Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 20, 2024, 01:26:29 PM
-
https://iai.tv/articles/we-must-put-an-end-to-scientism-guiseppina-doro-auid-2747
Partially hidden behind paywall.
-
https://iai.tv/articles/we-must-put-an-end-to-scientism-guiseppina-doro-auid-2747
Partially hidden behind paywall.
I can't see beyond the paywall, but it strikes me that the scene-setting is that evidence undermines his preferred philosophical viewpoint on how mind and brain are related and his answer is therefore #stopwiththesciencealready.
I don't imagine I'll be paying to read that one.
O.
-
https://iai.tv/articles/we-must-put-an-end-to-scientism-guiseppina-doro-auid-2747
Partially hidden behind paywall.
Archived version
https://archive.vn/Ywk1Z
-
Archived version
https://archive.vn/Ywk1Z
Thanks.
-
the days when the idea that mental states are reducible to physical states was a given are over
Are they? Why? Unless you believe in something like a soul (I accept that Vlad believes this), I would have thought it was axiomatic that mental states are reducible to physical states, because there is no alternative.
-
Are they? Why? Unless you believe in something like a soul (I accept that Vlad believes this), I would have thought it was axiomatic that mental states are reducible to physical states, because there is no alternative.
If it was reducible to physical states it should be totally describable in those terms. There is though, the explanatory gap.
Reductionism has a view of emergence which seems to ignore novelty and makes the emergent redundant or illusory.
Total positivism, it could be argued, is dehumanising.
-
Are they? Why? Unless you believe in something like a soul (I accept that Vlad believes this), I would have thought it was axiomatic that mental states are reducible to physical states, because there is no alternative.
This sounds like ontological reductionism, which ignores emergent properties.
-
If it was reducible to physical states it should be totally describable in those terms. There is though, the explanatory gap.
That we can't currently do it doesn't mean that it can't be done. We couldn't fly for a long time, but now we can.
Reductionism has a view of emergence which seems to ignore novelty and makes the emergent redundant or illusory.
I can't make that mean anything.
Total positivism, it could be argued, is dehumanising.
Anything can be argued, otherwise Theology wouldn't be possible, but that doesn't mean that coherent arguments can be made. Not, of course, that anyone's advocating positivism, but don't let that stand in the way of you making ad hominems in the absence of an actual point or argument. Again.
O.
-
This sounds like ontological reductionism, which ignores emergent properties.
Emergent properties are in principle describable in terms of their physical states. In fact, sometimes the rules are fairly simple. Other times they are too complex for us humans to fully grasp.
There's no magic needed.
-
Emergent properties are in principle describable in terms of their physical states. In fact, sometimes the rules are fairly simple. Other times they are too complex for us humans to fully grasp.
There's no magic needed.
That ignores the novelty of the property and therefore in principle explains the emergent away. It could be argued then that a reductionists emergent isn't actually an emergent.
These are the reasons people have suggested that Daniel Dennett's book Consciousness explained should be retitled Consciousness explained away.
-
That ignores the novelty of the property and therefore in principle explains the emergent away.
You'll need to write that in English.
It could be argued then that a reductionists emergent isn't actually an emergent.
Only by idiots.
These are the reasons people have suggested that Daniel Dennett's book Consciousness explained should be retitled Consciousness explained away.
I haven't read it so I can't comment.
Have you read it?
-
You'll need to write that in English.
Only by idiots.
I haven't read it so I can't comment.
Have you read it?
No but that doesn't stop me from communicating how his peers have responded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tFpubXb1KMUC&pg=PP11&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
First few chapters of Consciousness Explained.
-
No but that doesn't stop me from communicating how his peers have responded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained
Woo, someone's read a wiki entry on a book, that's like an internetology
-
Vlad,
If it was reducible to physical states it should be totally describable in those terms. There is though, the explanatory gap.
There are lots of explanatory gaps, and in the past there were even more. So what though? That we can’t explain something in material terms now isn’t an argument for “therefore magic” for reasons that have been explained to you many times here.
Reductionism has a view of emergence which seems to ignore novelty and makes the emergent redundant or illusory.
And something else that’s been explained to you many times here is that you can’t claim reductionism unless you’ve demonstrated first that there’s something to reduce from.
Before rainbows were understood would it have been "reductionism" to settle for a "don't know" without asserting too that leprechauns put them there to store their gold? Why not?
Total positivism, it could be argued, is dehumanising.
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
-
Vlad,
There are lots of explanatory gaps, and in the past there were even more. So what though? That we can’t explain something in material terms now isn’t an argument for “therefore magic” for reasons that have been explained to you many times here.
And something else that’s been explained to you many times here is that you can’t claim reductionism unless you’ve demonstrated first that there’s something to reduce from.
Before rainbows were understood would it have been "reductionism" to settle for a "don't know" without asserting too that leprechauns put them there to store their gold? Why not?
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
-
Is there an echo on here?
-
Vlad,
And something else that’s been explained to you
you can’t claim reductionism unless you’ve demonstrated first that there’s something to reduce from.
Did you have any examples in mind, or did you just feel like saying it?
-
I suspect that when Walt writes "scientism", he really just means "science", but he knows he'll never get away with criticising science, so he calls it "scientism" instead. Basically, "scientism", for Walt, means "science I don't like".
-
I suspect that when Walt writes "scientism", he really just means "science", but he knows he'll never get away with criticising science, so he calls it "scientism" instead. Basically, "scientism", for Walt, means "science I don't like".
To be fair here, it seems based on the article but I'll admit that it feels badly defined in what is a messy article Oakeshott's a pretty easy read as a philosopher and this makes it more obscure rather than clearer.
I have the same issues that jeremyp with the opening to thd article. I'd suggest rather that this shouldn't be about refuctionism and scientism but about a clarity of approach as to the purpose of any investigation into the mind.
-
Vlad,
Did you have any examples in mind, or did you just feel like saying it?
Yes - the example is that you introduced reductionism as an accusation (because it's "dehumanising" apparently). I merely explained to you with some weariness given how often I've done it before without reply that you cannot claim the charge of reductionism unless you can demonstrate first that there's something that's been reduced from. See the rainbows and leprechauns analogy - again.
Why do you struggle with this?
-
I suspect that when Walt writes "scientism", he really just means "science", but he knows he'll never get away with criticising science, so he calls it "scientism" instead. Basically, "scientism", for Walt, means "science I don't like".
No I mean scientism.
I have no beef with methodological naturalism or methodological reductionism, only claims that science is the only means of describing or defining reality.
-
No I mean scientism.
I have no beef with methodological naturalism or methodological reductionism, only claims that science is the only means of describing or defining reality.
Could you outline your other method(s)?
-
Vlad,
Yes - the example is that you introduced reductionism as an accusation (because it's "dehumanising" apparently). I merely explained to you with some weariness given how often I've done it before without reply that you cannot claim the charge of reductionism unless you can demonstrate first that there's something that's been reduced from. See the rainbows and leprechauns analogy - again.
Why do you struggle with this?
Since you apparently can't name an example of the type of reductionism I am criticising let me help you out. An example is Dennett's reductionism of Consciousness. His reduction here is to state it as merely an illusion and not a thing at all.
Your starting point would seem to be that we have to prove that consciousness exists because all we can observe is computing and it's hardware. Thus the illusion of consciousness is really complex intelligence.
Your fault Hillside is to both talk about things having emerged while what has emerged doesn't actually exist. A most egregious example of cake-ism.
Own it and stop referring to emergence.
-
Could you outline your other method(s)?
Your manifest error here is to mistake the philosophy with the method. Yes science can tell us what exists physically and that physicality might well be real but it cannot be shown to define reality.
While you were trying then to outline the shortcomings of other people and other domains and magisteria you were steering your wee wizards away from the limitations of methodological naturalism.
-
Vlad,
No I mean scientism.
I have no beef with methodological naturalism or methodological reductionism, only claims that science is the only means of describing or defining reality.
That’s not the claim though. The actual claim is that “science” (ie, a method that rests on reason, logic, evidence etc) is the only known means of “describing or defining reality” because no other claimed means of doing that (“faith” for example) is verifiable.
By the way – just out of interest have you ever, ever actually encountered an advocate for scientism? I know you use it frequently as a straw man here, but you’ve never shown us someone who actually argued for it. Why is that?
Since you apparently can't name an example of the type of reductionism I am criticising let me help you out.
Shifting the burden of proof doesn’t help you here. You introduced the accusation of reductionism so it’s your job to give examples of it, not mine.
An example is Dennett's reductionism of Consciousness. His reduction here is to state it as merely an illusion and not a thing at all.
That’s not what he says – the “illusion” is still a “thing”, but in any case what then do you think he thereby reduced from? Souls? Consciousness pixies? What?
Your starting point would seem to be that we have to prove that consciousness exists because all we can observe is computing and it's hardware. Thus the illusion of consciousness is really complex intelligence.
My “starting point” is that if we’re to claim that anything exists then we need evidence to justify the claim. It’s not difficult.
Your fault Hillside is to both talk about things having emerged while what has emerged doesn't actually exist. A most egregious example of cake-ism.
What was this hopeless gibberish supposed to mean?
Own it and stop referring to emergence.
I’m not about to “own” your straw man, and what’s wrong with referring to emergence – it’s a well understood and documented phenomenon?
You’re very confused about this.
-
Vlad,
Your manifest error here is to mistake the philosophy with the method.
He didn’t do that.
Yes science can tell us what exists physically and that physicality might well be real but it cannot be shown to define reality.
Nor does it claim to, at least not in an absolute sense. That’s why its strongest claims about the nature of reality are called “theories”. Why do you think straw manning science is helping you here?
While you were trying then to outline the shortcomings of other people and other domains and magisterial…
He didn’t do that – he just asked you what method you would propose instead. If you think there are “other domains and magisterial” that do “define reality” then tell us how they verify their claims. Why so coy?
…you were steering your wee wizards away from the limitations of methodological naturalism.
Your straw man game is strong here. He was doing no such thing – the “limitations of methodological naturalism” are not a problem for actual methodological naturalism – they’re just limitations for your personal redefinition of the term.
-
Your manifest error here is to mistake the philosophy with the method. Yes science can tell us what exists physically and that physicality might well be real but it cannot be shown to define reality.
While you were trying then to outline the shortcomings of other people and other domains and magisteria you were steering your wee wizards away from the limitations of methodological naturalism.
I asked you a question. None of the rest follows. Stop lying.
-
Vlad,
As you’re a fan of Wiki here it is explaining where you continue to go wrong about methodological naturalism. I don’t know why I have to keep schooling you about this, but hey-ho eh?
“On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism.[4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
-
No I mean scientism.
I have no beef with methodological naturalism or methodological reductionism, only claims that science is the only means of describing or defining reality.
It is the only means we have that seems to work. Do you have an alternative?
-
Your manifest error here is to mistake the philosophy with the method. Yes science can tell us what exists physically and that physicality might well be real but it cannot be shown to define reality.
While you were trying then to outline the shortcomings of other people and other domains and magisteria you were steering your wee wizards away from the limitations of methodological naturalism.
Evasion noted.
-
It is the only means we have that seems to work. Do you have an alternative?
Realistically, It is the only way we have of learning physics. That's science. That it teaches us what reality is and isn't is scientism. Science then isn't even the alternative folks around here wish it was.
Philosophy, logic, reason and revelation are means to truthIMHO.
Without considering the poor grasp of these demonstrated within say New atheism. Nearly Sane seems to be expecting far greater skill, precision and knowledge from Theists.
-
Realistically, It is the only way we have of learning physics. That's science. That it teaches us what reality is and isn't is scientism. Science then isn't even the alternative folks around here wish it was.
Philosophy, logic, reason and revelation are means to truthIMHO.
Without considering the poor grasp of these demonstrated within say New atheism. Nearly Sane seems to be expecting far greater skill, precision and knowledge from Theists.
I've just had the revelation you are lying. So that must be true then.
-
I asked you a question. None of the rest follows. Stop lying.
I have offered methods in the past and you have not accepted any. Either there are none, or you won't accept one, or I cannot adequately explain one and you just keep asking me because you enjoy watching me trip up.(sadism?)
Logic and reason and philosophy are ways to what is truth.
My explanation of their methodologies have proved inadequate for you, but that might just be me.....or you.
-
I have offered methods in the past and you have not accepted any. Either there are none, or you won't accept one, or I cannot adequately explain one and you just keep asking me because you enjoy watching me trip up.(sadism?)
Logic and reason and philosophy are ways to what is truth.
My explanation of their methodologies have proved inadequate for you, but that might just be me.....or you.
Could you show me a post where I've rejected logic and reason and philosophy?
-
Vlad,
Realistically, It is the only way we have of learning physics.
So what?
That's science. That it teaches us what reality is…
No, it teaches us a set of understandings about what reality is. Those understandings may or may not be junked or amended if further evidence comes to light – that’s why science limits its explanations to theories. Try to grasp this.
…and isn't is scientism.
It certainly isn’t. Why then do you us that term as your straw man du jour so frequently here?
Science then isn't even the alternative folks around here wish it was.
Non sequitur. What “alternative” do you think “folks around here wish it was” exactly?
Philosophy, logic, reason and revelation are means to truthIMHO.
Philosophy, logic and reason are baked in to science. Faith on the other hand is what you rely on when you don’t have these tools to justify your truth beliefs.
Without considering the poor grasp of these demonstrated within say New atheism. Nearly Sane seems to be expecting far greater skill, precision and knowledge from Theists.
Why are you still lying about this?
I have offered methods in the past and you have not accepted any.
Because you haven’t offered any methods at all. Occasionally when desperate you claim to have some magic powers of insight that are denied to the rest of us or something, but that’s not a method.
Either there are none, or you won't accept one, or I cannot adequately explain one and you just keep asking me because you enjoy watching me trip up.(sadism?)
No, the correct formulation here is that there are none that you’ve ever been able to produce.
Logic and reason and philosophy are ways to what is truth.
Provisional truth(s), but ok…
My explanation of their methodologies have proved inadequate for you, but that might just be me.....or you.
No, it’s you – you haven’t offered any explanations that are logical, reason-based or philosophically coherent.
Why is that?
-
Philosophy, logic, reason and revelation are means to truthIMHO.
I'd be fascinated to know how revelation fits into the truth picture.
Can you expand?
-
No I mean scientism.
Or, at least, a straw-man approximation of what people think dressed up with the name 'scientism', but do go on (and on...)
I have no beef with methodological naturalism or methodological reductionism, only claims that science is the only means of describing or defining reality.
And who is making that claim, other than you on other people's behalf despite them repeatedly pointing out that you're misrepresenting them. I don't think I'm aware of anyone here, or anywhere else, who is ideologically dedicated to the notion that there is no means but science to determine anything.
What you have is people who are aware of the capacity and limitations of science, and are aware of notions like logic and mathematics which have validity and limitations of their own, but aren't given to accept claims from other derivations until, and unless, some methodology can be offered to support and justify those claims.
What's missing here is not an acceptance from other people of bullshit, it's a methodological framework to elevate your bullshit (or anyone else's) from the morass of baseless bullshit that it swims in. No-one owes your pet superstition any acceptance, it has to be earned.
O.
-
I'd be fascinated to know how revelation fits into the truth picture.
Can you expand?
I suppose any contact with God, initiated by God leading to commitment to, knowledge or retreat from God. Collectively, response to God.
-
I suppose any contact with God, initiated by God leading to commitment to, knowledge or retreat from God. Collectively, response to God.
Is there any method by which these revaluations can be verified?
-
Realistically, It is the only way we have of learning physics. That's science. That it teaches us what reality is and isn't is scientism. Science then isn't even the alternative folks around here wish it was.
Science helps us to find out about reality. If that's scientism, then guilty as charged, but so what? We have no other means of finding out about reality so it seems odd to me that you would sneer at it.
Philosophy, logic, reason and revelation are means to truthIMHO.
One of those things is not like the others.
How can you be sure that your "revelation" tells you anything that is true?
Without considering the poor grasp of these demonstrated within say New atheism. Nearly Sane seems to be expecting far greater skill, precision and knowledge from Theists.
No, he doesn't expect anything other than evasion and sophistry. What he wants, before he starts believing your ridiculous ideas is some justification.
-
I suppose any contact with God,
How do we know you have contact with God and not just some crazy voice inside your head?
initiated by God
How do we know that anything you say was initiated by God and not just some crazy voice inside your head?
leading to commitment to, knowledge or retreat from God.
But if it's not God but just some crazy voice inside your head, why would anybody commit to it?
Collectively, response to God.
How do you know it's not a collective response to somebody who had a particularly convincing crazy voice inside their head?
Now I'm not suggesting that your revelations definitely are from a crazy voice inside your head, but it is a possibility I have to eliminate before I start believing you.
-
Is there any method by which these revaluations can be verified?
Since the revelation is only effective on a personal level,
One has to honestly examine whether you are on the road to Commitment,or in retreat. External views will either tell you you have a mental aberration or a genuine experience. Ultimately your decision on stance is existential.
-
Since the revelation is only effective on a personal level,
One has to honestly examine whether you are on the road to Commitment,or in retreat. External views will either tell you you have a mental aberration or a genuine experience. Ultimately your decision on stance is existential.
You could just have said "no".
-
Vlad,
Since the revelation is only effective on a personal level,
One has to honestly examine whether you are on the road to Commitment,or in retreat. External views will either tell you you have a mental aberration or a genuine experience. Ultimately your decision on stance is existential.
None of which tells you anything at all about whether the belief you’re committing to is anything more than just a belief. I could have said exactly the same about my commitment to leprechauns. So what though?
-
....
One of those things is not like the others.
....
I fully agree that revelation is an odd thing to link to philosophy, logic and reason but reading your post clarified that the other three are a bit odd being grouped together. Reason seems to me to be a synonym for logic when used in this sense. Logic would seem to be a subset of philosophy. Arguably science is a subset of philosophy but that argument seems to me to expose that philosophy is a sort of catch all term rather than a method. As has already been mentioned logic is 'baked into' science.
-
I fully agree that revelation id an odd thing to link to philosophy, logic and reason but reading your post clarified that the other three are a bit odd being grouped together. Reason seems to me to be a synonym for logic when used in this sense. Logic would seem to be a subset of philosophy. Arguably science is a subset of philosophy but that argument seems to me to expose that philosophy is a sort of catch all term rather than a method. As has already been mentioned logic is 'baked into' science.
Science is a branch of philosophy, or, at least, originated as one. Until the term "science" was coined, it was even called "natural philosophy".
And yes, I think philosophy is a catch all term to refer to all thinking about the World (taking the word "World" in the broadest possible sense). The key point is "thinking". Revelation is not thinking and neither is much of what most adherents to religion do.
-
Since the revelation is only effective on a personal level,
Even that doesn't answer the question - it's not just that you can't demonstrate to someone else that it's a justifiable claim, you can't even have any justified confidence yourself.
One has to honestly examine whether you are on the road to Commitment,or in retreat.
No, one has to seek medical advice about the voices you're apparently hearing.
O.
-
Science is a branch of philosophy, or, at least, originated as one. Until the term "science" was coined, it was even called "natural philosophy".
And yes, I think philosophy is a catch all term to refer to all thinking about the World (taking the word "World" in the broadest possible sense). The key point is "thinking". Revelation is not thinking and neither is much of what most adherents to religion do.
Regarding what philosophy is, I remember reading the words of some philosopher who said that in a sense there's no such thing as philosophy; it's always philosophy 𝘰𝘧 something else: science, religion, ethics (philosophy of morality), etc. It's the basic principles of something else.
-
SteveH,
Regarding what philosophy is, I remember reading the words of some philosopher who said that in a sense there's no such thing as philosophy; it's always philosophy 𝘰𝘧 something else: science, religion, ethics (philosophy of morality), etc. It's the basic principles of something else.
I think what you’re describing here is applied philosophy, as opposed to pure philosophy:
“Applied philosophy is differentiated from pure philosophy primarily by dealing with specific topics of practical concern, whereas pure philosophy does not take an object; metaphorically it is philosophy applied to itself; exploring standard philosophical problems and philosophical objects (e.g. metaphysical properties) such as the fundamental nature of reality, epistemology and morality among others.[1] Applied philosophy is therefore a subsection of philosophy, broadly construed it does not deal with topics in the purely abstract realm, but takes a specific object of practical concern.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_philosophy
-
SteveH,
I think what you’re describing here is applied philosophy, as opposed to pure philosophy:
“Applied philosophy is differentiated from pure philosophy primarily by dealing with specific topics of practical concern, whereas pure philosophy does not take an object; metaphorically it is philosophy applied to itself; exploring standard philosophical problems and philosophical objects (e.g. metaphysical properties) such as the fundamental nature of reality, epistemology and morality among others.[1] Applied philosophy is therefore a subsection of philosophy, broadly construed it does not deal with topics in the purely abstract realm, but takes a specific object of practical concern.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_philosophy
'Appen as mebbe tha's nobbut reet.
-
Since the revelation is only effective on a personal level,
One has to honestly examine whether you are on the road to Commitment,or in retreat. External views will either tell you you have a mental aberration or a genuine experience. Ultimately your decision on stance is existential.
So that's, no.
It's also so personal that I'm not sure why you would include it in your list?