tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6570058894554053192..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Scientism and Bertrand Russell's neutral monismmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18895793748823825252014-05-16T13:59:24.302-04:002014-05-16T13:59:24.302-04:00Considering the costs of college, taking a year or...Considering the costs of college, taking a year or two longer is not trivial. I completely agree with your support of liberal education don't get me wrong but college and education in general are in a sense workforce training and must be economically viableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26824301396358108652013-12-06T20:52:57.949-05:002013-12-06T20:52:57.949-05:00Adm.
Thanks for the response. I thought you migh...Adm. <br /><br />Thanks for the response. I thought you might have an interesting take on the correlation. <br />I think the comparison perhaps gives us a window into the motives of those influences that promote scientism consciously. I suspect that most people are subject to it. That is to say, most adherents of scientism are unwittingly accepting the dogmas associated with it as 'fact', and once it is successfully absorbed into the world view, it is not something that even occurs to them. Hence all the denial. <br />But, there are those influences that actively promote it. <br />I suspect a socio-political motive and goal similar to that described in Orwell's work.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74126092641412629792013-12-06T19:12:55.788-05:002013-12-06T19:12:55.788-05:00'After St Thomas baptized Aristotle'.
LOL...'After St Thomas baptized Aristotle'.<br /><br />LOL. So Thomas Aquinas was an early Mormon?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75095267912928564182013-12-06T16:26:04.912-05:002013-12-06T16:26:04.912-05:00Ilion:
Your point about materialism and determini...Ilion:<br /><br />Your point about materialism and determinism is an excellent one, and I agree with it. Materialism is such an incoherent stance that there must be some other doctrine underlying it, and mechanism and determinism is likely the preference of most materialists. <br /><br />Searle, a philosopher of the mind who is an atheist and can be quite annoying, did comment on materialists that engaging their arguments was very difficult and ultimately futile, because they disregard coherence and logic and will basically say anything to buttress their metaphysics. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48793179378506941992013-12-06T16:21:43.407-05:002013-12-06T16:21:43.407-05:00Ilion:
I share your distrust of Russell, but neut...Ilion:<br /><br />I share your distrust of Russell, but neutral monism is a powerful argument against both materialism and scientism. <br /><br />Russell was wrong in many things (eg his atheism), and he was a libertine to say the least, but I think that he was a rather effective critic of materialism. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78918038051453524412013-12-06T16:19:10.525-05:002013-12-06T16:19:10.525-05:00I agree that materialism is a catastrophe, and dua...I agree that materialism is a catastrophe, and dualism is certainly not. Materialism is just ideologically motivated lying, basically, and hardly even a theory. <br /><br />Dualism comes in all sorts of flavors. Substance dualism has its learned adherents, including JP Moreland and William Land Craig, both of whom I hold in very high esteem. My problem with substance dualism is that it is originally Cartesian, and Descartes' metaphysics is so jumbled that it infects the rest of his philosophy. <br /><br />Property dualism is held by many others, including Ben Libet and David Chalmers. It is a respectable view, although I think that it inevitably reduces to epiphenominalism, which is not tenable. <br /><br />I adhere to Thomistic dualism, which describes the mind as a power of the soul, which is the substantial form of the body. It is a rigorous consistent metaphysical system, and is deeply Christian (after St. Thomas baptized Aristotle.)mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61067534667628886452013-12-06T14:59:39.554-05:002013-12-06T14:59:39.554-05:00Curio:
I'll have to read Couglin. I would cer...Curio:<br /><br />I'll have to read Couglin. I would certainly agree that Aristotle is presupposed in much of science today, even if it is very truncated hylemorphism. <br /><br />Regarding taking 10 years to get a science BA, acquaintance with the abysmal metaphysics of half-educated scientists like Hawking and Krause and Dawkins suggests that several years of education in the classics, and especially in philosophy, would be a huge improvement. I strongly believe that all college education should start with 2 full years of general education, focused on the classics and Great Books, before specialization. If college takes a year or two longer, so be it.<br /><br />My oldest daughter had 2 years of classics and general education at a special program at NYU (she was a bio major and did her bio in the last two years). It was wonderful. My youngest daughter is a sophomore and has heavy general requirements (including-- theology!) at a Jesuit college, and it's great as well. <br /><br />I had a core curriculum in college, which included the classics, art and music humanities, literature humanities. I use that stuff in my life more than I use the biochem I majored in. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23587785087124140982013-12-06T14:59:18.986-05:002013-12-06T14:59:18.986-05:00C-Rex: "I get the impression the reductionism...C-Rex: "I get the impression the reductionism and resultant eliminative materialism of scientism has similar connotations to Orwell's 'newspeak'."<br /><br />I hadn't thought of it that way, but a moment of reflection suggests to me that you are right.<br /><br />Orwell's Newspeak was a linguistic tool designed to eliminate freedom of thought. Eliminative materialism seeks to negate the need for a tool. <br /><br />Eliminate the need for a tool, and scientism, by default and the process of elimination, emerges as the last man standing.<br /><br />This worries Austin Hughes (Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences - USC), who notes<br /><br /><i>[S]cientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.<br /><br />Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology [e.g. multiverse] to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.</i> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />--- The New Atlantis (#37, 2012)<br /><br />Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83267817355926008412013-12-06T14:46:46.119-05:002013-12-06T14:46:46.119-05:00**Only with the hand in place can the arm truly gr...**Only with the hand in place can the arm truly grasp what it reaches for, and the hand reach for what it can grasp. **<br /><br />I really have to try this sleeping thing. I hear it does wonders. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30551276900609362832013-12-06T14:43:45.885-05:002013-12-06T14:43:45.885-05:00Hoo,
"What distinguishes science from philo...Hoo, <br /><br />"What distinguishes science from philosophy is not whether you use employ hard thinking. You do that in both of these fields. The distinction is that one relies on empirical testing of its theories and the other doesn't. "<br /><br />Two sided coin, my friend. <br />Philosophy (just as science does) requires a metaphysical foundation. A series of assumptions about external reality. This is true. But the difference you illustrate is not just a strength of the sciences, it is also a limit. <br />Philosophy (other than natural - science) does not entirely rely on methods of empirical testing, and is thus not limited by it. In fact, philosophy can both direct and limit it's offshoots. It can drive inquiry, and it can restrict it. <br />In simplified terms: Just because we can do something, does not mean we should. <br />It is not science that prevents us from doing certain 'unethical' things within science, nor does it tell us what we should do; it is sense of morality that guides these effort. <br />The philosophical foundation. <br /> <br />Sometimes those directions and limits are bad, sometimes they are very good. But, they are always inherit. <br />Science relies on philosophy. Philosophy, on the other hand, finds science extremely useful. <br />This is precisely why both disciplines compliment each other. <br />Philosophers that deny the value of science are muted, ignored, Luddites. In doing so, they limit their ability to see their ideas tested. They are harmless, uninteresting fools, for the most part. <br />Scientists who deny philosophy are rudderless tools. They are driven by philosophies they have no idea even exist or that they hold them, and are quite probably not even their own. These people are far more dangerous and susceptible to being duped or inclined to potentially destructive and downright evil behaviour than a philosopher of an anti-scientific bent. <br />They are also a lot more common. <br /><br />Like it or not, Philosophy plays a HUGE role in all efforts of inquiry. That includes those of science. <br />Let's use some of my airy analogies, shall we? <br />(You know you love them! ;) <br /><br />Science is not some capsule that has reached orbit and can now discard philosophy like some booster section of a Saturn rocket system. It never will reach such a height. <br />Rather science is like the hand on the arm of philosophy. That is to say: They are integral. If the hand of science is severed it is without direction. It is dead flesh and will rot. <br />Without the hand, the arm of philosophy is a bleeding stump. Even if cauterized and tended to, it is crippled. Only together can they work with efficacy and purpose. <br />Only with the system intact can the hand function at all. <br />Only with the hand in place can the arm truly grasp what it reaches for, and the arm reach for what it can grasp. <br />This arm, of course, must be attached to a body and mind - which we could call the 'metaphysical' core of inquiry. <br />So we move from the mental, to the abstract, to the practical and physical in that order. Remove one link... and the consequences should be quite obvious. <br />You see my meaning? (pun intended, that time)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4031108649319295882013-12-06T14:11:05.464-05:002013-12-06T14:11:05.464-05:00Hoo,
That's valid. A BA in physics would take...Hoo,<br /><br />That's valid. A BA in physics would take a decade if you had to read through the history of western civilization.<br /><br />I've known students in "great books" colleges who read Einstein's papers, Darwin's Origins, and Newtons Principia as part of a liberal arts degree. And they loved it, believe it or not. But I agree, if you're studying one of the sciences it's probably something you can pursue on your own time.<br /><br />However all of those examples you gave - Newton, Einstein, Lagrange, etc. - are in the domain of science. Modern science. The Physics, despite its name, bares little resemblance to today's method of making mathematical models to describe and predict the behaviors of things like particles or planets.<br /><br />Coughlin's argument is that modern science <i>presupposes</i>, rather than discards, the foundation laid by Aristotle. It's controversial to modern ears, but I found it convincing and astounding really. Changed the way I looked at science. <br /><br />- Curio<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16091483054558660022013-12-06T13:11:19.264-05:002013-12-06T13:11:19.264-05:00Hoo:
[You are arguing that science (which include...Hoo:<br /><br />[You are arguing that science (which includes thought!) is not a superior way of learning about the world. I disagree with that.]<br /><br />What do you mean by "the world"? If you mean the aspects of nature that can be studied empirically, according to causal relations, then yes science is a very effective (yet still limited) way to understand nature. Science needs metaphysics, epistemology, logic, mathematics, even ethics and other areas of philosophy-- science is dependent on many things that are not themselves part of science. <br /><br />If you define "the world" to include the mind, art, literature, history, politics and a whole host of things that involve first person experience and human thoughts and motives, then science is woefully inadequate. <br /><br />Science has its place. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63139729011299454382013-12-06T12:54:06.727-05:002013-12-06T12:54:06.727-05:00The thing about materialism -- and the thing that ...The thing about materialism -- and the thing that throws off so many people's understanding about it -- is not that it is so much about <i>matter</i>, as it is about <i>mechanical necessity</i> or determinism.<br /><br />The *reason* that so-called "eliminative materialism" (*) denies the reality of the immaterial mind is not because the mind is immaterial, but because the mind is not determined by mechanical necessity: it is the <i>freedom</i> of the mind that offends materialists, not its immateriality.<br /><br />(*) All materialism is eliminative -- there is no other kind. The materialists who claim to be non-eliminativists are simply materialists who refuse to *admit* the eliminativism that is inescapably inherent in materialism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19622534338617803612013-12-06T12:35:31.385-05:002013-12-06T12:35:31.385-05:00"Russell was, as you probably know, an atheis..."<i>Russell was, as you probably know, an atheist, but not a materialist.</i>"<br /><br />I disagree. He may not have admitted, even to himself, that he was a materialist, but he was. The only atheists who are not materialists are the sort (such as Buddhists) who deny that anything at all is real.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55733212931589101842013-12-06T12:30:11.150-05:002013-12-06T12:30:11.150-05:00"Both materialism and dualism have their well..."<i>Both materialism and dualism have their well-trod problems-- materialism seems to explain away, rather than explain, mental states, and dualism notoriously suffers from the interaction problem-- how does an immaterial mind interact with a material brain?</i>"<br /><br />But (as you no doubt understand ... and some of your commenters will never admit), there is a world of difference in these two sets of problems. <br /><br />Being unable to "explain" how the immaterial mind interacts with -- and, in context, *controls* -- the material body does not falsify the observation that the immaterial mind does just that.<br /><br />But having to deny readily observable entities and phenomena in order to preserve your metaphysic shows the metaphysic to be not only incomplete, but false.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86212292307615315402013-12-06T12:07:02.725-05:002013-12-06T12:07:02.725-05:00Glad you liked Mermin's article, Curio.
I wi...Glad you liked Mermin's article, Curio. <br /><br />I will take a look at Coughlin's introduction to Aristotle. However, my expectations are low. Let me explain why. <br /><br />You don't need to read Newton's <i>Principia</i> in order to learn classical physics. In fact, I emphatically do not recommend doing that. Almost no university subjects its students to such cruel and unusual punishment. (A notable exception is St. John's College in Annapolis and Santa Fe with its Great Books curriculum.) The book is tedious. It relies on the math that was available to the scholars of the time (no calculus). It's an awful read. Nor do I recommend reading Einstein's original papers on relativity, unless you are interested in learning the history of the subject, rather than the subject itself. <br /><br />That's how things are in science. The theoretical arguments advanced by some genius is internalized and improved by his contemporaries. Their output is internalized by the next generation and reformulated again. Distant generations of scientists never even see the original form of the theory. Nor should they suffer doing that: more often than not, the next generations put the theory in a much clearer form. <br /><br />Newtonian mechanics is only Newtonian in name. Lots of Newton's successors have worked to bring it to the current form. Newton had no idea about the principle of least action or a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian. Potential energy and angular momentum were all greek to him. <br /><br />The idea that one must go and study entire works of a great master is completely foreign to science. Philosophers have to suffer through reading Aristotle's <i>Physics</i>. Biologists don't ever need to read Darwin's <i>Origin</i>. <br /><br />Big difference.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22423721518984419282013-12-06T11:52:51.887-05:002013-12-06T11:52:51.887-05:00- Curio, not that anyone cares, though we've h...- Curio, not that anyone cares, though we've had a few back-n-forths already. I liked that article on EPR and Quantum Mechanics btwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68150947540632046952013-12-06T11:51:34.593-05:002013-12-06T11:51:34.593-05:00Hoo,
The best scholastic philosophers did take em...Hoo,<br /><br />The best scholastic philosophers <i>did</i> take empirical observation very seriously. The armchair cogitating tends to be a bit of a caricature. The difference is that natural philosophy considers general experience, science considers particular experience - usually under experimental conditions.<br /><br />The best, and I mean <b>best</b>, explanation I've ever read is Glen Coughlin's introduction to his own translation of Aristotle's Physics.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Natural-Hearing-Moerbeke-Translation/dp/1587316293<br /><br />Worth every penny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5880624104971626492013-12-06T11:04:59.370-05:002013-12-06T11:04:59.370-05:00crus: Perception, metaphysics, and philosophy are ...crus: <i>Perception, metaphysics, and philosophy are all foundations of scientific study. Without the application of these more basic mental tools, science is IMPOSSIBLE. </i> <br /><br />Agreed. <br /><br />That said, these tools are used in many fields, including philosophy, science, literature, you name it. <br /><br />What distinguishes science from philosophy is not whether you use employ hard thinking. You do that in both of these fields. The distinction is that one relies on empirical testing of its theories and the other doesn't. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-24724084871478486832013-12-06T11:01:52.502-05:002013-12-06T11:01:52.502-05:00crus: You folks are making a reductionist, simplis...crus: <i>You folks are making a reductionist, simplistic argument against complex nested systems of thought.</i> <br /><br />In a word, no. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6368880057219901742013-12-06T11:01:49.317-05:002013-12-06T11:01:49.317-05:00Adm.
Is it just me, or is there something distin...Adm. <br /><br />Is it just me, or is there something distinctly Orwellian about this back and forth? <br />I get the impression the reductionism and resultant eliminative materialism of scientism has similar connotations to Orwell's 'newspeak'.<br />I would posit that scientism cripples scientific inquiry in an almost identical fashion to that described by Orwell's modified language crippled the ability to express ideas. <br />Your thoughts on the parallel? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5642275681382558352013-12-06T10:55:46.790-05:002013-12-06T10:55:46.790-05:00Adm.
"It's sad to see it go."
Indeed...Adm.<br />"It's sad to see it go."<br />Indeed it is. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62476273014040386652013-12-06T10:50:50.842-05:002013-12-06T10:50:50.842-05:00Asking good questions is important in any discipli...Asking good questions is important in any discipline, be it philosophy, science, economics, or literature. This is a sideshow. <br /><br />We are talking about different ways of acquiring knowledge. Philosophy attempts to do that through pure thought. Science through a combination of pure thought and empirical testing. You are arguing that science (which includes thought!) is not a superior way of learning about the world. I disagree with that.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86264663883413546952013-12-06T10:45:56.548-05:002013-12-06T10:45:56.548-05:00Hoo,
With all due respect - and I do think you ar...Hoo, <br />With all due respect - and I do think you are among the most clear thinkers among your set, that is no platitude nor meant as flattery - you are missing the point. The idea has been lost to argument and invective. <br />Have a look at my response below. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90583554447316060522013-12-06T10:44:13.666-05:002013-12-06T10:44:13.666-05:00Hoo:
[See, Michael, this is what distinguishes sc...Hoo:<br /><br />[See, Michael, this is what distinguishes science from philosophy. You can have a perfectly good philosophical argument (as Einstein had). At the end of the day, however, it is empirical verification that judges its usefulness. Philosophy—pure thought—can't do it alone.]<br /><br />My favorite professor in college-- Bob Pollack, in whose lab I did cancer research-- told me the most important principle of scientific research: "The most important aspect of research is not the result you get, but the question you ask. Your result is meaningful only if your question is meaningful."<br /><br />How would the Empiricists know what experiment to do and what it meant, if not for the philosophical (metaphysical) questions?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com