Materialism

[Guest]

Rusty said:
It is clear that I am not the only one who is having difficulties with the definitions of fact, information, knowledge, and learn. Stimpy and I have exchanged a few PMs about this and I'm still uncomfortable. Maybe it's just me, but could someone post definitions of those terms and then could we make sure we agree? That is, agree to use those definitions even if we don't agree with them?

~~ Paul

From chapter 1 of "The Taboo of Subjectivity"

Objectivism.

As noted earlier, perhaps the most central ideal of science has
been the pure objectification of the natural world, and, implicitly, the exclusion of subjective contamination from the pursuit of scientific knowledge. This ideal has so captured the modern mind that scientific knowledge is now often simply equated with objective knowledge. The principle of objectivism demands that science deals with empirical facts testable by empirical methods and verifiable by third-person means. This principle has proven to be very useful in revealing a wide range of facts that are equally accessible to all competent observers. Such facts must be public rather than private;that is to say, they must be accessible to more than one observer. However, there are many other empirical facts—most obviously, our own subjective mental
events—that are accessible only by first-person means and of which the only competent observer is oneself. Another aspect of this principle is that scientific knowledge must be epistemically
objective, that is, observer independent. In its most defensible
guise, this ideal demands that scientists strive to be as free as possible of bias and prejudice in their collection and interpretation of empirical data. In its least defensible form, it demands that scientific knowledge must be free of any subjective, nonscientific influences. This, of course, has never
been true of science or any other branch of human inquiry, as has been amply demonstrated in Thomas Kuhn’s provocative work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Even the renowned biologist Jacques Monod, a staunch advocate of scientific materialism, acknowledges that the postulate of objectivity as a condition for true knowledge constitutes what he calls an ethical choice, rather than a matter of fact. This assertion of Monod’s
implies that this principle is not the result of research but is rather a premise that guides a certain kind of research, while prohibiting other types of research from being conducted.
The principle of objectivism, in the sense of the demand for observer independence, simply cannot accommodate the study of subjective phenomena, for it directs one’s attention only to those objects that exist independently of one’s own subjective awareness. It is no wonder then that science presents us with a view of a world in which our own subjective existence is not acknowledged and the notion of the meaning of our existence cannot even be raised.

So there are different classes of knowledge. There is objective knowledge and there is subjective knowledge.

Investing 30 minutes to read chapter 1 of this book may prove worthwhile.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I suspect we better add phenomenal experience to the list of words we don't agree on.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The principle of objectivism, in the sense of the demand for observer independence, simply cannot accommodate the study of subjective phenomena, for it directs one’s attention only to those objects that exist independently of one’s own subjective awareness. It is no wonder then that science presents us with a view of a world in which our own subjective existence is not acknowledged and the notion of the meaning of our existence cannot even be raised.

He is conflating two things. He may be right that science cannot directly study the experience of subjective phenomena, but it certainly can study the effects of subjective phenomena, including such personal effects as people's descriptions of their subjective world. He makes it sound as if the subjective is totally inaccessible, but it is not. In fact, in the future we might be able to study the experience, too.

If science could suddenly study the experience of subjective phenomena, I'm not sure what that would have to do with the meaning of life.

This sounds like the old "science won't study what I want it to" bemoanathon. Doesn't say much for his opinion of psychology.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

He is conflating two things. He may be right that science cannot directly study the experience of subjective phenomena, but it certainly can study the effects of subjective phenomena, including such personal effects as people's descriptions of their subjective world. He makes it sound as if the subjective is totally inaccessible, but it is not. In fact, in the future we might be able to study the experience, too.

If science could suddenly study the experience of subjective phenomena, I'm not sure what that would have to do with the meaning of life.

This sounds like the old "science won't study what I want it to" bemoanathon. Doesn't say much for his opinion of psychology.

~~ Paul

Perhaps you should consider reading it before you make your mind up what he is saying and why he is saying it? The author of this book isn't conflating anything. He is untangling the knots of the very same logical quagmire you are currently having problems understanding. This book actually tries to provide an answer as to how we might study the subjective realm. It was offered as a means to clarify what is currently unclear. If you have what you think is a better way out of the impasse then go for it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You're right, UcE, I should read it. I've added it to my to-read list, but I probably won't get to it for years. Meanwhile, what does he offer as a means for studying the subjective?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'd just like to make a book recomendation to anyone reading this thread who thinks they may recognise that there is a problem, but is having trouble understanding/accepting the problem, understanding how and why the problem has become so entrenched and is interested in possible routes towards a logical solution to the problem.

The book is called "The taboo of subjectivity", and the entire book is dedicated to the problems we have been discussing for the past week - i.e. how does scientific materialism cope with the problem of the existence of a subjective realm which it appears to have logical difficulties even defining (hence the claims that qualia either do not exist or are nothing more than brain processes).

/www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195132076/qid=1050322845/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0888590-0120167?v=glance&s=books

Yes it sounds great. Can you get it from amazon uk? Have you got any other recommendations?

Edited to add: Actually I might just order it from my local library

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Off topic: I was reading reviews of the book UcE mentioned, and I came across a long paper that includes this:

Combining First- and Third- Person research
This is a short section. I just wish to say that we should clone a human being and I volunteer for the job as long as it is under the correct monetary and humane conditions. The ethical concerns against cloning a human are far removed from the practicality of actually doing it. The general populace will not have access to the technology to clone humans. But if we just clone one of us, think of all we can learn! With the same brain, will the clone and the original be able to share memories? If not, the brain has much more to do with environment than most scientists are willing to allow. If so, then memory is definitely outside of the body, or at least holographic. Would the clone and the original feel, according to their own words, that they were the same person? Or would they merely feel like an innovative set of twins? The possibilities are boggling. Cloning a human will be the quintessential experiment in studying the connection between our biology and our consciousness.

WTF?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I'd just like to make a book recomendation to anyone reading this thread who thinks they may recognise that there is a problem, but is having trouble understanding/accepting the problem, understanding how and why the problem has become so entrenched and is interested in possible routes towards a logical solution to the problem.

The book is called "The taboo of subjectivity", and the entire book is dedicated to the problems we have been discussing for the past week - i.e. how does scientific materialism cope with the problem of the existence of a subjective realm which it appears to have logical difficulties even defining (hence the claims that qualia either do not exist or are nothing more than brain processes).

/www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195132076/qid=1050322845/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0888590-0120167?v=glance&s=books


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Thanks!

Here is a quote from a review:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, he suggests, has fallen under the spell of scientific materialism, a philosophical interpretation of science, based on Newton's mechanical model of the universe: if something can't be measured objectively, it doesn't exist. This view maintains a hold on both the public and many scientists despite its having been debunked over 100 years ago. The quantum physics pioneered by Max Planck reintroduced subjective human consciousness into nature, emphasizing the importance of the observer and questioning the existence of a universe made up of solid particles unconnected to human perception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certainly appears to be what is happening in this very thread. Sounds like an excellent read.

Yes indeed! Will you be reading it as well Stimpy?

 

[Interesting Ian]

It does go into a level of detail that is quite painful to behold, but given the amount of confusion exhibited in this thread then maybe this is neccesary. I have loaned my copy to Q-Source.

Huh? So you know her personnally? You live right near each other?

 

[Guest]

Yes it sounds great. Can you get it from amazon uk? Have you got any other recommendations?

Edited to add: Actually I might just order it from my local library

Whaddyawannaknow?

Actually, for someone like yourself who knows exactly what the author is talking about I think you may simply find yourself nodding all the way through it - although some of the historical context is interesting. The real challenge with this book is trying to convince the people who really need to read it to read it, like Stimpson.

 

[Guest]

Yes it sounds great. Can you get it from amazon uk? Have you got any other recommendations?

Since you asked, yes :

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I just read the first chapter of The Taboo of Subjectivity. The final section, "Scientism," is bizarre. He begins the section by describing scientism and showing how it is basically a strawman as far as scientists' view of their work is concerned. By the end of the section, 2 1/2 pages later, he seems to have integrated scientism and its supposed taboos right into his overall view of science.

I guess you have to read the entire book. Or, you could spend the time meditating.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

I just read the first chapter of The Taboo of Subjectivity. The final section, "Scientism," is bizarre. He begins the section by describing scientism and showing how it is basically a strawman as far as scientists' view of their work is concerned. By the end of the section, 2 1/2 pages later, he seems to have integrated scientism and its supposed taboos right into his overall view of science.

~~ Paul

Huh?

The author goes to great lengths to make sure he demonstrates the differences between science, materialism and scientism.

From chapter 1 :

[deleted due to moderator request

http://www.oup-usa.org/sc/0195132076/

It isn't the author who can't tell the difference between science, materialism, realism and scientism. It is people like Stimpson J Cat who can't seperate these things. Yes - perhaps reading the rest of the book might help. When it becomes clear why scientism is a WESTERN disease and how the history of Christianity and the history of science are intertwined then not only does the author recognise the differences between these things, but he shows us why they got mixed up together in the first place!

 

[Guest]

Paul :

.....or you could just spend your time meditating.

Part of the problem here seems to be that you have got a pretty good idea where all this is going and you have already decided that you don't want to go there. I don't meditate. I am hyperactive and find it impossible. But I consider myself a seeker of philosophical truth and someone who wants to understand humanity and history from more than just one perspective. Reading the book is likely to be more productive than meditating.

edited :

There is a difference between philosophy and religion. All I have done in this thread is try to present a logical philosophical argument against materialism and in doing so I have had to suggest some alternatives with fewer logical holes. As soon as one starts telling other people how to behave, or that they should meditate, then it stops being philosophy and starts being religion. If that were to happen you would find me defending humanism just as passionately as I currently challenge materialism. I do not want to appear as a religious proselyte. This is about cold, hard logic.

 

[BillHoyt]

From chapter 1 :

Could you please respect copyright law and the author's rights and not post boatloads of his writing? That appears to be his entire first chapter!

Cheers,

 

[BillHoyt]

Advocates of scientism commonly overlook the subjective, human role of choosing which natural phenomena to investigate, the means of investigating them, and the diversity of human interpretations of research data. Science is presented, like a religious doctrine, as being essentially a complete, integrated, internally consistent whole whose origin in nature transcends human subjectivity.

This is part of the postmodernist conceit. While there is a subjective role in choosing which phenomena to investigate, thats about as much as we can grant the author. The means of investigating are sometimes determined by the availability of resources such as money, people and time, but this is only true in the most limited sense. If the wrong tools are used, other researchers in the area will pounce on that weakness and put together the right tools to see if the original published results were correct. If the interpretations go beyond the available facts, the article is unlikely to pass the peer review process.

What he is arguing is the same postmodernist crap we've been hearing for decades. The implicit claim that science does not transcend human subjectivity further implies the existence of an alternative science that is discoverable by other researchers, that is also internally consistent and yet with utterly different results. This claim is balderdash, but postmodernists keep presenting it as truth.

Where is this magical, internally consistent science that is utterly at odds with what we know today as science? This phsyics without friction? This biology without cells? This chemistry without atoms? This sky without stars?

Cheers,

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Bill, there is no copyright in the PDF file of the first chapter. I think Oxford wants people to quote it.

UcE, what I don't like about the final section is that I cannot tell where it transitions from the opinion of writers on scientism to the opinion of the author himself. It starts with statements like

Although signs of scientism can be found in writings as early as the seventeenth century, they have become far more prevalent since the nineteenth century

and

The term ‘‘scientism’’ is invariably used in a pejorative sense,

which make it sound even-handed. The author doesn't say if he agrees with this definition of scientism or whether he thinks there are many scientists who really hold this view. But by the end of the section he's talking as if he buys the whole scientism thing; he's integrated it into the overall view of science presented in the chapter. He assumes that the charicature of scientism and scientists is correct.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

Part of the problem here seems to be that you have got a pretty good idea where all this is going and you have already decided that you don't want to go there. I don't meditate.

I've been there and done it for five years. It was nice (well, except when you did it too much). I just don't think it's a new facet of science that will let us throw off the oppressive yoke of scientism.

You know, you probably can meditate just fine, as long as you don't use one of those whacky concentration techniques.

~~ Paul

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill, there is no copyright in the PDF file of the first chapter. I think Oxford wants people to quote it.

Paul,

A work is implicitly copyrighted. Modern law provides for copyright protection even without an explicit notice. (BTW, the chapter 1 I viewed through Amazon did have an explicit notice. )

Unless the pdf you viewed gives explicit permission to copy large sections of the work, you can't assume such permission has been granted.


Cheers,

 

[Interesting Ian]

Could you please respect copyright law and the author's rights and not post boatloads of his writing? That appears to be his entire first chapter!

Cheers,

Strange that people only ever complain about quoting other people who are expressing views in opposition to what most people in these forums believe. I wonder why that could be?