E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
https://iai.tv/articles/we-must-put-an-end-to-scientism-guiseppina-doro-auid-2747Partially hidden behind paywall.
Archived versionhttps://archive.vn/Ywk1Z
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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".
Did you have any examples in mind, or did you just feel like saying it?
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.
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?
Could you outline your other method(s)?