Pre-science and scientific mentality
Below is a rough, first-draft which describes two kinds of people.
(I think it's appropriate for this forum.)
Comments?
(I think it's appropriate for this forum.)
Comments?
Comments (92)
The bigger the list gets the more problematic it becomes.
Science is rather a spectrum from minimal to maximal scientific rigor.
Can you suggest a better label than "pre-science"?
However, absit iniuria, science has a rather disturbing down side which can be summed up in the quote below:
[quote=Neil deGrasse Tyson]So we're just bags of chemistry?[/quote]
Too much information, woah!
Nice! :up:
It still puzzles me why so many philosophers swing this way. I understand the previous arguments of Kuhn, Feyerbend and others. But I thought surely this mid-twentieth century bias had dissipated in the wake of the amazing work science has done, in neuroscience alone, and the obvious fact that science can admit its faults and update them (ex. Newtonian physics).
Science and philosophy have a common ancestry. And many many philosophers tried to make philosophy more scientific in practice - another thing that no one here seems willing to admit.
The divide strikes me as petty competition between disciplines and makes both sides look like high school-level combatants.
can you source this quote for me?
I take science as we know it today as beginning about the time of Newton.
Christianity originated before modern science.
That is, you haven't set science against pre-science so much as christianity against liberal humanism. - yes.
But we can enjoy watching the apologist's special pleading... , .
- The past
- The future
- Knowledge
- Education
- Expertise
Most of the rest though are not really science vs non-science, rather opposite philosophical or political viewpoints (progressive vs traditional, religious vs non-religious, etc). Concepts like people are worthy are not really science concepts, they are philosophical ones. I can't think of a scientific experiment designed to measure the worthiness of people.
Or blame .I guess.
I'm not 100% happy with the labels.
Progressive vs traditional is good but I'd need to resist the temptation to make it progressive vs regressive.
Is this a scientific classification, or a prescientific one? If the former, you should include the research and statistics.
Your double reply threw me off. :grin:
Sweet dreams.
Why don't you ask @Agent Smith who brought up this quote? :smile:
I don't know how to describe a post-scientific column. Do you have any ideas?
What I believe to be the singular biggest difference between these is the current modern scientific view is infinite whilst the prescientific view is finite. Meaning we have, for the most part, transitioned from a relatively recent view of the world in which the boundaries were pretty well established whereas in modernity we are in a boundless realm ironically the latter is fairly limiting psychologically as we cannot fathom the infinite where in the past reality was finite and more tangible.
What you have presented is some simplistic form of Christianity versus some simplistic form of science.
edit: Your characterizations of pluralism and economic health, for example, are not truly realized in the scientific weltanschauung, but are consistent with the emerging post-scientific ideals.
If - as a philosopher - you cant see the faulty reasoning in this conclusion, then theres a major problem here. And yet a lot of people on this forum make this same mistake.
Obviously, science isnt responsible for these things, any more than Nietzsche is responsible for the Nazis misinterpretation of the Uberman.
Obvioiusly not. But then again, science is not a way of living either. Which was kind of the point.
With hindsight, I wish I had named the columns "Type 1" and "Type 2" so that more comments would have addressed the rows.
I know youre not anti-science which is why I question the term post-science. If science doesnt cause these problems any more than philosophy, why single it out as opposed to post-philosophy?
I watched parts of this video. All 3 participants look quite brilliant, esp. Kate. So, posted the following comment:
"Excellent and very enjoyable video, with brilliant participants. So, I have a question for them, but also for everyone else here: Do you believe that we are just "chemistry"? If that is so, why don't they teach, in chemistry classes, that human thought, logic, imagination, memory and all human attributes as well as consciousness are all produced by chemical reactions and how? Or do they?"
The question is also for you who claims that "we are a bag of chemistry" and you too @Agent Smith, who first brought up this subject.
We're just a complex self-sustaining electro-chemical reaction according to science. Holists disagree, saying there's more. Bring in evolution and we're further ... reduced
I'm not sure where are you referring to with "holists" --medicine or philosophy-- but there's a very large part of people in the West and almost the whole East who disagree.
Quoting Agent Smith
I feel squeezed by just reading this! :grimace: ... :grin:
I sympathize.
Danke!
I understand and respect those other opinions. But how then do holists avoid dualism?
It's rather humbling and depressing when even our loftiest thoughts, our deepest feelings can be shown to be nothing but means by which evolution keeps a particular ape species willing and even eager to play the game (of life).
I honestly find this astounding. I don't find it depressing, but ok, I can see why you do. The question is - is it true? That's the issue.
Of course we haven't discovered this - nobody actually KNOWS that consciousness is part of the bag of chemicals. I believe it will be proven to be, but of course I can't prove it.
But I used to find it depressing that life has no meaning in a teleological sense. I used to find it depressing that there is no God, no heaven and just endless darkness when we die. But I found out that no "purpose" can mean freedom to create my OWN reasons to live, and no God freed me to respect thinking that was logical and required proof - not just wishful thinking.
Might I suggest dispensing with the notion that our thoughts, intentions and qualia all exist in some - never fully explained - sphere of their own (yet with the ability to dip into our biology and affect our behaviour) could be equally freeing for you?
Isn't your brain in all it's powers not astounding enough for you? Or evolutionary adaptation too mundane?
As the Roxy Music song goes "What Do You Want From Life?"
They don't. Because (as I'm sure you know) consciousness is the hard problem, and hasn't been explained by philosophy or science. We're all just speculating here. When/if they find an empirical explanation for it, maybe they will teach it in high school...maybe they won't. I'm not hugely confident the school system will be up for it - evolution isn't even taught in a lot of American schools.
There are still people asking "if we evolved from apes...why are there still apes around?" Right?
Having said that - answer the rest of my post!! hahaha
EDIT: I meant my other post, pardone.
That's true, it was an adoption of the given schema. The problem is really one of abuse and worship of technology. But then, conflation of technology and science is another current problem. There is a better term I'm sure.
I know. I'm just being polite. :smile:
Quoting GLEN willows
I know that too. This is often my answer to those who believe --some of them are quite certain-- that consciousness is a product of and ilocated in the brain.
Quoting GLEN willows
Well, there is an empirical explanation: Consciousness can only be experienced.
It is not something physical that can be studied by science in a laboratory!
But this cannot be teached in a school. It is a philosophical subject. Otherwise, in psychology course that I took in college, I remember that they talk about consciousness as something given, and of course, it is assumed that it occurs in the brain, at least they believed until then (1974).
Quoting GLEN willows
:up: Good question. I have thought about this too. But I give it a slack, because there's a possibility, that --according to evolutionists always-- we have been evolved from a specific, more advanced race of apes. Yet, this remains to be proved. As do hundreds of other things regarding humans!
So is your philosophy based on what is the most likely/logical argument, or the one most like NOT to be depressing to you.
Me, I get more depressed by the concept of hard determinism. My whole life is predetermined. Every free move I make...isn't?
But the thing about evolution is - we can go against our instincts. And we can fully engage our homosexuality, if that is our true nature, or decide not to be parents...both of which go against the needs of the Selfish Gene. But bah - you've made up your mind and my rantings will have no further effect. Enjoy your "non-depressing" candy-coloured magical unicorn philosophy. (just kiddin')
EDIT: I just realized Agent Smith is a character in one of those Martrix movies!
If not the brain, where is it?
Quoting Alkis Piskas"
No, it's not a good question. It's a stupid question. Don't philosophers study evolution? We didn't evolve from apes...both humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. But even if we did evolve from apes, why couldn't they still be around? As Richard Dawkins said "it's like saying "if my ancestors were from Europe, why are Europeans still around??"
Oh, thought you knoew that it is not in the brain ...
Well, this is is a topic by itself. Talking about it would start a new thread and I think we are already talking off-topic
Quoting GLEN willows
By experiencing it! You are experiencing it, too! But most probably you just have never thought that you do! :smile:
There are a lot of things we are experience and never think about them. Mainly because we take them as granted!
Quoting GLEN willows
No, I can't. Because no one has PROVED it. And this was my point!
Quoting GLEN willows
I sad I know that. I didn't say that anyone has or even can solved it. Yet, and I also said this too, it is a philosophical rather a scientific subject. That is why my motto is "Consciousness can be only experienced".
Quoting GLEN willows
OK. I was mistaken about your intention regarding this question. Nevertheless, I believe it's a plausible question. For one thing, I have thought it myself! :grin:
But, no more about evolution, please ...
And I think it's time to stop being off topic. Agree?
[quote=J. P. Morgan]A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason.[/quote]
There's a difference between describing two types of people and a binary categorization which assumes every person belongs to one of the two types.
Example: there are two types of people: those who like mangoes and those who don't. This is not binary as there are plenty of people who've never tasted a mango and therefore don't like or dislike it.
:fire: :clap: finally a hearty YES from me.
I know avoiding simple questions is a standard technique. Im still waiting for a reason to believe that consciousness outside, but affecting, the brain isnt dualism. Its first year Intro Philosophy stuff people.
The bare chart lacks context. Is this Binary classification intended to be an idealized snapshot of pluralistic reality, or to refer to an historical watershed like the Enlightenment? Does it apply now, or at some future time? Is the division innate or learned? How is it different from any other binary catalogue of human types (e.g. introvert/extrovert)? Are we stuck, or can we change classes? The table could be interpreted as contrasting open-mind Liberals vs closed-mind Conservatives. I assume you will expand on the underlying concept, to put it into a broader philosophical context, such as Universal Theology.
In the 60s, a similar notion became popular, the astrological Age of Aquarius. However, in that model, the Science category would be characterized by knowledge of abstract cosmic influences upon humans. Ironically, like most salvation schemes, this leap from a benighted past would be imposed upon humanity by outside forces, instead of from within, due to learning from experience. Ironically, although "astrological ages are taken to be associated with the precession of the equinoxes . . . . Astrologers do not agree on when the Aquarian age will start or even if it has already started." Apparently, after this cosmic turning-point, there would still be "two kinds of people" : enlightened and benighted ___Wiki
In Christian doctrine, similar either-or categories are "saved" & "unsaved', yet people are given a choice of which class they want to belong to. And they have an outline of how this personal & global paradigm shift will occur, and when, give or take a few millennia. Anyway, I'm just riffing on a theme of binary categories. :smile:
The Turning Point : Science, Society, and the Rising Culture is a 1982 book by Fritjof Capra :
Capra outlines and traces the history of science and economics, highlighting flaws in the Cartesian, Newtonian, and reductionist paradigms which have come to light in the context of contemporary empirical understanding of the physical sciences. He writes that these paradigms are now inadequate to guide human behavior and policy with regard to modern technology and ecology, then argues that society needs to develop the concepts and insights of holism and systems theory to solve its complex problems. His argument is clearly and strongly expressed, for a wide readership, presuming no prior knowledge of any branch of the sciences. For physicists the book is an instructive guide to why and how today's new science may affect tomorrow's society.
Cronus is an enemy to theism.
Applies now. Probably a bit of both innate and learned. Education can help change from left column to right. Open-mind Liberals vs closed-mind Conservatives is one interpretation.Thinking of adding to my Universal Theology article.
Not so. Holists would say that 2 x 2 = 4.
Holism is not mere addition, but multiplication.*1
The whole system emerges from complex interactions of all components.
Holism is not just a just a bunch of things, but an integrated structure of things operating together for a single purpose; a coordinated function.
When a neural network of nodes begins to function in an integrated manner (i.e. purposefully), to process incoming/outgoing energy/information, the system as a whole becomes Animated & Conscious. That's the basic theory of IIT.*2
Any questions? :nerd:
*1. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*2. Slime Mold (part plant, part animal) is emergent life & mind : single cell without neurons, it becomes animated and intelligent enough to coordinate its syrupy actions to find food. Its gooey innards function together to process information, in order to serve its needs as a multipart organism.
How a single cell slime mold makes smart decisions without a central nervous system
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210223121643.htm
I'm not aware of any official doctrine for Holism*1. It's just a philosophical concept or principle. However, in my own personal worldview, Enformationism, consciousness is indeed an emergent property of matter/energy. Logically though, the Potential for both Life & Mind must be inherent in Nature. Possibly encoded in the original Singularity, from which all things in the world emerged. The creative effects of that Holistic tendency can explain why evolution is progressive and self-organizing, without external inputs.
In the Wiki link below, Jan Smuts calls Holism "a fundamental principle". In my own theory, I coined a new term "Enformy" to identify the role of Causal Information in evolution. Physicists gave it the inappropriate name "negentropy". Both of these are philosophical hypotheses, and the only evidence is logical inference from historical patterns, combined with the expanded theory of Information. Which links Information with Energy (positive change) and Entropy (negative change). :smile:
*1. Holism and Evolution :
After identifying the need for reform in the fundamental concepts of matter, life, and mind (chapter 1), Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of 1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3), and biology (chapter 4), and concludes that the close approach to each other of the concepts of matter, life, and mind, and the partial overflow of each other's domains, imply that there is a fundamental principle (Holism) of which they are the progressive outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
Apologies. I have trouble parsing some sentences.
http://www.enformationism.info/Enformity/
Oh Come on!!
Where does this theory derive from, it deals with a lot of scientific principles. Can you quote some studies?
No really, sometimes I read in a way that doesn't allow me to grasp meaning.
With every post I'm afraid. Your penmanship though is really something!
No. That was a secondary website I started, but got side-tracked on the blog.
The Enformationism thesis is here :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
It describes how I arrived at the conclusion that the fundamental element of reality is Generic Information. Hence, Enformationism is proposed as an update of 19th century Materialism, and ancient Spiritualism. Since Physics is beginning to equate Information (mind stuff) with Energy, and Energy was equated, by Einstein, with Matter (mass), Generic Information is all of the above : Energy, Matter, Mind. To put it into a historical philosophical context :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : e.g. the Platonic Forms. :smile:
PS___I'm just applying cutting-edge science to my own personal worldview. The only thing I add is a title to tie all the bits & pieces together into a philosophical system.
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental
Quoting GLEN willows
This is not a scientific theory, so It doesn't quote academic or lab studies. It's a personal philosophical thesis, and quotes hundreds of scientist & philosopher opinions on physics and information theory. Because the primary subject (mind stuff) is immaterial, their speculations & conjectures are not verifiable empirically, but can make sense logically. :smile:
Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics
ed. by Paul Davies, physicist
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-and-the-nature-of-reality/811A28839BB7B63AAB63DC355FBE8C81
Lol - I write left-handed. Same as your compliment! :lol:
:lol:
Also a scientific mentality should be open to the idea that while we may know more about the universe our governments and corporations might very well end up making or using technology in ways that do not benefit us. I think society was better in the 90s. I don't think this means I do not have a scientific mentality. I don't think we can rule out other positions, based on values (not science or a lack thereof) that value other times, going back further in time.) Increased knowledge of the way things work doesn not necessarily mean things get better.
I think the chart also runs against at least the spirit of the values on the right hand side, since on the right hand side seeing value in diversity of culture and background seems contradicted by the negative view of the people on the left side. (the smorgasborg of cultures) I mean, I think it's great that the Amish exist, even if there are problems with their culture. I think what is presented as two types of cognitive types is slipping in values.
And I guess I consider many people to conflate science with technology and products which of course have scientific research in their making. One can be critical of the latter without being anti-science of pre-science. One can also decide that paradigmatic biases and/or profit making biases (via lobbying, lack of independent oversight, pr, control of media) can frame some technological advance/proliferation as scientific, when it is political, or aids a particular corporation or industry, but isn't so good for humans.
Trusting experts can be a problem for both the right and left hand types of people.
Yeah. I eventually decided the Enformity*1 concept might be a step too far into the woo-world*2. Not for me, but for those prejudiced against alternatives to Materialism & Determinism. However, I still use the related coinage "Enformy" as an alternative to the scientific term "negentropy". Although Enformationism is a metaphysical philosophical conjecture*3, I try to stay safely on the natural side of the woo-woo wonderland. Unfortunately, hard-core physicalist/materialists view any notion of "an organizing principle"*4 (Enformy, Elan Vital, Holism, Natural Selection) as definitely across the woo-line.
That's because mechanistic science is based on the concept of a random un-directed universe. Hence, it has no plausible explanation for the undeniable self-organizing features of Evolution. Ironically, Darwin's notion of "Natural Selection" was modeled on the artificial Cultural Selection by humans, who intentionally steered genetic evolution toward their own perverse goals, such as dogs with un-naturally short legs or noses. Even more ironic is the concept of option-limiting Natural Laws, with no law-making agency other than Cosmic Accident.
There are plenty of otherwise pragmatic physicists who have come to conclusions similar to Enformy. In fact, famous physicist John A. Wheeler got the ball rolling in an Information-Theoretic direction with his "it from bit"*5. If that's woo, then I must accept that pejorative label. But I prefer to call it "philosophy", which is ascientific, in that it projects our understanding beyond the world of the 5 senses into the realm of Reason, the sixth sense. That may sound New Agey, but with no incense, chanting, gurus, crystal power, etc., it's a pallid excuse for a super-natural spirituality. :smile:
*1. What is Enformity? :
[i]It attempts to steer a safe course between the Scylla of Materialistic Science & the Charybdis of Spiritualistic Faith.
? It follows the methodology of naturalistic Science as far as possible. But it does not shy away from meta-physical speculations where necessary.
? It will take issue with mainstream conventional Science, and with fringey unorthodox Pseudo-science.
? It deals with controversial technical scientific and philosophical questions, but from a laymans perspective.
? It uses some edgy New Agey Noetic terminology where necessary, but its not intended to promote any associated magical mystical notions.[/i]
http://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html
*2. Woo Woo :
(slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=woo+woo
FWIW, I don't accept any of those beliefs.
*3. Pragmatic Science is clearly better than theoretical Philosophy and mythical Religion for explaining the mundane details of the natural world. But for information about the universe as a whole, scientists put on their philosophical hats, and become Cosmologists. "In fact, for all its virtues, physics tells us precisely nothing about the nature of the physical Universe. . . . The truth is that physics is a tool for prediction." So, science can tell us how the universe works, as a reliable mechanical system. Yet when it tries to fathom the essential nature of reality, it comes up with the weird paradoxes and infinities of the sub-atomic (sub-material) realm of Quantum fields.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
*4. The Fundamental Organizing Principle of Nature that We have No Word for. :
Niels Bohr, Nobel Laureate in Physics, thought this principle was so important that he wrote it into his family crest: contraria sunt complementa, opposites are complements.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fundamental-organizing-principle-nature-we-have-word-frank-medlar?trk=pulse-article_more-articles_related-content-card
Note : the Latin concept is equivalent to the Eastern notion of Yin-Yang, and the digital code of 1/0 .
*5. It From Bit :
It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom at a very deep bottom, in most instances an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
It from bit! Précismént!
Some have taken issue with your labels for the "two kinds" : Science vs Pre-science. Yet, I suspect you had a good reason to word it that way. Perhaps though, it's ultimately about Rational Empirical vs Intuitive Mythical approaches to knowledge. Most ancient religions explained how the world works in terms of metaphorical myths, intended to sound plausible to people without technologies to extend their built-in senses. With few verifiable sources of general information, the myths were accorded some authority by claiming divine revelation, which would be difficult to prove, one way or another.
However, the non-revealed pre-science of Aristotle (observation & inference) was considered authoritative for centuries. Then, the additional requirements for replicability & falsifiability began to weed-out illusory or biased observations and erroneous inferences. The practical results of such empirical methods gained a lot of respect for post-Enlightenment science among the masses*1. But the Intuitive Mythical types still prefer their self-interest human-interest stories to the cold hard impersonal facts of science. So, it seems that many people pick & choose from both belief baskets : Objective Abstract Mechanical Science vs Subjective Metaphorical Personal Religion. Hence, not two types of people, but two types of worldviews, and two kinds of priest-experts : technological vs sociological. :smile:
PS___Another pertinent dichotomy might be Science (empirical) vs Science (theoretical). The latter is literally ascientific in the sense of non-empirical. So, you could think of the duality in terms of Science vs Philosophy.
*1. On the Intersection of Science and Religion :
The survey showed that just 16% of Christians in the U.S. say their religious beliefs often conflict with science
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion
GLEN willows With every post I'm afraid. Your penmanship though is really something
BTW in case my humour is too dry - or just not funny - I was making fun of myself. You said you have trouble grasping some posts, my reply was meant to imply that my posts are understandable to anyone with an IQ over 100.
I like your two suggestions for column labels.
"Intuitive, Mythical" vs. "Empirical, Rational" refer to epistemological methods, which may be the fundamental issues underlying the two columns.
"Subjective Metaphorical Personal Religion" vs. "Objective Abstract Mechanical Science" also refer to epistemological methods, though I'd drop "Mechanical" and replace it with "Public." Also, "Realistic" is an antonym of "Metaphorical". Thus,
"Subjective, Metaphorical, Personal Religion" vs. "Objective, Realistic, Public Science"
When (if) I add the table to my "Universal Theology" article, I'll probably use one (or maybe both). Thanks.
Intuitive, Mythical vs Empirical, Rational
Subjective, Metaphorical, Personal Religion vs Objective, Realist, Public Science
P.S. For anyone interested, current draft of article is at:
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
You took the words right out of my mouth mon ami!
There really was no pre-scientific epoch in human history unless science isn't really science.