The Folly of Scientism
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8390
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: The Folly of Scientism
I edited these links into my last post then noticed that it may get lost on the very bottom of the page. It is a bit of blog reading, but it may interest some of you and fits in with several of the topics going on- including Kuhn's idea of paradigm shifting in science.
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 1
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 2: Down For the Count
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 3: The Great Galileo-Scheiner Flame War of 1611-13
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 4: The Down 'n Dirty Mud Wrassle
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 5: Here's Mud in Yer Eye
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 6: Comet Chameleon
A Rough Guide to Galileo, The Church and Heliocentricity
Galileo's Great Bluff and Part of the Reason Why Kuhn is Wrong
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 1
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 2: Down For the Count
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 3: The Great Galileo-Scheiner Flame War of 1611-13
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 4: The Down 'n Dirty Mud Wrassle
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 5: Here's Mud in Yer Eye
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 6: Comet Chameleon
A Rough Guide to Galileo, The Church and Heliocentricity
Galileo's Great Bluff and Part of the Reason Why Kuhn is Wrong
Re: The Folly of Scientism
You are invited to quote any or all of what I wrote in this thread and make an argument of why you totally disagree with my argument. Am curious what will be the output, because I can't remember I really made any argument. I just placed a coupla reminders of factual nature.noddy wrote:with this argument i do get confused on the vague "milions of monkeys over hundreds of years" goodness of science vs the capabilities of any one of us at any point in time.
i cant quite pin down if marcus is fixating on the latter whilst rhap the former - my own sense of that is buried a few posts up.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Folly of Scientism
NapL, I promised to recap of why I think representational realism is of great relevance re science, and some of the worries re science as they were and are expressed in the form of a criticism of Scientism. I will let go however. You can find these arguments, ie the primer of them, in this thread already. Given that you summarized it the way you did with your initial entry in this thread, I now think that most likely it will turn out another waste of time from where I sit, as with Kmich and Nonc who simply refused to acknowledge some of the obvious.
Also given that you mentioned that to you the discussion about intent is way more interesting, gives me little hope our discussion will be fruitful. Many years ago I was on a list where all of these issues where in and out from left to right over and over again discussed with some big shot profis also participating. I found that the moment philosophers start to weave their flying carpets.. from "quantum consciousness" to sophisticated definitional-semantic constructs about "intent and consciousness", various other types of theories about consciousness, mind-matter relationships.. to me were not much more than castles of verbal sophistry, pieces of verbal art at best.
A good place to dig for this type of verbal art is the site of Dave Chalmers. Years ago I've been digging that stuff, but most of it really is just verbal knitting and juggling with concepts to no end. Just IMO of course, and nothing wrong with word knitting as an art form "an sich". See his collection of online papers on Intentionality. Not saying there are no gems in there... just saying my frontal lobes aren't able to process those cheese burgers anymore.
Also given that you mentioned that to you the discussion about intent is way more interesting, gives me little hope our discussion will be fruitful. Many years ago I was on a list where all of these issues where in and out from left to right over and over again discussed with some big shot profis also participating. I found that the moment philosophers start to weave their flying carpets.. from "quantum consciousness" to sophisticated definitional-semantic constructs about "intent and consciousness", various other types of theories about consciousness, mind-matter relationships.. to me were not much more than castles of verbal sophistry, pieces of verbal art at best.
A good place to dig for this type of verbal art is the site of Dave Chalmers. Years ago I've been digging that stuff, but most of it really is just verbal knitting and juggling with concepts to no end. Just IMO of course, and nothing wrong with word knitting as an art form "an sich". See his collection of online papers on Intentionality. Not saying there are no gems in there... just saying my frontal lobes aren't able to process those cheese burgers anymore.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Parodite,Parodite wrote:Sometimes "wise men" simply have nothing interesting to saySimple Minded wrote:Marcus,Marcus wrote:
Zack, I'm way too old and too tired to rehash such nonsense. You're welcome to your religion.
You also forgot to mention too wise....
"If we fail to speak to a man who can be spoken to, we lose a man.
If we speak to a man who cannot be spoken to, our words are nothing.
Wise men lose neither men nor words."
ABSOLUTELY!
"Interesting" like beauty or offense, are in the eyes of the beholder (receiver), not the transmitter!
It takes a socially aware, conscious, individual to be sensitive enough to be cognizant of whether the receiver perceives them as interesting.
It the transmitter is not broadcasting for fun, and is aware there are no receptors present, why would they continue to broadcast?
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
Sure! Why not?Zack Morris wrote:Is it possible to believe in more than one religion at a time?Marcus wrote: Zack, just like me, you're a believer too . . we both believe . . you have your religion, I have mine. Surely you have better things to do than try to rehash something that has never been settled and never will be in this age.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Nap,NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
I think this was what Simple Minded was getting at when he was talking about adult pissing contests.
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 1
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Part 2: Down For the Count
The Great Galileo-Scheiner Flame War of 1611-13
The Down 'n Dirty Mud Wrassle
Here's Mud in Yer Eye
Comet Chameleon
A Rough Guide to Galileo, The Church and Heliocentricity
Galileo's Great Bluff and Part of the Reason Why Kuhn is Wrong
In more Simple Minded terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azM6xSTT2I0
Was Fred right, it is all about getting laid?
I thinking it may be more "intellectual pecker measuring" than adult pissing contests.....
Was Fred right, it is all about getting laid?
The search for eternal truths..... or just socializing on the intellectual level.... rather than the NASCAR level, the wine level, or the football level?
The actual search may be a personal quest, but for most, I think, the discussion and sharing is socializing. Does "truth" really need "others" to validate it?
It the Bible belt, "Religion" (capital R) is about social function as much as eternal truth (religion, lower case r), I suspect the same is true in the halls of academia.
AGW or white privilege as examples of two currently chic modern religions for example. Our desires to belong are very powerful influences.
Nother thought:
Thinking without discussing or posting, is like singing or whistling with no audience. Fun, done for it own sake, not for the sake of impressing or entertaining others.
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Wow.. so deep SM! Always standing in the shadows of other people's words... and making fun of them with that never ending same riddle of absolute relativism, you, that last man standing laughing.. the rest floored and dumbed down by your simple minded brilliance!:PSimple Minded wrote:Parodite,Parodite wrote:Sometimes "wise men" simply have nothing interesting to saySimple Minded wrote:Marcus,Marcus wrote:
Zack, I'm way too old and too tired to rehash such nonsense. You're welcome to your religion.
You also forgot to mention too wise....
"If we fail to speak to a man who can be spoken to, we lose a man.
If we speak to a man who cannot be spoken to, our words are nothing.
Wise men lose neither men nor words."
ABSOLUTELY!
"Interesting" like beauty or offense, are in the eyes of the beholder (receiver), not the transmitter!
It takes a socially aware, conscious, individual to be sensitive enough to be cognizant of whether the receiver perceives them as interesting.
It the transmitter is not broadcasting for fun, and is aware there are no receptors present, why would they continue to broadcast?
But, you should try something new bro! Lest not you.. but boredom is the final killer. Surprise us.. the whomever feels belonging to that us that is "we", but of course.. as you will always remind "us", it is all about myself in the end. At least... according to you.. (I think) Give it try... who knows.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
You make me proud Grasshopper.... As you have said, we are so similar... it is scary!Parodite wrote:
Wow.. so deep SM! Always standing in the shadows of other people's words... and making fun of them with that never ending same riddle of absolute relativism, you, that last man standing laughing.. the rest floored and dumbed down by your simple minded brilliance!:P
But, you should try something new bro! Lest not you.. but boredom is the final killer. Surprise us.. the whomever feels belonging to that us that is "we", but of course.. as you will always remind "us", it is all about myself in the end. At least... according to you.. (I think) Give it try... who knows.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Simple Minded wrote:. . Was Fred right, it is all about getting laid?
I thinking it may be more "intellectual pecker measuring" than adult pissing contests.....
Was Fred right, it is all about getting laid?
The search for eternal truths..... or just socializing on the intellectual level.... rather than the NASCAR level, the wine level, or the football level?
The actual search may be a personal quest, but for most, I think, the discussion and sharing is socializing. Does "truth" really need "others" to validate it?
It the Bible belt, "Religion" (capital R) is about social function as much as eternal truth (religion, lower case r), I suspect the same is true in the halls of academia.
AGW or white privilege as examples of two currently chic modern religions for example. Our desires to belong are very powerful influences.
Nother thought:
Thinking without discussing or posting, is like singing or whistling with no audience. Fun, done for it own sake, not for the sake of impressing or entertaining others.
Very nicely noted, SM . . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Hows the wife? Got laid lately? Mistresses?Simple Minded wrote:You make me proud Grasshopper.... As you have said, we are so similar... it is scary!Parodite wrote:
Wow.. so deep SM! Always standing in the shadows of other people's words... and making fun of them with that never ending same riddle of absolute relativism, you, that last man standing laughing.. the rest floored and dumbed down by your simple minded brilliance!:P
But, you should try something new bro! Lest not you.. but boredom is the final killer. Surprise us.. the whomever feels belonging to that us that is "we", but of course.. as you will always remind "us", it is all about myself in the end. At least... according to you.. (I think) Give it try... who knows.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Parodite wrote:Hows the wife? Got laid lately? Mistresses?Simple Minded wrote:You make me proud Grasshopper.... As you have said, we are so similar... it is scary!Parodite wrote:
Wow.. so deep SM! Always standing in the shadows of other people's words... and making fun of them with that never ending same riddle of absolute relativism, you, that last man standing laughing.. the rest floored and dumbed down by your simple minded brilliance!:P
But, you should try something new bro! Lest not you.. but boredom is the final killer. Surprise us.. the whomever feels belonging to that us that is "we", but of course.. as you will always remind "us", it is all about myself in the end. At least... according to you.. (I think) Give it try... who knows.
- Fine. Maybe even finer than yours...
- Are we talking relatively or absolutely? Technically, how does one define "laid?" What if there are no witnesses?
- Is not one man's wife, another man's mistress?
OK, now I am starting to understand the big questions being discussed here. It is all a matter of framing.....
Last edited by Simple Minded on Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
What is the difference between a group of theological scholars gathering to read ancient texts and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....
and a group of climate scientists gathering to measure tree rings and debate whether the temperature of the Earth can be measured within 1 degree, 1/10th of one degree, or 1/100th of a degree?
No doubt both groups have false gods....
Which group would excommunicate you for disagreeing with the god of numerical modeling or doubting that cow farts are a threat to mankind?
we need to re-introduce stoning and drawing and quartering into serious scientific study!
and a group of climate scientists gathering to measure tree rings and debate whether the temperature of the Earth can be measured within 1 degree, 1/10th of one degree, or 1/100th of a degree?
No doubt both groups have false gods....
Which group would excommunicate you for disagreeing with the god of numerical modeling or doubting that cow farts are a threat to mankind?
we need to re-introduce stoning and drawing and quartering into serious scientific study!
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Reminds me of this one:Simple Minded wrote:Is not one man's wife, another man's mistress?
Rhubarb and Sam, best friends, walk on the beach chatting along.
Rhubarb is looking through his binocular around a bit.. then suddenly sees two women approaching and recognizing them:
"OMG, Sam, over there those two women... it's my wife and my mistress!"
Sam asks for the binocular and takes a look too and says: ".. it's a small world.."
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Excellent post that fits this thread well.Parodite wrote:Reminds me of this one:Simple Minded wrote:Is not one man's wife, another man's mistress?
Rhubarb and Sam, best friends, walk on the beach chatting along.
Rhubarb is looking through his binocular around a bit.. then suddenly sees two women approaching and recognizing them:
"OMG, Sam, over there those two women... it's my wife and my mistress!"
Sam asks for the binocular and takes a look too and says: ".. it's a small world.."
The Merikan (specifically WV and AR) version of this is Bill says to Joe "Hey Joe, C'mon over here. I want you to meet my wife and my sister!" Joe walks over and finds there is only one woman standing next to Bill.
As the old saw goes "People don't react to reality, but to their perception of reality."
Suzy is a wife to Sam and a mistress to Rhubarb. Pete is a right wing extremist to some and a left wing mainstreamer to others.
Last edited by Simple Minded on Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
thanks Marcus. It has long been my perception that there is Religion and religion. One is for public consumption and display, the other is private and personal.Marcus wrote:Simple Minded wrote:. . Was Fred right, it is all about getting laid?
I thinking it may be more "intellectual pecker measuring" than adult pissing contests.....
Was Fred right, it is all about getting laid?
The search for eternal truths..... or just socializing on the intellectual level.... rather than the NASCAR level, the wine level, or the football level?
The actual search may be a personal quest, but for most, I think, the discussion and sharing is socializing. Does "truth" really need "others" to validate it?
It the Bible belt, "Religion" (capital R) is about social function as much as eternal truth (religion, lower case r), I suspect the same is true in the halls of academia.
AGW or white privilege as examples of two currently chic modern religions for example. Our desires to belong are very powerful influences.
Nother thought:
Thinking without discussing or posting, is like singing or whistling with no audience. Fun, done for it own sake, not for the sake of impressing or entertaining others.
Very nicely noted, SM . . .
As a friend says, "There are two kinds of people, those for whom no explanation is possible, and those for whom no explanation is necessary." I think that expression applies well to religion more than anything else.
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
In Japan, there is a saying that "Shinto is for marrying, Buddhism is for burying."Simple Minded wrote:Sure! Why not?Zack Morris wrote:Is it possible to believe in more than one religion at a time?Marcus wrote: Zack, just like me, you're a believer too . . we both believe . . you have your religion, I have mine. Surely you have better things to do than try to rehash something that has never been settled and never will be in this age.
At the Buddhist Endoji Temple [円頓寺] in Kita, Osaka, one finds a Shinto shrine within the grounds.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
Why do physicists prefer to have both a wife and a mistress.Parodite wrote:Hows the wife? Got laid lately? Mistresses?Simple Minded wrote:You make me proud Grasshopper.... As you have said, we are so similar... it is scary!Parodite wrote:
Wow.. so deep SM! Always standing in the shadows of other people's words... and making fun of them with that never ending same riddle of absolute relativism, you, that last man standing laughing.. the rest floored and dumbed down by your simple minded brilliance!:P
But, you should try something new bro! Lest not you.. but boredom is the final killer. Surprise us.. the whomever feels belonging to that us that is "we", but of course.. as you will always remind "us", it is all about myself in the end. At least... according to you.. (I think) Give it try... who knows.
If he's not with the wife, she thinks that he's with the mistress.
If he's not with the mistress, she thinks that he's with the wife.
Meanwhile, he have go to the lab and get some damn work done.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
In Japan, there is a saying that "Shinto is for marrying, Buddhism is for burying."Typhoon wrote:Simple Minded wrote:Sure! Why not?Zack Morris wrote:Is it possible to believe in more than one religion at a time?Marcus wrote: Zack, just like me, you're a believer too . . we both believe . . you have your religion, I have mine. Surely you have better things to do than try to rehash something that has never been settled and never will be in this age.
Tyhoon,
I would like to hear more on the specifics of this breakdown. Marriage ceremonies are very much public displays of gaiety (no not that kind of gay... ). Funerals much more solemn. You thoughts?
The core beliefs of most religions seem remarkably similar to a non-scholar such as myself. They seem mostly to self-segregate on the less philosophical, less spiritual (my opinion) aspects of names, dates, and places.
Re: To St. Zack, the Evangelist . . .
They're hedging their bets... Because they are familiar with Schrödinger's Cat?Typhoon wrote:
Why do physicists prefer to have both a wife and a mistress?
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Couldn't agree more . . thanks.Simple Minded wrote:"There are two kinds of people, those for whom no explanation is possible, and those for whom no explanation is necessary."
I wrote that one down . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6168
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
Somehow I missed this one. It's absolutely possible. Hindus often believe in Christ as an avatar of Krishna/Shiva, and the Roman standard was 'the more gods the better'. Buddhism does not require any belief in a divinity, so it is easily melded into many religions.Zack Morris wrote:Is it possible to believe in more than one religion at a time?Marcus wrote: Zack, just like me, you're a believer too . . we both believe . . you have your religion, I have mine. Surely you have better things to do than try to rehash something that has never been settled and never will be in this age.
For just about any religion but Christianity, beliefs are incidental or they are tautological relationships to rites and physical actions which have little to do with belief in philosophical constructs. Christianity has roots in Greek philosophy and rhetoric, so doctrine (or correct belief) is quite important to Christians. This is much less true in its close relatives, Judaism and Islam.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
Gotta disagree . .1). . It's absolutely possible [to believe in more than one religion]. Hindus often believe in Christ as an avatar of Krishna/Shiva, and the Roman standard was 'the more gods the better'. Buddhism does not require any belief in a divinity, so it is easily melded into many religions.
2) For just about any religion but Christianity, beliefs are incidental or they are tautological relationships to rites and physical actions which have little to do with belief in philosophical constructs. 3) Christianity has roots in Greek philosophy and rhetoric, so doctrine (or correct belief) is quite important to Christians. This is much less true in its close relatives, Judaism and Islam.
1) Though Hindus, Muslims, and more "believe in" Christ after some fashion or other, they are not Christians by a long shot. It is impossible to hold to more than one religion at the same time.
2) No. Belief defines Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and more.
3) Better said, Christianity has been—in parts, times, and places—infected with Greek philosophy à la Augustine, Origen, St. Thomas and more.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
But Jesus himself was very much infected with Judaism.Marcus wrote:3) Better said, Christianity has been—in parts, times, and places—infected with Greek philosophy à la Augustine, Origen, St. Thomas and more.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
He was indeed, Rhap, and in Jesus, Judaism blossomed and came into its own.Parodite wrote:But Jesus himself was very much infected with Judaism.Marcus wrote:3) Better said, Christianity has been—in parts, times, and places—infected with Greek philosophy à la Augustine, Origen, St. Thomas and more.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6168
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Pissing in the wind . .
It is only Christianity which has codified belief to mean intellectually accepting a specific creed. There are no Islamic, Judaic or Mormonic creeds.Marcus wrote:Gotta disagree . .1). . It's absolutely possible [to believe in more than one religion]. Hindus often believe in Christ as an avatar of Krishna/Shiva, and the Roman standard was 'the more gods the better'. Buddhism does not require any belief in a divinity, so it is easily melded into many religions.
2) For just about any religion but Christianity, beliefs are incidental or they are tautological relationships to rites and physical actions which have little to do with belief in philosophical constructs. 3) Christianity has roots in Greek philosophy and rhetoric, so doctrine (or correct belief) is quite important to Christians. This is much less true in its close relatives, Judaism and Islam.
1) Though Hindus, Muslims, and more "believe in" Christ after some fashion or other, they are not Christians by a long shot. It is impossible to hold to more than one religion at the same time.
2) No. Belief defines Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and more.
3) Better said, Christianity has been—in parts, times, and places—infected with Greek philosophy à la Augustine, Origen, St. Thomas and more.
All good Muslims, Jews and Mormons are assured of a pleasant afterlife if they do what is expected by the community. Internal cognitive notions are irrelevant.
Your concept of religion is too limited, Marcus. Religion is how a community relates to the unknown. Buddhism, Scientology and scientism do not even postulate a divine being but they are religious because they developed in community.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila