Rational Vs. Rationalized Faith

[Yahzi]

Ken Wilber

I struggled mightly to not let his absurd vocabulary prejudice my understanding of his philosophy. Then I came across this quote:

the "Great Nest" is actually just a vast morphogenetic field of potentials

He's just another woo-woo head spouting terminology at terminal velocity, hoping you won't notice that it either doesn't mean anything, or refers to concepts so stupid they can't stand critical scrutiny. For instance, morphogenetic fields have been utterly and completely discredited, but it's so buried in all his gibberish that his reference to it might pass unnoticed.


Another example:

Here is an example from natural science: let us say that we are a "Martian scientist" watching life evolve on Earth. We see quarks emerge, then atoms, then molecules. And then, in a few rare instances, we see molecules gather together into cells.

The problem here is that the origin of life on Earth has nothing to do with the origin of quarks or atoms. I realize this is just an example he is trying to describe: but no credible scientist, or even layman with a credible scientific education, would make such confused statement. Even I (emperor of the strained analogy) would never think to link quarks to the origin of life. The most telling evidence is that bringing in quarks and atoms is not necessary: his example would have been fine without them. So why include them?

Because he slings terminology like hash, without any particular concern for what it actually means. Like any good woo-woo, he can't go for more than a page without referring to quantum physics, despite his complete and total lack of understanding of quantum physics.

Read anything by a real scientist: Steven Wienberg, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Steven J. Gould, Daniel Dennet, Francis Crick... Compare his style to theirs, and it becomes obvious that he is not a legitimate scholar. His use of language betrays him as a poseur: he imitates the style without understanding the substance.

It's not that you are too dumb to understand this stuff, Finella: it's that it is meaningless gibberish. I'm sure if you work hard enough you can extract something of value from it, but only because you are intelligent and inventive: certainly not because he put anything usefull there.


Edit: apparently many new-agers hate him, because he outs them as irrational goobers. I'd like to count him as a rationalist, but I think he is just another woo-woo that doesn't mind staking out turf at the expense of other woo-woos. Hitler stopped the Commies from taking over Germany, but that wasn't enough to justify him. It's not enough to fight the bad guys: you have to also be a good guy.


Edit: Here's a page reviewing one of his books. The author lists both strengths and weaknesses. Although I've only read Wilber for 20 minutes, I completely agree with the entire review (both positives and negatives).

In particular note the comment under weaknesses, "With all due respect, Wilber is quite innocent re science, especially physics." And the more telling comment later, "Also, he elegantly ignores more "plodding" and "down-to-earth" efforts in consciousness studies grounded on more scientifically based investigations." That's enough to do it in for me.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/abhoe.html

 

[Roadtoad]

Every once in a while, I read some of the posts on this thread, and I feel like I ought to be using my general, all-purpose, genuine whack-job answer to just about anything:

"It's my Karma. I vibrate in sympathy with the Universe."

PM me, and I'll send the translation.

 

[Roadtoad]

Edit: Here's a page reviewing one of his books. The author lists both strengths and weaknesses. Although I've only read Wilber for 20 minutes, I completely agree with the entire review (both positives and negatives).

In particular note the comment under weaknesses, "With all due respect, Wilber is quite innocent re science, especially physics." And the more telling comment later, "Also, he elegantly ignores more "plodding" and "down-to-earth" efforts in consciousness studies grounded on more scientifically based investigations." That's enough to do it in for me.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/abhoe.html

Read the review, Yahzi. I found it interesting: if he were writing for a magazine or newspaper, Wilber's piece would have been fact checked. For books, no such effort is made. Would someone explain this one for me?

 

[Yahzi]

Read the review, Yahzi.

Curse the English language... for a moment. I thought you were instructing me to peruse the rewiew I had just finished quoting.


Not every newspaper fact-checks: only the ones interested in maintaining a reputation for objectivity. Some books (history, science, etc.) are fact-checked. But since a book only represents one person (the author), his personal reputation is allowed to live or die by his book.

In any case, fact-checking philosophy is normally considered a waste of time. Philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts.

 

[Finella]

Yahzi:

Okay, so let’s forget about Ken Wilber, then, for the purposes of this discussion. You’ve given me a far simpler example to work with to prove my point anyway. (And what was that? Oh, that faith and logic can be compatible. Right.)

Imagine pure faith and pure logic as poles on the opposite ends of the same spectrum. Pure faith requires no reason or logic, as you and others have argued. Pure logic, on the other hand, requires no faith. These extremes gradually modulate as you go toward the middle – they overlap.

The example you gave me was your critique of Ken Wilber. You had some first-hand experience, although limited, of his work. Thus your own opinion of his ideas was formed through your reading. This opinion was drawn from your own experience studying science, which could have included, for all I know, your own research studying quarks and atoms.

But the pure logic of your opinion ends there. You appealed to a higher authority by seeking a review of someone you respected to give you his opinion on Wilber. You placed trust in this person based on your past experience. Could this person be wrong? Maybe, but your past experience has shown that you can trust this person to have views which agree with your perception of science and logic. And you acquired your understanding of science and logic through other higher authorities. It would be fruitless and too time-consuming for you to personally check every single scientific theory that came around, right? So you have faith in these authorities that they make accurate observations and conclusions from their work.

So we see here that you are utilizing faith and reason concurrently! Yes? And we didn’t even need to get God into the picture to do it, either.

Briefly getting back to Wilber, I am sorry that you think so little of him. I don’t concern myself with his scientific stuff so much, since I’m not a scientist. I find his integration of Eastern and Western psychological theories more useful, personally, since I am a therapist. These ideas I found in his book Integral Psychology, where I don’t think he mentioned much of this quantum physics stuff at all. Perhaps this work would irritate you less, then, if psychology interests you. It seems that this is an area where he does better, anyway. Besides, I don’t think it is useful to throw out all of a person’s work simply because one part of it is lacking. We are all human, and all of our work cannot be perfect. You’ll note that even the reviewer you quoted did find some strengths in Wilber’s work.

I find this quote of yours quite interesting, too:

Philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts.

That makes using reason and logic alone to deal with philosophy somewhat difficult, I would guess.

----,---'--{@

 

[Roadtoad]

I question that idea, that philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts. Considering how many of them were also mathematicians, it almost seems out of character for you to say that, Yahzi. (Oddly enough, several were even devout Christians.)

In thinking about this, I'm reminded of Voltaire's supposed remark that he was watching the collapse of the Church. Yet, oddly enough, in his book, Candide, he praises faith, even condemns its lack, (though he doesn't spare anyone his barbs). Even stranger, for a man who supposedly gloated over the end of the Church, he helped pay for the construction of the church in his home town. (Though, in all fairness, he also said, "If they ask if I'm building a theater, tell them it's a church. If they ask if I'm building a church, tell them it's a theater.") I'll try and track the exact quote and circumstances.

I find it hard to view Voltaire as a man who rejected faith, particularly in that light, but I also find it hard to believe he'd have accepted the "Church" as we've come to define it.

(Edited to add: I'd be interested in hearing what Randfan has to say about some of this....)

 

[Yahzi]

Finella

So you have faith in these authorities that they make accurate observations and conclusions from their work.

Let me explain again why faith in the religious sense is not the same as faith in the scientific sense.

When I have faith in these authorities' observations, it is because I could, in principal, do the observations myself. My faith is based on the fact that at any time I can verify any of these observations personally.

Faith in the religious sense does not carry with it the option of personally verifying the facts. I cannot, in principle, do the observations myself.

In the scientific sense, all I am using faith for is to save myself some work. I don't need the faith: I could replace it by doing all the work myself, but I'd prefer to spend my time more usefully.

In the religious sense, I am using faith to support the entire conclusion. Not just that the work was done properly, but the entire truth of the claim. Because I cannot redo the work, I cannot verify the claim, so now, instead of just taking his report on faith, I also have to take his conclusion on faith.

Do you see the difference? Although the word faith is used in both cases, it clearly has two meanings: in one, it is faith in things you could verify, and in the other, it is faith in things you cannot verify.


Everybody

Philosophers aren't supposed to deal in facts.

Eh, I was half in jest. Still, it is actually kind of true: philosophy is not science. Scientists argue over what the facts of the case are: philosophy is supposed to argue over what they mean. Establishing what is or is not fact is science's job.

So the idea that you should fact-check a philosophy book is kind of strange: a philosopher who deals in facts so unobvious that they need checking is an unusual creature.

However, given the importance of neuroscience to several traditional philosophical topics, and given how fast knowledge in that field advances, I suppose philosophy has to come down out of that ivory tower.

I wasn't saying philosophy should be imaginary; I was just trying to say that philosophy is not in the business of determining empirical facts, but rather of explaining them.


Roadtoad

I find it hard to view Voltaire as a man who rejected faith

I don't think he did. He mostly rejected the Church, as it was even more corrupt in his day than in ours.

But - if Voltaire were alive today, I think he would now reject faith. My position is that science and (some kind of) faith were still compatible as little as 50 years ago. Darwin was not the absolute last gasp for faith: genetics and neuroscience were. Francis Sheaffer argued for the existance of the divine based on the irreducible mystery of personal consciousness - back in the 50's. Back then, it was a good argument.

Just not anymore. Them pesky facts, again.