Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Carrot Flower King]

Two cave men—Thag and Og—hunched on the ground.

Og: "Og cold. Og rub sticks together. Make fire."
Thag: "Og can't. Must invent non-contradiction principle first."

Just as well they didn't involve Ug, who (per a previous post of mine) was over the other side of the woods discovering what "sharp" means, despite not even having a word for "sharp" yet...

And then there was Ig, who was discovering drums and a lust for life...

 

[theprestige]

It's always funny when someone draws my attention to something I'd previously not given much thought, and by the time they're done arguing for why it's terrible, all they've done is convince me that it's actually kind of good.

Is scientism really justified? Well now that you mention it... Yeah, I think it kind of is justified.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Two cave men—Thag and Og—hunched on the ground.

Og: "Og cold. Og rub sticks together. Make fire."
Thag: "Og can't. Must invent non-contradiction principle first."

Og (angrily): "Fine. Not Og cold and Og not cold. Now shut up and help Og rub sticks."

 

[Axxman300]

Several of us have said to him by all means use AI to translate your words and ours but not to formulate your responses. Don't think anyone would be against using an "AI" to translate stuff.

There have ben a few posters who have used Google Translate to help them post. They've always told us they use Google Translate so we understood when their phrasing was off. The difference here is those people used their own words to reply. We're getting an AI-assisted response. And it is not helping the poster in making their point.

 

[Axxman300]

The Core Thesis:

If your answer is No (because math, formal logic, and rational coherence are valid non-empirical foundations), then we agree that empirical science has clear boundary conditions.

If your answer is Yes, then that statement itself must be empirically proven—which is logically impossible without circular reasoning.

Either way, the logical point holds. Which of those two positions do you actually stand behind?

This is exactly what I was talking about. You're trying to corner us into an either-or position.

In this entire thread nobody has bit on this because nobody who understands science and knowledge puts all their eggs in one basket. You are trying to argue with people who do not hold the views you accuse them of having.

 

[Axxman300]

You are equivocating on the word 'evidence'. In empirical science, it means observational data; in logic, it means deductive proof and internal consistency. Saying empirical data can refute a logical law is circular, as you must use logical laws (like non-contradiction) to interpret the data in the first place.I have no interest in defending the paranormal or any pseudo-scientific claims. My point was purely epistemological: empirical science requires a priori logical foundations to function.The core thesis stands on its own merits without any hidden agenda.

Here's the problem. Science tends to back up the real world. On the other hand, science does not back up the paranormal experience, at least as advertised.

 

[Axxman300]

Should add that logic and mathematics are tools, not philosophical constructs. Logic works to a point, but every once in a while counterintuitive situations arise, and logic changes with new information. Logic and math are key to the scientific method for the physical world. If I build a space probe, I need to get it into space. So I call a company that makes rockets, and give them the weight, dimensions, and where I'm sending the probe (orbit, or Saturn, or elsewhere). The company can tell me over the phone what what kind of rocket, and how many rockets I'll need, and how much fuel to use. That is logic and math and science doing their dance. The only hard number the rocket guy cannot give me is the final costs, and a firm delivery date. Rockets take time to build, parts need to be ordered or made, shipping can be an adventure, and diesel fuel prices have been a circus this year. So best the rocket guy can do is estimate the cost, and the delivery date. That part is not empirical science, just an educated guess.

And since I know nothing about rocket making, or space probe building what I wrote above is an educated guess based on my years in shipping and receiving, and model rocketry. I know it's more complex, but I think it's a decent illustration of a real world situation where science does all the main work, but can't give an exact number for the out-the-door price, or when the rocket(s) will be available for delivery. That's the real world.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Fair enough. Let's drop the meta-discussion entirely and keep it simple.My argument remains: any empirical observation (like rubbing sticks) already presumes logical principles like non-contradiction to make sense of the data.

I disagree. Formal logical principles are not required for intelligibility. They're a good idea if you want your interpretations to attain a degree of sophistication and rigor, but they're not necessary to get one started; informal heuristics work just fine. Humans used them for millennia before logic was a thing.

How do you validate those logical principles empirically without circular reasoning?

How does one validate logical principles logically without circular reasoning?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You are equivocating on the word 'evidence'. In empirical science, it means observational data; in logic, it means deductive proof and internal consistency.

I'm pretty sure "evidence" means no such thing in logic, either. It sounds like you're talking about "validity" here.

In philosophy, "evidence" is typically understood as facts that bear relevantly on the truth of a proposition. Anything to be presented as evidence must be both *factual* and *relevant* (to a specific question), properties that pure logic and mathematics are ill-equipped to assess.

 

[Gubiosak]

Hi everyone,

Putting aside consciousness for a moment, I want to ask about the limits of ontological physicalism from a purely physics and philosophy of science perspective.

If physicalism claims that everything that exists is strictly physical (matter/energy), how does it account for:

1. Mathematical structures: Are equations and mathematical truths just human constructs, or do they exist independently without being physical matter?
2. Laws of Nature: Are laws merely descriptive summaries of how matter behaves, or do they have causal power? If they govern matter, wouldn't that make them non-physical entities?
3. Information: With quantum information theory treating "information" as fundamental, how can something substrate-independent be reduced purely to physical matter?

Can physicalism actually ground the abstract foundations that physics relies on, or is it an assumption we just take for granted?

 

[JayUtah]

If physicalism claims that everything that exists is strictly physical (matter/energy), how does it account for:

Those are all emergent properties of thinking, which occurs physically in the brain. No, there is no such thing as math without a brain to work it. No, the laws of nature do not dictate how nature behaves; when we observe nature to behave differently, we change the law. No, contemplating that information may exist at the quantum level does not make it something independent from matter.

No, you're not the smartest guy in the room.

 

[Gubiosak]

Those are all emergent properties of thinking, which occurs physically in the brain. No, there is no such thing as math without a brain to work it. No, the laws of nature do not dictate how nature behaves; when we observe nature to behave differently, we change the law. No, contemplating that information may exist at the quantum level does not make it something independent from matter.

No, you're not the smartest guy in the room.

Assuming physicalism to prove physicalism is a textbook begging the question. If math were merely a brain byproduct, it couldn't predict physical phenomena before they are observed. Furthermore, labeling the mind as "emergent" just names a correlation—it doesn't explain the mechanism. Your stance is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical proof.

 

[arthwollipot]

Either way, the logical point holds. Which of those two positions do you actually stand behind?

How many times do we have to tell you?

Then we are in complete agreement, and the point is fully established. Thank you for the discussion.

It was fully established pages and pages ago.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm pretty sure "evidence" means no such thing in logic, either. It sounds like you're talking about "validity" here.

In formal deductive logic, validity is considered evidence. But this is a vastly different usage of the word than you find in science or philosophy. This is why I was adamant to get @Gubiosak to talk about the taxonomy hiding behind his question.

In formal deductive logic you assume the premises are veridically true and you study only the structure relationships between premises and conclusions. The ability of such structures to properly describe the relationships among propositions provides a kind of a priori knowledge, but it cannot tell you whether mind-reading is real. Because evidence means something so very different in logic as it does in science, the knowledge you get from logic alone is very different—and extremely limited.

 

[JayUtah]

Assuming physicalism to prove physicalism is a textbook begging the question.

I'm not trying to "prove physicalism." I'm just identifying the broken premises in your argument.

Ontological physicalism is not just, "Everything is physical." It's, "Everything is either physical or depends on the physical."

If math were merely a brain byproduct, it couldn't predict physical phenomena before they are observed.

It can't do that without a brain to do it. Mathematics is a set of rules for guiding the operation of the brain. The brain does the actual predicting.

Furthermore, labeling the mind as "emergent" just names a correlation—it doesn't explain the mechanism.

It doesn't have to.

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[Puppycow]

Not sure what this "ontological physicalism" is, or whether it's a straw man position or not.

Math and geometry encompass concepts like imaginary numbers that are not real physical objects. Like the square root of -1 or the concept of infinity. A line in geometry has only length, but no width or height. Meanwhile in the real world it seems that there is a length called the Planck Length that is the smallest possible meaningful distance (I'm not an expect on this concept). In geometry any length can be divided in half and half again ad infinitum.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Don't think anyone would be against using an "AI" to translate stuff.

I would. AI is not reliable. How can I know that it translated the words correctly?

Google's AI overview says:-

Because modern AI tools write very fluently, they can hide subtle errors or change meanings while sounding completely natural.

A rare moment of introspection, or an admission that AI is deceitful? Or is it just jealous of those tools and telling lies about them? This is proof that AI is already self-aware and will become super-intelligent any day now.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Betteridge's Law.

Dave

 

[Carrot Flower King]

We need some bigger mulberry bushes!