Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Science deals with the objective variable evidence and observations as it is, and not your silly obnoxious subjective questions that cannot be answered. Simply the subjective is of the mind only.

...

No, natural science does and some aspect of social science. BTW what is your evidence for the bold one? How do you objectively observe that?
You are doing philosophy again.

 

[shunyadragon]

I sort of believe this, but for me to be a full card carrying member of Scientism, the philosophy of science would need to be updated. This philosophy is why there is the condition; questions worth answering. There are many questions that cannot be answered with the current philosophy. Worth answering is a deflection to save face and maintain bias.

You have failed to justify that "Scientism" exists among scientists as defined since Scientists do not not believe is knowledge "rendered true." Apparently you have a personal definition that condemns all science to the pejorative acrid accustions of "Scientism."

The current philosophy is about looking at the outside world, in the third person, through the five senses. The scientist and the experiment need to be separated, so we can remain objective. Things of consciousness, like dreams, cannot be investigated that way. Dreams have to be witnessed from within often as you sleep. You need to become both the scientist; observer, and the experiment; source of the unconscious phenomena and observe when it phenomena is ready; natural, not when you are ready.

Science does not use the third person to do science. Science is based on objective verifiable evidence and direct observation of the universe,

As another example, say we wished to characterize human nature, or that which is common to all humans, independent of culture and education. That would be worthwhile. This would require everyone, from all means, consensus of humans, verify what is being claimed as our common human nature, applies to them through their own self awareness; observer and observed in themselves. I believe it is possible, but not with the current rules, where a select group decide that for all; self claimed experts and current philosophy.

As a different example, it can be proven, by science (if considered worth answering), that the classic nuclear family is the most efficient social construct. The intimacy and closeness, due to blood connections, provide for more cooperation and longer lasting teams. In this case, even though this question can be proven by science, science is afraid to go there, due to politics. This means politics often leads scientism with the slogan and addendum; of questions worth answering, screened by those who provide the money and funding. Science is not cheap and needs benefactors who have resources to give. via quid pro quo input, as to what will and will not be explored. Alternatives to manmade climate change is another example of that taboo. This political stuff occurs inside the brain and can be hidden from science by science.

On the other hand, using your own brain and conscious mind, to explore human nature and consciousness, does not need resources since we are born with both the capability and the natural tools. Therefore it it less subject to bribery and extortion, allowing full spectrum science to be done by unlimited explorers, at their convenience.

It remains the limits of science is the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence,

For example, one good question is, what is going on inside people who believe in God, that is not seen by science, where the observer has to remain separated from the observed? Science needs to be able to access this extra data and not dismiss it to avoid its own short fall. Scientism is half way there, but it can be made whole, so we can answer the mysteries of consciousness, which sees, hears, tastes, smells and touches reality, before it is processed by subroutines of consciousness and unconsciousness; learned and natural bias.

Science cannot address the existence or non-existence of God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have failed to justify that "Scientism" exists among scientists as defined since Scientists do not not believe is knowledge "rendered true." Apparently you have a personal definition that condemns all science to the pejorative acrid accustions of "Scientism."

Science does not use the third person to do science. Science is based on objective verifiable evidence and direct observation of the universe,

It remains the limits of science is the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence,

Science cannot address the existence or non-existence of God.

What does rendered true mean to you?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, natural science does and some aspect of social science. BTW what is your evidence for the bold one? How do you objectively observe that?
You are doing philosophy again.

Answered the the question specifically and clearly in the past. You are being obnoxious, repetitive and circular in your vague nebulous philosophy.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does rendered true mean to you?

Belief that the conclusions of science are final and true. I believe that in plain understanding of English the meaning of "rendered true" is very clear,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Belief that the conclusions of science are final and true.

Yeah, that is not how I understand it, when I check the definitions of the words. But I bet you have objective observation and evidence of the objective physical meaning of the words. And the meaning is not subjective.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

for the bold as far as I can tell it is not emperical as I can find an explanation of the word empirical. If you have another version please explain.

I expand the meaning of empirical to include the evidence of all of the senses, not just those that report on the world at or beyond the surface of our skin, what are sometimes mistakenly called the five senses (the one called touch includes temperature sensation, for example, which is a different sense than experiencing pressure or an itch and mediated by different receptors and pathways). Smell, sight, and hearing tell us about what's going on in the next room. Taste and touch inform us of surface phenomena.

Working inward toward the mind and the self, or subject of consciousness seated within the conscious content, next comes the outer shell of the body that gives it form and allows for ambulation and other movement such as grasping - the so-called musculoskeletal system. Our sensory system reports the relative position and motion of the limbs, head, and torso (proprioception) and delivers empirical sensory data to the brain and then consciousness.

Moving further inward we reach the visceral body - the soft organs inside the musculoskeletal shell - and we have sensory apparatus there as well that tell us about heartburn (stomach acid reflexed into in the esophagus), headache, and when our bladder is full or irritated.

If it helps, think of cleaning a fish. It's the outer (musculoskeletal) body we eat (less the bones), and the viscera that we remove.

And there is more. We have chemoreceptors that tell us when our bodies are dehydrated (thirst) or blood gas concentrations are abnormal (shortness-of-breath).

And then there is the brain, which is also the source of conscious experience such as memories and emotions. The brain is the source of dreams, which are also experienced (empiricism). All of this together comprises the human experience, and experience is what defines empiricism.

So, our conscious experience comes from a nested array of sensations, and empiricism is what we call the process of learning how they feel, which we like and which we prefer to avoid, and how to do that. It includes subjective experience, from which we can also derive general rules. I know that if I taste a strawberry that I will enjoy that experience, and I know it from prior experience. It's a reproducible phenomenon.

So, empiricism is more than just the evaluation of the evidence of the external senses, although it is often framed that way. We do the same with our subjective reality and in so doing attempt to control the panorama of conscious experience dancing through consciousness to maximize the experience, and we do that by generalizing about prior experience (induction) and applying our rules in specific circumstances to maximize the outcome (deduction).

I think that what you're doing is identifying abstractions like belief by faith and saying that they can't be experienced empirically because ewe can't see or touch it. But I have experienced faith both first-hand and through it effects on the words and deeds of others, and that is empirical knowledge.

With respect, I'd like to offer some observations about our discussions. We've had discussions in the past that ended with hard feelings. I think that I was to blame there. I let what I called your epistemic nihilism get the best of me. You're a nice guy and a well-meaning guy, but you exasperated me with your unending string of "well how do you know"s. One simply cannot function in life thinking like that. It's disabling and distracting. You asked shunya how he knows there's a physical reality. Your words:

"What is relevant is if you claim that the universe is physical and you can show so using science? So do you claim that the universe is physical? If yes, then how do you know that using science?"

It's worthwhile considering such matters at some point, but not over and over. Yes, we only have an intuition that there is something outside the theater of consciousness, and it's instructive and even exciting to contemplate the implications of that, but not with every situation or conversation one is in. For me, it was exasperating, since it prevents forward progress as we dither over these matters. I find myself trying to get to a point and being unable as you ask these questions.

So, I have avoided discussion with you (and you with me) for a few years now, and I am loath to return to that. What I'm saying is that I don't intend to address these questions. If we can proceed forward, then fine, let's exchange ideas. But if you're going to go into a terminal tailspin of "how do you know"s, I'll lose interest quickly and disengage. It's unproductive. No, it's counterproductive. It impedes progress.

What do you say?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I expand the meaning of empirical to include the evidence of all of the senses, not just those that report on the world at or beyond the surface of our skin, what are sometimes mistakenly called the five senses (the one called touch includes temperature sensation, for example, which is a different sense than experiencing pressure or an itch and mediated by different receptors and pathways). Smell, sight, and hearing tell us about what's going on in the next room. Taste and touch inform us of surface phenomena.

Working inward toward the mind and the self, or subject of consciousness seated within the conscious content, next comes the outer shell of the body that gives it form and allows for ambulation and other movement such as grasping - the so-called musculoskeletal system. Our sensory system reports the relative position and motion of the limbs, head, and torso (proprioception) and delivers empirical sensory data to the brain and then consciousness.

Moving further inward we reach the visceral body - the soft organs inside the musculoskeletal shell - and we have sensory apparatus there as well that tell us about heartburn (stomach acid reflexed into in the esophagus), headache, and when our bladder is full or irritated.

If it helps, think of cleaning a fish. It's the outer (musculoskeletal) body we eat (less the bones), and the viscera that we remove.

And there is more. We have chemoreceptors that tell us when our bodies are dehydrated (thirst) or blood gas concentrations are abnormal (shortness-of-breath).

And then there is the brain, which is also the source of conscious experience such as memories and emotions. The brain is the source of dreams, which are also experienced (empiricism). All of this together comprises the human experience, and experience is what defines empiricism.

So, our conscious experience comes from a nested array of sensations, and empiricism is what we call the process of learning how they feel, which we like and which we prefer to avoid, and how to do that. It includes subjective experience, from which we can also derive general rules. I know that if I taste a strawberry that I will enjoy that experience, and I know it from prior experience. It's a reproducible phenomenon.

So, empiricism is more than just the evaluation of the evidence of the external senses, although it is often framed that way. We do the same with our subjective reality and in so doing attempt to control the panorama of conscious experience dancing through consciousness to maximize the experience, and we do that by generalizing about prior experience (induction) and applying our rules in specific circumstances to maximize the outcome (deduction).

I think that what you're doing is identifying abstractions like belief by faith and saying that they can't be experienced empirically because ewe can't see or touch it. But I have experienced faith both first-hand and through it effects on the words and deeds of others, and that is empirical knowledge.

With respect, I'd like to offer some observations about our discussions. We've had discussions in the past that ended with hard feelings. I think that I was to blame there. I let what I called your epistemic nihilism get the best of me. You're a nice guy and a well-meaning guy, but you exasperated me with your unending string of "well how do you know"s. One simply cannot function in life thinking like that. It's disabling and distracting. You asked shunya how he knows there's a physical reality. Your words:

"What is relevant is if you claim that the universe is physical and you can show so using science? So do you claim that the universe is physical? If yes, then how do you know that using science?"

It's worthwhile considering such matters at some point, but not over and over. Yes, we only have an intuition that there is something outside the theater of consciousness, and it's instructive and even exciting to contemplate the implications of that, but not with every situation or conversation one is in. For me, it was exasperating, since it prevents forward progress as we dither over these matters. I find myself trying to get to a point and being unable as you ask these questions.

So, I have avoided discussion with you (and you with me) for a few years now, and I am loath to return to that. What I'm saying is that I don't intend to address these questions. If we can proceed forward, then fine, let's exchange ideas. But if you're going to go into a terminal tailspin of "how do you know"s, I'll lose interest quickly and disengage. It's unproductive. No, it's counterproductive. It impedes progress.

What do you say?

Well, I should have engaged with you. Sorry, so you go back on ignore. Have a good life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, that is not how I understand it, when I check the definitions of the words.

You tend to make up your own definitions to suit your own "Scientism" agenda, Not cricket.

But I bet you have objective observation and evidence of the objective physical meaning of the words. And the meaning is not subjective.

The meaning of word are recognized Oxford Dictionary or other accepted dictionary source and not objective observation and evidence of the objective physical meaning.

Circular reasoning based on your "Scientism" agenda does not help.

Science does not support the absolute notion that anything is "rendered true."

English lesson: Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Render - cause to be or become; make.

True - accurate or exact.

Methodological Naturalism does not "make" hypotheses or theories accurate or exact. They are verifiable and not verified or proven "accurate or exact", and, subject to change. Accuracy and attempts at exactness would be in reference to the standards of the research methods.

I believe you putting @It Aint Necessarily So is a result of your discomfort with his views. He is correct you are engaged in Epistemological nihilism with some Cosmic Nihilism thrown in.

Nihilism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Epistemological nihilism is a form of philosophical skepticism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings. It should not be confused with epistemological fallibilism, according to which all knowledge is uncertain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, I should have engaged with you. Sorry, so you go back on ignore. Have a good life.

Did you mean should NOT have engaged? If so, it looks like I offended you. Apologies. I was hoping to not do that, but I did want to prevent any of what I called epistemic nihilism before it started. If you prefer this path, that's fine.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I can't think of anything better, or as practical or beneficial as science.

Can you?

I know I can't think of any method or tool that is better.

I think science has the potential of answering everything, but unfortunately I doubt the entirety of the human race won't survive to realize it.

The Fermi Paradox seems to insure that.

Can science tell you how to live well? Can it tell you whether Shakespeare was a better writer than Tolstoy, or whether you should listen to Mozart or Miles Davis today? Can it make you laugh when you feel like crying, or help you keep a straight face when you feel like laughing? Can it answer the questions, Who am I, and What am I here for?

 

[shunyadragon]

Can science tell you how to live well? Can it tell you whether Shakespeare was a better writer than Tolstoy, or whether you should listen to Mozart or Miles Davis today? Can it make you laugh when you feel like crying, or help you keep a straight face when you feel like laughing? Can it answer the questions, Who am I, and What am I here for?

These are subjective questions that science, of course, cannot answer. Are you willing to discuss objectively what science is for.

Though, yes, science can help us live well.

 

[Audie]

Can science tell you how to live well? Can it tell you whether Shakespeare was a better writer than Tolstoy, or whether you should listen to Mozart or Miles Davis today? Can it make you laugh when you feel like crying, or help you keep a straight face when you feel like laughing? Can it answer the questions, Who am I, and What am I here for?

Can anything?

 

[paarsurrey]

Can science tell you how to live well? Can it tell you whether Shakespeare was a better writer than Tolstoy, or whether you should listen to Mozart or Miles Davis today? Can it make you laugh when you feel like crying, or help you keep a straight face when you feel like laughing? Can it answer the questions, Who am I, and What am I here for?

So neither Science could answer all the questions, (it can only try to address what they say "objective" one's meaning pertaining to the physical and material realms; no guarantee they won't change their answers afterwards if the need be though), nor they have any Methodology to answer the " subjective" ones, please, right?

Regards
________________
Religious Method/ Scientific Method

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can science tell you how to live well? Can it tell you whether Shakespeare was a better writer than Tolstoy, or whether you should listen to Mozart or Miles Davis today? Can it make you laugh when you feel like crying, or help you keep a straight face when you feel like laughing? Can it answer the questions, Who am I, and What am I here for?

Empiricism is the word, not science. Science is just one its application, as when we are in a laboratory or an observatory.

We do the same things in daily life - make observations (experience), generate rules about how the world works (induction), then apply them to specific situations to effect desired outcomes, whether that be landing man on the moon or getting a good Italian meal. Experience has taught me that I can get a good veal scallopini on the corner of 4th St and Broad Ave, but if you get there after six, you'll need reservations, and don't go on Tuesday at all unless you want to find it closed (induction). Call that informal science. Or call it empiricism.

Whatever knowledge we have about any of those things you named, we gained it empirically (experientially). It's experience that offers us a chance to learn to live well. Experience tells us what we enjoy and what we dislike, and how to make one happen but not the other.

Experience teaches us whether we like Shakespeare or Tolstoy, and with that knowledge, we can seek more or less of either. Likewise with Mozart and Miles Davis.

If we have learned how to laugh when we feel like crying or to not laugh when we feel like laughing, we learned it empirically. And we learned why that important and when it's important empirically. We learned whatever we have learned through trial and error.

And yes, experience tells us who we are to the extent that that question can be answered. It tells us what we enjoy and what we do well.

And nothing else can add to that knowledge, including religions and holy books. They will offer answers, but those answers are not knowledge. Your Bible would say that we're here because God made us, and that we are formed in its image, but those words explain nothing, predict nothing, and can be used for nothing.

Contrast that with telling me that I'm made in my father's image. Assume that that's accurate. If he had trouble with alcohol, that's meaningful to me. That's information I can use to make my life better, to avoid the pitfall he didn't, and it's acquired empirically.

 

[Nakosis]

Can science tell you how to live well? Can it tell you whether Shakespeare was a better writer than Tolstoy, or whether you should listen to Mozart or Miles Davis today? Can it make you laugh when you feel like crying, or help you keep a straight face when you feel like laughing? Can it answer the questions, Who am I, and What am I here for?

No, but if you develop a theory for these things, it can help you validate it.

Well as long as your theory sticks to physical explanations. Nothing can validate non-physical theories, not even science.

 

[Augustus]

No.

Then try to explain in your own words how social science does not meet the criteria of methodological naturalism.

Instead of posting links to articles that don’t directly address the question and that you seem to misunderstand, just write a few concise sentences that explain in your own words what you think.

If you can’t explain in a few sentences, then it means you don’t really understand what point you are trying to make.

Part II: Naturalism in the social sciences : a short review

Analyzing human psychology​

Evolutionary psychology is typically understood as the study of human behavior as a collection of evolutionary traits, which exist due to their ability to enable an individual’s survival and reproduction. Such reasoning is endemic in the evolutionary science, where it is common that an organism has specific properties that are both genetically heritable (they are to some extent caused by the organism’s genetic information, and are therefore passed to descendants) and adaptive (they cause this organism to spread their genetic information further, by having more descendants). Such traits are said to fulfill some evolutionary “function” to the organism : as an example, humans have kidneys because kidneys efficiently filtrate toxins, and human ancestors which were comparatively less able to filtrate toxins had comparatively higher death rate.

As human psychology is driven by a cognitive structure that is in part genetically heritable, this line of argumentation is in principle valid in its context. Evolutionary psychology is however radical in its attribution of functionality to a wide array of human behavioral regularities, in contrast to the supposedly conservative way evolutionary biology defines and studies evolutionary traits (Bateson and Laland 2013, 201) The underlying argument is that human psychology follow a property of “massive modularity” allowing the scientist to methodologically reduce it to isolated mechanisms oriented toward specific functions (Barrett and Kurzban 2006). Indeed, any instance of stereotypical behavior with strong adaptive consequences is likely to have emerged due to selection of semi-autonomous mechanisms (the so-called “modules”) underlying it at some point in the past, and to have remained adaptive until now (or until a recent period). Importantly, such modules are deep structures which are typically not accessible to introspection, which provides a prior to look for causes of contemporary behavioral patterns in their ecological meaning to our common ancestors rather, than in the reasons humans invoke to explain their choices.

While humans are to some extent more individually intelligent than other primates, their most exceptional features are related to the way they interact and communicate with each other, allowing them to organize as functional social groups (Wilson, Van Vugt, and O’Gorman 2008) and to navigate the politics of such groups (Leech and Cronk 2017). Most basically, their brain development allows humans to handle a large number of social relation (R. I. M. Dunbar and Shultz 2007) and to organize collective action (Gavrilets 2015), which combined to their preference for fairness in social relations complicates aggression as a strategy (Wrangham 2019; Shilton et al. 2020). These basic adaptations to collective life in turn allow human societies to develop an array of collaborative structures (Boehm 2009; Wilson, Ostrom, and Cox 2013), therefore extending the domain of cooperation and most importantly facilitating the development of complex skills through social learning through extending a long juvenile period (Burkart, Hrdy, and Schaik 2009; P. J. Richerson and Boyd 2020). This array of psychological traits, along with the social, ecological and cultural features they enable, work as a “human evolutionary complex” in the sense each of them does not predict much of human ecology in isolation, but their interplay constitute a dynamic fundamental to the evolution of modern humans.

A common thread to these psychological adaptations, both in their ancestral and contemporary expressions, is their ambivalence between egoist and prosocial functions. As a paradigmatic example, seemingly altruistic behavior such as grooming and other forms of interpersonal care appear to be in part driven by individual adaptation to maintain economic and political relations (Barclay 2013), while still being essential to social cohesion (R. Dunbar 1998). The same argument holds for internalization of social norms (morality) (Gavrilets and Richerson 2017) and for social identity (Harvey Whitehouse and Lanman 2014), which benefits to the individual are mediated by reputation rather than interpersonal cooperation (Barclay 2013). The case of language is however the most interesting : a central adaptation to social cohesion (R. Dunbar 1998), coordination (E. A. Smith 2010), and reinforcement of social norms (D. Smith et al. 2017) ; language also serves to further an individual’s political interest through coalition management (Dessalles 2014) and motivated reasoning (Mercier 2011). In other words, while language as a social phenomenon is the backbone of human social organization, its recruitment in reasoning is driven to further one’s influence upon others rather than build reflexivity upon one’s action.

Evolutionary psychology is therefore relevant to address the large array of social behavior underlying the cohesion of human societies, even though its somewhat loose use of adaptive claims earns it a reputation of pseudoscientificity (S. E. Smith 2020). In particular, it is extremely apt to capture and formalize the interplay between imbricated levels of social organization by exposing how their cognition allows humans both to maintain a cohesive social structure and to exploit it to their personal advantage - and often through the very same psychological mechanisms. Evolutionary psychology as a social science fails however to consider emerging effects from complex patterns of interaction (Guénin–Carlut 2020), which is made even more stringent by the insistence from prominent sympathizers that their discipline is a sufficient alternative to preestablished social sciences.

That says nothing to support your claim.

Just posting an article that says nothing relevant without a single word of your own comment is not a discussion.

What in the above article supports your claim that social sciences do not meet the standards of methodological naturalism?

Use your words to explain it, as you don’t seem to understand the point you are trying to make.

do not claim to answer all the questions, You are free to add your own references,

You are becoming aware that the answers are not necessarily that simple as tiyr previous demands for simple answers,

You aren’t answering any questions. Just demonstrating you don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

If you do understand then give a simple answer in your own words.

I’ll start: scholarly social sciences use methodological naturalism as they try to explain events via natural cause rather than supernatural ones.

The articles you posted about consciousness also explained it in terms of physiology, not something like a “soul”. They thus operate in accordance with methodological naturalism.

Your turn…

 

[Audie]

Then try to explain in your own words how social science does not meet the criteria of methodological naturalism.

Instead of posting links to articles that don’t directly address the question and that you seem to misunderstand, just write a few concise sentences that explain in your own words what you think.

If you can’t explain in a few sentences, then it means you don’t really understand what point you are trying to make.


That says nothing to support your claim.

Just posting an article that says nothing relevant without a single word of your own comment is not a discussion.

What in the above article supports your claim that social sciences do not meet the standards of methodological naturalism?

Use your words to explain it, as you don’t seem to understand the point you are trying to make.



You aren’t answering any questions. Just demonstrating you don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

If you do understand then give a simple answer in your own words.

I’ll start: scholarly social sciences use methodological naturalism as they try to explain events via natural cause rather than supernatural ones.

The articles you posted about consciousness also explained it in terms of physiology, not something like a “soul”. They thus operate in accordance with methodological naturalism.

Your turn…

" if you can't explain it you don't understand it"


How true.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Exactly. Science explains how we exist, not why. Religion explains why we exist.

Scientists are indeed interested in why certain cultures exist.

If religion is part of the answer, then so be it.

Questions about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of religion in the survival of a culture can be investigated using the tools of science.

We can’t put handcuffs on science.

I routinely see folks attempting to do that, but it is a distortion of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

So neither Science could answer all the questions, (it can only try to address what they say "objective" one's meaning pertaining to the physical and material realms; no guarantee they won't change their answers afterwards if the need be though), nor they have any Methodology to answer the " subjective" ones, please, right?

Yes science does not falsify subjective claims.

Explain the bold above. Do you understand when and why science changes when new information becomes available?

Regards
________________
Religious Method/ Scientific Method

Again you need to explain your religious method in terms of objective science such as evolution.