reflect actual trends, it causes half of the misunderstandings on RF.

Agreed.

A key example would be scientism, which, as I noted before, is a magical word that makes many people instantly jump to conclusions completely unable to understand pretty basic concepts that they would likely agree with in any other circumstance. The reason being that fundies misuse the term scientism, therefore any person who uses it must share some of the same agendas as then fundies (despite it being a standard academic term in use for 50+ years prior to being appropriated for religious apologetics).

Here I would simply say there should be no sacred cows in academia, no matter how long they have existed.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Interesting. You have archeologists reading historians summation and interpretation of source documents relevant to the period and site in question, where I imagine the archeologists digging into the source documentation themselves.

I loved your last post. And I need to address what I can of what you said before. But I did want to clarify this bit about archeology and historians. There is considerable overlap between the two fields. A TON of overlap. But I focused solely on one or two distinctions to make various points about demarcation. Nothing more.

I'd love to hear a historian or archeologist chime in though. But keep in mind, I'm using broad strokes. I'm not trying to give sweeping statements on the difference between history and archeology. I'm marching them out as examples to say something about demarcation.

I'm probably in error concerning some of my views about what an archeologist is. After all, in my mind, an archeologist wears a brown fedora, fights Nazis with a whip, and travels into ancient tombs full of booby traps to recover lost idols.

*I'll get to the rest of your post later. Just need time*

I seem to have touched a nerve and offended you. Given that, I shall not try to defend my analysis and leave things here.

You said something similar to me waaay back when we first met. I explained to you that I was not offended in the slightest by your disagreeing with me.

You gotta understand that some of us are incredibly passionate about certain intellectual things, and we will argue forcefully for things sometimes. It's passion. Not contempt or anger for contrary views.

 

[MikeF]

I loved your last post.

Excellent. Thanks!

And I need to address what I can of what you said before. But I did want to clarify this bit about archeology and historians. There is considerable overlap between the two fields. A TON of overlap. But I focused solely on one or two distinctions to make various points about demarcation. Nothing more.

I'd love to hear a historian or archeologist chime in though. But keep in mind, I'm using broad strokes. I'm not trying to give sweeping statements on the difference between history and archeology. I'm marching them as examples to say something about demarcation.

I'm probably in error concerning some of my views about what an archeologist. After all, in my mind, an archeologist wears a brown fedora, fights Nazis with a whip, and travels into ancient tombs full of booby traps to recover lost idols.

*I'll get to the rest of your post later. Just need time*

The distinction you intend to make, it seems, is that Archeology is *more* sciency if not purely so, and that History is not sciency, or to a low degree. Or perhaps it is that History is contaminated by opinion and therefore disqualified from being considered in any way sciency? Is that right? And this is true despite "a TON of overlap?

I'll wait for the full counter-argument in your next post. This is simply my take on what you say above.

You said something similar to me waaay back when we first met. I explained to you that I was not offended in the slightest by your disagreeing with me.

You gotta understand that some of us a incredibly passionate about certain intellectual things, and we will argue forcefully for things sometimes. It's passion. Not contempt or anger for contrary views.

Got it. It can be hard for me to interpret at times given that we are communicating through the medium of an thread post. No visual or auditory cues to aid the interpretation. I tend to err on the side of caution on RF. If someone takes offense or gets angry it is probably not going to be very productive to continue the conversation. If I feel things are going that way I will offer to disengage and then play it by ear from there.

I misinterpreted with @Augustus, and he took my que to reassure me and we've pressed on.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The distinction you intend to make, it seems, is that Archeology is *more* sciency if not purely so, and that History is not sciency, or to a low degree. Or perhaps it is that History is contaminated by opinion and therefore disqualified from being considered in any way sciency? Is that right? And this is true despite "a TON of overlap?

I'll wait for the full counter-argument in your next post. This is simply my take on what you say above.

No. I don't really want to focus on the differences between archeology and history. It is sufficient to say that there ARE differences in the way the two investigate things. I mean, they are two separate academic disciplines. All universities treat them this way.

I was making a more general point about demarcation. Once that general point is made, I feel no need to flesh out entirely the difference between archeology and history. Look at a standard college programme. I bet you there are many classes that are required for both archaeology AND history majors. That demonstrates my point that there is much overlap between the two fields of study.

I mean, someone could write a 200 page essay (or even an entire book) that dealt with the difference and/or overlap between the two fields. I don't want to write that essay. But what I would do is quote copiously from that essay to make the point that the demarcation between archeology and history is not clear. But one thing is clear. While neither is perfect, both fields can furnish us with reliable information about the past.

It is worthwhile to get into the minutia of why or how this is the case. But I don't want to do that here. What I'd rather do is show how different methodologies (both empirical and non-empirical) can give us reliable information about the world. And, from there, I would like to evaluate the view called scientism.

*Again. I gotta reread your previous post and give them the responses they deserve. But you keep inviting me up onto the soapbox, it seems. You said some really important things in your last three posts. Things that deserve discussion, consideration, and scrutiny. I promise you, I'll get to those when I have time and am in the right frame of mind to do so.*

 

[Augustus]

The scientific framework is the demarcation tool that enables us to demarcate between facts, subjective preferences, and imaginative woo in a manner that strives to do so as objectively as possible and in a manner that seeks to actively mitigate human fallibility. This tool cannot work if it is not used. If you agree, then there is no limit to scope to which this tool is used, for it is required to figure out exactly what it is we are talking about, and if there is no limit in scope then your definition of scientism falls apart.

How to improve this necessary tool and how to improve people’s understanding of how this tool works would be a different topic and a different thread in my view.

Don’t you define science as basically “rational scepticism” or something similar though?

I don’t have a nice neat definition of science, but generally believe it should involve a formal process of testing (even if this is not always true in certain more theoretical domains).

Our disagreement about the definition of science is not one that can be solved “scientifically” though, even though we are both trying to apply rational scepticism to our thought process. There is no experiment to craft a definition, and I can’t see demarcation as a science.

Therefore the scope of the sciences is limited to some extent.

Also, You already acknowledge we can’t say virtue ethics are better than utilitarianism without using numerous axiomatic assumptions or subjective metrics of preference to judge them with.

This is a limit to scope as we have to start including highly consequential and subjective assumptions or value judgements into the process (and these are likely to be derived from our own ethical values, the things we are trying to test “objectively”).

We often can’t get from “is” to “ought” without similarly assuming things that are not objectively true and inserting them into the process.

This is a limit to scope as the assumptions are from outside the scientific process.

Not because we don’t want science to answer them, but because they cannot (unless we redefine science).

All of the above is largely irrelevant though as the definition only requires one of the 2 to be present: scope or accuracy. And as I have explained, expanding the scope away from natural sciences into the social and other less reliable sciences reduces accuracy exponentially.

Even if, for the sake of discussion, we said there is no limit to the scope in theory, there would still be a limit to the scope in terms of what can be considered reasonably accurate sciences at present.

If it makes it easier to move past this issue, take the definition as: Overestimating the degree to which the sciences can produce accurate findings in all fields of enquiry.

You are focused on something not particularly important and missing the thing that matters: there are many fields that are not accurate at present yet they are generally seen as being reasonably reliable producers of knowledge.

 

[MikeF]

Don’t you define science as basically “rational scepticism” or something similar though?

I don’t have a nice neat definition of science,

Let me say up front that I know it can be frustrating if I don’t specifically address the points laid out in your post. However, given these quoted comments above and my perception that many of the points simply reemphasize points already made, I’d like to try something new. If you will be patient and indulge me, I would find it helpful if we set aside labels for the moment and see if we can clearly describe what it is we may be trying to talk about. Perhaps if there is some consensus as to the ‘what’, we can find a mutually satisfactory label for it and then begin to meaningfully explore the ‘what’, and conversely, what the ‘what’ is not.

Here is my opening suggestion:

I envision an activity with the remit to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible.​

If you do not find this exercise helpful, no problem. If you are up for offering a critique, I look forward to it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don’t you define science as basically “rational scepticism” or something similar though?

Science nor "Methodological Naturalism is not defined basically as "rational skepticiam."Yes Popper believed that "rational skepticism" should be applied to scientific methodology,

I don’t have a nice neat definition of science, but generally believe it should involve a formal process of testing (even if this is not always true in certain more theoretical domains).

The process of testing is a very long term continuing process without end or verifiable conclusions even in theoretical domains.ALL proposed theories and hypotheses are subject to change, replacement and possibly found false when new knowledge becomes available.

Our disagreement about the definition of science is not one that can be solved “scientifically” though, even though we are both trying to apply rational scepticism to our thought process. There is no experiment to craft a definition, and I can’t see demarcation as a science.

One of the main disagreement is demarcation in science.

Therefore the scope of the sciences is limited to some extent.

True as believed by pretty much most if not all scientists. It is likely rooted in the definitions of what is objective and subjective. I believe that most scientists in the applied social sciences realize by definition that their theories and hypotheses are to a certain extent subjective and subject to change as more information becomes available. Science is not rigid and static. It is always subject to change and revision.

Part of the disagreement involves the influence of the bad work of some scientists impact the long range validity of science, I believe in the over all corrective ability of science to resolve problems over time.

 

[Augustus]

Here is my opening suggestion:

I envision an activity with the remit to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible.

These can be goals of science, but they can't really be used to demarcate science.

For example, What is knowledge? What is science? etc. would be philosophical questions.

As a general definition I'd use something like: A structured process of investigation conducted to better understand (aspects of) the natural world based on systematic testing of ideas in order to produce results that are intersubjectively verifiable by others repeating the same methodology.

Even then this may not cover all things deemed science, like theoretical physics, but would more or less cover most things.

 

[MikeF]

These can be goals of science, but they can't really be used to demarcate science.

For example, What is knowledge? What is science? etc. would be philosophical questions.

As a general definition I'd use something like: A structured process of investigation conducted to better understand (aspects of) the natural world based on systematic testing of ideas in order to produce results that are intersubjectively verifiable by others repeating the same methodology.

Even then this may not cover all things deemed science, like theoretical physics, but would more or less cover most things.

You couldn't do it could you.

 

[Augustus]

You couldn't do it could you.

I’ve no idea what you mean.

I couldn’t define science precisely, something I explicitly said I couldn’t do in a previous post and that many far smarter people than me have also struggled with for the past century?

Anyway what’s the purpose of this line of discussion?

 

[MikeF]

I’ve no idea what you mean.

I couldn’t define science precisely, something I explicitly said I couldn’t do in a previous post and that many far smarter people than me have also struggled with for the past century?

Anyway what’s the purpose of this line of discussion?

I had asked, "I would find it helpful if we set aside labels for the moment and see if we can clearly describe what it is we may be trying to talk about." You came back with a whole bunch of labels.

The purpose of the exercise would be to bypass stereotypes and preconceived notions attached to various labels in an effort to create a more detached and objective perspective on what we are discussing. And as I said before, while I find it helpful in this regard, you may not, or may not have the patience for it, which is fine.

I envision an activity with the remit to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible.

I felt this description encapsulates mankind's longstanding quest for understanding. Setting aside labeling, this would represent the core of what is trying to be achieved. Would you agree?

 

[Augustus]

had asked, "I would find it helpful if we set aside labels for the moment and see if we can clearly describe what it is we may be trying to talk about." You came back with a whole bunch of labels.

The purpose of the exercise would be to bypass stereotypes and preconceived notions attached to various labels in an effort to create a more detached and objective perspective on what we are discussing. And as I said before, while I find it helpful in this regard, you may not, or may not have the patience for it, which is fine.

Sorry, based on the quoted text you were replying to, I thought you were asking for a definition of science.

I felt this description encapsulates mankind's longstanding quest for understanding. Setting aside labeling, this would represent the core of what is trying to be achieved. Would you agree?

It would not be inaccurate, although I'm not sure where it leads to but am willing to give it a try. I mean humans are interested in these things, but not necessarily from an objective perspective. In the social sphere, these are significantly the domain of myth (to minimise the label, I mean it in the sense I defined here earlier. Of course the definition is full of labels itself as words are labels and we mediate reality via language).

A myth is not a falsehood. Rather, a myth is a sophisticated social representation; a complex relationship between history, reality, culture, imagination and identity...

We are predisposed to see order, pattern and meaning in the world, and we find randomness, chaos and meaningless unsatisfying. Human nature abhors a lack of predictability and the absence of meaning. As a consequence, we tend to ‘see’ order where there is none, and we spot meaningless patterns when only the vagaries of chance are operating...

once a person has (mis)identified a random pattern as a ‘real’ phenomenon, it will not exist as a puzzling, isolated fact about the world. Rather, it is quickly explained and readily integrated into the person’s pre-existing theories and beliefs. R Howells - The myth of the Titanic


Avoiding labels, do you have any issue with the following quest?

We should try our best to avoid error based on epistemic overconfidence and using experiments, methodologies, models and approximations that are convenient, but do not sufficiently represent what happens in reality.

 

[MikeF]

It would not be inaccurate [the defined activity], although I'm not sure where it leads to but am willing to give it a try.

Ok, good. So now we have an activity that we both recognize. For ease of conversation, I propose we simply label this defined activity as ‘The Activity’.

Can we agree that when we refer to The Activity, it is our mutual understanding that we are speaking specifically to The Activity as undertaken by human beings and as such, the The Activity is necessarily constrained by the capacity for human beings to effectively engage in The Activity?

Can we stipulate that The Activity has likely been engaged in, however crudely, for as long as it can be said there have been human beings? Can we agree, that, although there is no historical record for most of human history documenting The Activity, that there is sufficient documentation over the last 25-30 centuries to provide both a historical perspective of the activity and a means by which to evaluate any progress made in the activity? Bluntly, can it be said that The Activity is accomplishing anything?

If you do not agree that The Activity is making progress in its remit to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible, then we can stop here and be done with this little exercise. If, on the other hand, you agree that progress is being made, then we can use the historical record to explore *how* progress is being made.

I mean humans are interested in these things, but not necessarily from an objective perspective.

Which would be a separate human activity right, outside the definition of The Activity? The Activity could certainly explore the *why* of human beings non-objective activities of course, explore the why’s of subjective behavior.

Avoiding labels, do you have any issue with the following quest?

We should try our best to avoid error based on epistemic overconfidence and using experiments, methodologies, models and approximations that are convenient, but do not sufficiently represent what happens in reality.

We should avoid errors doing what, exactly? What is the quest as it is not specified?

If the “quest” refers to The Activity and we are in agreement as to what The Activity is, then what you propose above would be redundant, as “without error” would be implicit to the goal of understanding what is, why it is, and what is possible.

If, “without error”, is an implicit requirement or objective in The Activity, we should certainly ask whether it can be achieved and how. This refers back to the point above regarding whether it is agreed that progress is being made with respect to The Activity.

 

[vulcanlogician]

It would not be inaccurate, although I'm not sure where it leads to but am willing to give it a try. I mean humans are interested in these things, but not necessarily from an objective perspective. In the social sphere, these are significantly the domain of myth (to minimise the label, I mean it in the sense I defined here earlier. Of course the definition is full of labels itself as words are labels and we mediate reality via language).

I have been following the convo between you and @MikeF for the last few pages. And I think you both have made valid points. But I think thinks come off the rails when you explicitly try to try to deny human objectivity. Sure, "pure human objectivity" is something that may not exist. But we can all admit that some enterprises (say, mathematics) are more objective than others (like literature). And the academic study of literature, while it can deal heavily with the subjective, is more objective than a discussion about "What's your favorite sports team?"

Which would be a separate human activity right, outside the definition of The Activity? The Activity could certainly explore the *why* of human beings non-objective activities of course, explore the why’s of subjective behavior.

Jesus, homie. I'm a philosophy fan, but even I think you may be getting a bit too abstract here. The way you guys were talking before, I thought you were saying more substantial things about demarcation. I think, if you continued the conversation as before, talking specifically about science and its merits... or how we get knowledge it would have less chance of becoming derailed.

I've pretty much said what I have to say on the issues of demarcation and rationalism, so I'm just reading what you guys are arguing now. But I'd kinda like to not see the conversation become derailed because you two start talking past each other.

 

[MikeF]

Jesus, homie. I'm a philosophy fan, but even I think you may be getting a bit too abstract here. The way you guys were talking before, I thought you were saying more substantial things about demarcation. I think, if you continued the conversation as before, talking specifically about science and its merits... or how we get knowledge it would have less chance of becoming derailed.

I've pretty much said what I have to say on the issues of demarcation and rationalism, so I'm just reading what you guys are arguing now. But I'd kinda like to not see the conversation become derailed because you two star talking past each other.

Not diggin' it, eh?

Would you say your dissatisfaction lies in my abandoning traditional philosophical terms, or that in your view ( and others perhaps ) it appears I have had a stroke and am simply speaking gibberish?

As to speaking past each other, I have attempted to be careful in this regard, seeking buy-in at each stage of the argument to expressly avoid that issue. Seems I have lost you along the way.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Not diggin' it, eh?

Would you say your dissatisfaction lies in my abandoning traditional philosophical terms, or that in your view ( and others perhaps ) it appears I have had a stroke and am simply speaking gibberish?

As to speaking past each other, I have attempted to be careful in this regard, seeking buy-in at each stage of the argument to expressly avoid that issue. Seems I have lost you along the way.

You guys are both awesome as far as I'm concerned. So I AM diggin' it. And neither do I presume to tell either of you how to navigate this labyrinth of a topic. But I think, instead of trying to find common rational ground you are both retreating to some position that the other can't touch. You guys weren't doin' that before. And I kinda liked it when you weren't.

 

[Augustus]

I have been following the convo between you and @MikeF for the last few pages. And I think you both have made valid points. But I think thinks come off the rails when you explicitly try to try to deny human objectivity. Sure, "pure human objectivity" is something that may not exist. But we can all admit that some enterprises (say, mathematics) are more objective than others (like literature). And the academic study of literature, while it can deal heavily with the subjective, is more objective than a discussion about "What's your favorite sports team?"

I agree that humans are not a blank slate, and therefore that we may have, for example, certain aesthetic tendencies that may be somewhere between purely subjective and objective. Same as their is no universal ethical code, but there may be tendencies and trends that relate to our biological makeup.

My point about objectivity was more related to the question of to what extent have we traditionally found a normative goal that we should strive for in, for example, many of the areas that are now covered by the social sciences.

Most people have never been interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake, it has always served a greater purpose. Mostly, solving practical problems or serving ethical/religious/spiritual/magical ends.

Even in the early modern world, Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels parodied the new scientists for engaging in (what was then seen to be ) pointless, ivory tower trivialities like "the weighing of air". As people didn't see any direct practical benefit is was seen as a waste of time and money (a bit like how many people today will say 'imagine if we spent all that time and money on science instead of religion').

I'm not sure humans have traditionally valued objective knowledge for knowledge's sake and we may be back projecting our values onto pre-modern societies by finding activities that "sort of look like science" and seeing them as having the same social function and motivations as modern science.

 

[Augustus]

Can we stipulate that The Activity has likely been engaged in, however crudely, for as long as it can be said there have been human beings? Can we agree, that, although there is no historical record for most of human history documenting The Activity, that there is sufficient documentation over the last 25-30 centuries to provide both a historical perspective of the activity and a means by which to evaluate any progress made in the activity? Bluntly, can it be said that The Activity is accomplishing anything?

If you do not agree that The Activity is making progress in its remit to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible, then we can stop here and be done with this little exercise. If, on the other hand, you agree that progress is being made, then we can use the historical record to explore *how* progress is being made.

People have always needed to understand some things objectively like where is the nearest source of water, and is that sabre-toothed stripy animal dangerous.

I agree our ability to identify things with a higher degree of objectivity has increased overall since then.

I'm not sure that answering the questions of "where is the nearest source of water, and is that sabre-toothed stripy animal dangerous?" is necessarily The Activity in the same sense that modern science is.

Things we learned are often the byproduct of another kind of quest. For example, astronomy was tied to astrology from ancient time and even for people like Galileo. Ditto alchemy and chemistry.

One of the characteristics of the modern world is its “disenchantment”. Prior to that the natural world had often been understood in a spiritual and allegorical sense.

For example:

Book of Nature - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not sure The Activity can quite so easily be mapped onto the enchanted world of various animisms, paganisms and other pre-modern religious traditions.

Which would be a separate human activity right, outside the definition of The Activity? The Activity could certainly explore the *why* of human beings non-objective activities of course, explore the why’s of subjective behavior.

My point was that they weren't really separate activities, but interconnected.

Arguably, their separation was what enabled the modern world to emerge.

If the “quest” refers to The Activity and we are in agreement as to what The Activity is, then what you propose above would be redundant, as “without error” would be implicit to the goal of understanding what is, why it is, and what is possible.

And if people who believed they were pursuing The Activity or basing their beliefs on the outputs of The Activity were indeed making errors based on epistemic overconfidence and experiments, methodologies, models and approximations that are convenient, but do not sufficiently represent what happens in reality?

This would indeed be worth highlighting and correcting, yes?

 

[MikeF]

People have always needed to understand some things objectively like where is the nearest source of water, and is that sabre-toothed stripy animal dangerous.

I agree our ability to identify things with a higher degree of objectivity has increased overall since then.

Excellent. We seem to agree that the objectivity of The Activity has increased over time. We can then, of course, ask why objectivity has increased for The Activity, which would lead to an understanding of how it has been increased.

I'm not sure that answering the questions of "where is the nearest source of water, and is that sabre-toothed stripy animal dangerous?" is necessarily The Activity in the same sense that modern science is.

Things we learned are often the byproduct of another kind of quest. For example, astronomy was tied to astrology from ancient time and even for people like Galileo. Ditto alchemy and chemistry.

One of the characteristics of the modern world is its “disenchantment”. Prior to that the natural world had often been understood in a spiritual and allegorical sense.

For example:

The Book of Nature

I’m not sure The Activity can quite so easily be mapped onto the enchanted world of various animisms, paganisms and other pre-modern religious traditions.

My point was that they weren't really separate activities, but interconnected.

Of course they aren’t separate activities. That is exactly the point. All of that is clearly attempts by human beings to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible. As flawed as those attempts were, or as flawed as the conclusions were as can be seen from 21st century hindsight, they were attempts at true understanding pursued seriously and with sincerity.

Every child that has ever been born who continually asks their parents a seemingly endless litany of questions has the expectation of an objectively true answer. To say that our earliest ancestors were somehow fundamentally different in this regard seems implausible to me. Animism is simply a rational attempt at explanation generated in an environment of extreme ignorance. These early conjectures about what animates the world, born out of extreme ignorance, understandably persisted for many generations in the absence of new conflicting or contradicting information. Persisting, these explanations get passed down to each subsequent generation, though now in a dogmatic way, each new generation presented with these explanations as axiomatic truths, truths that become fully intertwined in cultural identity, the indoctrination of which creates deep seated emotional dependency on the belief and its inerrancy. Given human nature, once erroneous and unfalsifiable belief becomes culturally established in this way, it is extremely difficult to substantially alter or abandon such beliefs. Instead what we see is an evolution of the beliefs in an attempt to adapt to both new information and understanding of the world as well as societal changes, yet still maintaining many of the unfalsifiable elements.

This potent phenomenon of confirmation bias, strongest for emotionally charged issues and deeply entrenched beliefs (as exemplified by culturally indoctrinated beliefs), presents a formidable obstacle for The Activity to overcome in achieving its remit.

Any “enchantment” of the world occurred through an effort to understand why things happened and to use that understanding as a means of controlling or altering events, including appeals to perceived causal entities. Human and animal sacrifices, for example, were not conducted for the mere fun of it, but rather, to affect some objective outcome.

Human beings are part of what *is*, including their behaviors, their fallibilities, their expansive variety of wants and desires, which means answering the *why* to all of that falls within the remit of The Activity.

Arguably, their separation was what enabled the modern world to emerge.

And was this separation that enabled the modern world to emerge a necessity of The Activity or a necessity of those things being separated from The Activity in order to preserve and isolate them from The Activity. I think it is quite clear that it is the latter case.

And if people who believed they were pursuing The Activity or basing their beliefs on the outputs of The Activity were indeed making errors based on epistemic overconfidence and experiments, methodologies, models and approximations that are convenient, but do not sufficiently represent what happens in reality?

This would indeed be worth highlighting and correcting, yes?

Again, as I said earlier, this is an implicit requirement or objective in The Activity. To highlight *any* errors that arise in pursuing The Activity is to actively participate in The Activity itself, yes?


I won’t drag this out any longer. I think I’ve made a good case that The Activity can be seen as a recognizable human activity, an activity that has its origins at our earliest beginnings and is an activity that has been engaged in continuously to this day, evolving and improving throughout. All efforts to understand what is, why it is, and what is possible are efforts of The Activity. There are not multiple Activities with the same remit, nor is there a ‘The Activity Lite’ version of The Activity. All of it, the good and the bad, the success and failures, reflect and represent The Activity.

So here at the end and in light of the above, in your view, which labeled activity, discipline, or pursuit, as practiced today in the 21st century and that incorporates lessons learned to date, can best be “mapped onto” The Activity, or vice versa? What name shall we settle on as being the one that most clearly points to our placeholder name, ‘The Activity’?

 

[Augustus]

So here at the end and in light of the above, in your view, which labeled activity, discipline, or pursuit, as practiced today in the 21st century and that incorporates lessons learned to date, can best be “mapped onto” The Activity, or vice versa? What name shall we settle on as being the one that most clearly points to our placeholder name, ‘The Activity’?

I'm happy to use the terminology currently in place when describing science and its various branches.

We can then, of course, ask why objectivity has increased for The Activity, which would lead to an understanding of how it has been increased.

(As an oversimplification) people started applying an increasingly structured experimental method to natural philosophy.

Animism is simply a rational attempt at explanation generated in an environment of extreme ignorance. These early conjectures about what animates the world, born out of extreme ignorance, understandably persisted for many generations in the absence of new conflicting or contradicting information. Persisting, these explanations get passed down to each subsequent generation, though now in a dogmatic way, each new generation presented with these explanations as axiomatic truths, truths that become fully intertwined in cultural identity, the indoctrination of which creates deep seated emotional dependency on the belief and its inerrancy. Given human nature, once erroneous and unfalsifiable belief becomes culturally established in this way, it is extremely difficult to substantially alter or abandon such beliefs. Instead what we see is an evolution of the beliefs in an attempt to adapt to both new information and understanding of the world as well as societal changes, yet still maintaining many of the unfalsifiable elements.

Considering religion as primitive science is pretty misleading imo, but going into this would digress to much for minimal benefit.

One thing you probably agree with is that it also overlaps with a search for meaning, community and cohesion.

Human and animal sacrifices, for example, were not conducted for the mere fun of it, but rather, to affect some objective outcome.

Or they were emergent byproducts of effective human group formation (or had multiple purposes).

But again going into this would digress too much.

Human beings are part of what *is*, including their behaviors, their fallibilities, their expansive variety of wants and desires, which means answering the *why* to all of that falls within the remit of The Activity.

What is includes what exists naturally and independent of human conceptualisation and classification, and that which only exists by virtue of human conceptualisation and classification.

gain, as I said earlier, this is an implicit requirement or objective in The Activity. To highlight *any* errors that arise in pursuing The Activity is to actively participate in The Activity itself, yes?

Yes. As I’ve always said, criticising scientism is not an attack on science, but a call for better science and a more rational sceptical approach to scientific outputs.

There are not multiple Activities with the same remit, nor is there a ‘The Activity Lite’ version of The Activity. All of it, the good and the bad, the success and failures, reflect and represent The Activity.

I still think your focus is more on the normative, where I am trying to discuss the actuality.

It’s not that the purpose is different, but that the nature of the area being studied means they require different methodologies and added layers of subjectivity or axiomatic assumption that don’t exist in the natural sciences.

They also overlap significantly with the human search for meaning, community and cohesion as it is hard for us to see things from outside our worldview. The political beliefs of the researcher should have minimal impact in physics, but are quite likely to influence much of the research in political science, sociology and social psychology (see for example: Q&A on WEIRD )

You don’t think there is a fundamental difference between studying things that exist independently of human awareness of them, and things that only exist because humans have (linguistically) invented them?

If this difference is indeed worth being aware of, labelling it for ease of reference seems to make sense to me.

When these different areas of "The Activity" have wildly different success rates, we should particularly want people to be aware of this so they can be more careful and sceptical of the findings in the less reliable areas that contain greater subjectivities.