Subjectivity and Science

[Darat]

Quite timely news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7213972.stm

 

[Dancing David]

It just goes to confirm your apt description of the orthodoxy here being a scientific religion.
When the foundation of their religion is brought into question some here react just as dogmatically as the religious fundamentalists they spend so much time and energy criticising.

Hi Plumjam,

It might appear that you still just making unsupported assertions and then using them as some sort of proof. You have a trail of unanswered question on the forum. The use of emotional appeal is not very good critical thinking.

 

[Dancing David]

I think I disagree with this. How can I know that the feeling I think I am having is that feeling and (for example) I'm not just a construct that is programmed to think that it is having that feeling?

That is it in the nutshell, we can't.

We are biological constructs and we have ongoing fuzzy programing.(To all appearnces)

We are the p-zombie.

 

[aggle-rithm]

An excellent point. If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, why does it have an off switch?

Another question: If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, then how did reality manage for such a long time without it?

 

[Dancing David]

IMO, "feelings" is a lurch into the stuff we name physical. The thought "I am in pain" is not "feeling", which is the pain itself.

Still the thoughts would appear to be a biological formation in the brain. Feelings are cognitive constructs placed upon the body sensations. Unknown to most people feelings are largely thought constructs placed contextualy on the physical sensations.

 

[Dancing David]

You can't. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I know, you're all shocked.

Thinking about it a bit more, it might make sense to separate this phenomenon into first and second order feelings, much like the separation between first and second order beliefs.

That I have a feeling I cannot doubt (with the provisos below). It is simply there. But I cannot be sure that the feeling is mine or that the feeling correctly relates to an external reality. The initial feeling is the first order feeling, but whatever I may construct about that feeling or think about it -- such that it occurs within "me" or that it relates to some external reality -- is a second order feeling/belief about feeling. I cannot be wrong that the feeling exists (since feeling it is its existence) but I can be very wrong about what the feeling means.

Does that make more sense?

ETA:

in other words, I don't think it is possible to "think you are having a feeling" without someway having the feeling. It is inherent to the thought of the feeling.

Of course, this brings up the very sticky issue of what a feeling is in the first place. Anyone want to tackle that?

Well the data is all we have.

Feelings are learned labels we apply to physical states interpreted by the physical framework of the brain. The difference between sexual arousal, fear and anger is very slim physicaly. It is the set of associative, cognitive and conditioned contexts that help us to interpret our feelings.

And it is very possible to demonstrate the cognitive nature of interpretation, the use of cognitive behavioral therapy allows people to reinterpret the contextual clues and change the perceptions, as well as the patterns of behaviors that support the interpretations.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

We are the p-zombie.

I stepped in deep doodoo on p-zombies a number of years ago on this forum, but it simply is unfathomable to me that when so much of the root of philosophy extends back to math and something as basic as A = B =/= B, how something being almost but not quite the exact same as something else, while still being the same thing, isn't some sort of violation of mathematical rules and logic.

But what do I know. I drink beer and notice my mind being effected by physical influences daily, as opposed to those periodic Absinthe drinkers who come up with philosophy.

 

[PixyMisa]

I stepped in deep doodoo on p-zombies a number of years ago on this forum, but it simply is unfathomable to me that when so much of the root of philosophy extends back to math and something as basic as A = B =/= B, how something being almost but not quite the exact same as something else, while still being the same thing, isn't some sort of violation of mathematical rules and logic.

Yep, that's pretty much it. P-zombies only make sense if your worldview doesn't. Or at least, there's only a distinction between p-zombies and "real people" in that case. Under materialism, people are p-zombies.

 

[John Freestone]

Hello again. I said

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them.

and PixyMisa replied

Since they are wrong, and it's been explained why they are wrong, we don't need to do any internalizing.

Earlier, when I asked why I should 'internalize' others' views put to me, PixyMisa said: because that was called learning.

It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa. These points could be turned round. I happen to believe that your views (e.g. much of what you have said about science) are wrong, I have explained why they are wrong, and you have failed to 'learn' because you haven't 'internalized' them (as was explained, this was meant to indicate something more like 'contemplate' than just take on without question).

This difference in viewpoints, of course, is partly the cause of some of us (including me) getting defensive and dismissive of others' ideas, fail to contemplate them, and thus fail to learn.

I will repeat one point that I think you have failed to contemplate, since your answer seems not to demonstrate an understanding of it: that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).

You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness. Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.

Now, it seems to me that there are many places we could go from there: we could say that that's ok, we're not bothered, we understand that science gives us best guesses, current hypotheses, and get back to the lab to test some more; we could throw up our hands and exclaim "Well, we've nothing better than that!"; etc.

What I find difficult to concede is that we could ignore that conclusion to the point where we say: You are wrong. You have been told why you are wrong. We can point to research that demonstrates that you are wrong. This is precisely the standpoint that I was criticising, the misconception of 'trusted beliefs' as 'fact'.

I understand that getting theoretically closer to possible Truth can be useful. I also understand that the more pure, philosophical or metaphysical questioning that some people have engaged in here (and I am sorry I have got distracted by the scientism rather than engage in it to date) might be pointless and get us going round the same old intangible circles as people have gone round for millennia.

I do not mean to imply, as someone else has said, that I'm so clever that you won't understand me. That would be as daft as saying that you are so clear in your scientific understanding that any other view is away with the fairies. What I do feel, however, is that some people 'get it' - the question, I mean, ignoring the many answers we might find later - the view that there is something problematic about subjectivity. And they seem to me not to be making a retrogressive step into delusion, but waking up to a new perspective, often transcending and including the earlier paradigm, not dismissing all of it.

And it often begins by waking up from the delusion of scientism. Because a string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it. Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation. This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hello again. I said and PixyMisa replied
Earlier, when I asked why I should 'internalize' others' views put to me, PixyMisa said: because that was called learning.

Precisely.

It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa.

Because it's not relative.

Science actually works. Waffle - a polite description for your opening post - does not.

These points could be turned round.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

I happen to believe that your views (e.g. much of what you have said about science) are wrong, I have explained why they are wrong, and you have failed to 'learn' because you haven't 'internalized' them (as was explained, this was meant to indicate something more like 'contemplate' than just take on without question).

You have made statements. I have shown why, with reference to the real world, your statements are baseless.

This difference in viewpoints, of course, is partly the cause of some of us (including me) getting defensive and dismissive of others' ideas, fail to contemplate them, and thus fail to learn.

Perhaps so, but irrelevant. Your viewpoint, insofar as it is coherent, has no demonstrable utility whatsoever. That is why we reject it.

I will repeat one point that I think you have failed to contemplate, since your answer seems not to demonstrate an understanding of it: that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).

That's why we repeat the experiment.

You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness.

No.

There are multiple reasons to repeat experiments: To eliminate bias on the part of the experimenter. To eliminate simple error. To eliminate improperly controlled conditions.

And as well as changing the experimenter, the equipment, and the location, we change specific details of the experiment as well. Over and over.

Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.

No. It's not a guess.

In science, a hypothesis is a predictive model of the natural world. A theory is a hypothesis that has been supported through extensive experimentation or observation.

A hypothesis is a statement that if you do this under these conditions, the result will be this. It lays out the precise conditions that signify and a relationship (usually mathematical) between the variables and the result.

To describe that as a "guess" is misleading at best.

Now, it seems to me that there are many places we could go from there: we could say that that's ok, we're not bothered, we understand that science gives us best guesses, current hypotheses, and get back to the lab to test some more; we could throw up our hands and exclaim "Well, we've nothing better than that!"; etc.

John, you've forgotten something in all of this: Science actually works. We all test the predictions of science constantly, though not very methodically. And it works. It is consistent, the models are accurate - not complete, but accurate.

What I find difficult to concede is that we could ignore that conclusion to the point where we say: You are wrong. You have been told why you are wrong. We can point to research that demonstrates that you are wrong. This is precisely the standpoint that I was criticising, the misconception of 'trusted beliefs' as 'fact'.

There is no misconception of "trusted beliefs" as "fact", because there are no "trusted beliefs" involved. We start with certain metaphysical assumptions; we construct hypotheses, we test them, we refine them. From the resulting theories we can construct and test further hypotheses. And if any of it contradicts our observations, it's not the observations that are rejected.

I understand that getting theoretically closer to possible Truth can be useful.

What "Truth"?

I also understand that the more pure, philosophical or metaphysical questioning that some people have engaged in here (and I am sorry I have got distracted by the scientism rather than engage in it to date)

What "scientism"?

might be pointless and get us going round the same old intangible circles as people have gone round for millennia.

Yeah. No wastebaskets.

I do not mean to imply, as someone else has said, that I'm so clever that you won't understand me. That would be as daft as saying that you are so clear in your scientific understanding that any other view is away with the fairies. What I do feel, however, is that some people 'get it' - the question, I mean, ignoring the many answers we might find later - the view that there is something problematic about subjectivity.

Why do you consider that there is anything problematic with subjectivity? Computer programs exhibit the same properties, and yet they are precisely understood physical systems.

And they seem to me not to be making a retrogressive step into delusion, but waking up to a new perspective, often transcending and including the earlier paradigm, not dismissing all of it.

What does this perspective actually tell us? How does it transcend the earlier paradigm? Of what use is any of this? Does it agree with purely materialist metaphysics or contradict it, and if the latter, what evidence is there that this new paradigm has any connection with reality?

In short, those words are pretty, but they don't convey any information.

And it often begins by waking up from the delusion of scientism.

Again with the "scientism". You deliberately mischaracterise science, and then blame people for adhering to your strawman. Not going to win you any points here.

Because an endless string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it.

Or perhaps it's not deliberate; perhaps you just don't understand what science is about. Science is a methodology for constructing and testing descriptive, predictive models. Reality is reality.

Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation.

No.

Hidden dimensions - by which I assume you mean the "rolled up" dimensions of string theory - are at least testable in principle. If gravity propagates through those dimensions, then the inverse-square law that governs gravity in the macro-scale will not apply at a sufficiently small scale. We can currently only test this down to about one millimetre, which isn't small at all compared to our ability to test the other fundamental forces.

I don't know what you mean by "Time 0". If you are referring to the moment the universe was created, the Big Bang, then that there was such a moment is a perfectly straightforward inference from the fact that the universe is presently expanding. Trace an expansion backwards in time far enough and you'll end up at a single point.

With multiverses, I'm guessing that you're talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The important thing to note is that this is an Interpretation; it is not a theory, or a hypothesis, or anything of that sort. If it were, it would be called the Many Worlds Hypothesis, or some such. It is properly viewed as philosophy unless and until someone comes up with a way of distinguishing it from other interpretations of QM.

The graviton, in turn, is the hypothetical carrier particle of the force of gravity. It's not intrinsically any more weird than the photon or the gluon, or indeed the electron, all of which we use quite successfully to describe real-world interactions. And it's not something made up on a whim either; it's part of a class of theories to explain gravity in quantum-mechanical terms. We are saying that if there is a carrier particle for the gravitational force, then these are the properties we would expect of it, and this is how we might establish its existence.

Whereas with reincarnation and spirits, the first thing we find is that there isn't even a single standard definition of these terms. The second thing we find is that there is no evidence at all to support these concepts in reality. And the third thing we find is that supporters of these ideas have no coherent ideas as to how to ascertain the validity (or otherwise) of these phenomena.

Or, as I said several paragraphs back: No.

This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.

What is new about this? People have been wondering the exact same thing since before we had written language.

What is mature about it? Except in the sense of mature cheese, in that it's old and smells bad.

Where is the learning? Given that this line of questioning has persisted for thousands of years without producing any answers, what can you claim to have learned?

And where do you get off advocating navel-gazing at the expense of science, which has done more to improve human quality of life than any other thing ever?

 

[John Freestone]

Science is a methodology for constructing and testing descriptive, predictive models. Reality is reality.

Ah, you're getting it. Keep up the good work.

 

[bokonon]

I will repeat [...] that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).

You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness. Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.

What is the non-arbitrary confidence level of the information available to you via meditation?

Because a string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it. Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation. This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.

What are the insights into reality that this "new, mature mystical contemplation and learning" have provided? It seems to me that all you've added to the discussion here is a lot of questions, which essentially boil down to "What if there is more?"

Questions are easy. Answers are hard. Science provides answers. For as long as humans have had culture, it has provided more answers about the nature of reality, and better answers about the nature of reality, than any other discipline. Of course there's more, but the scientific method has a pretty good track record for transforming "poorly understood" into "better understood."

When "mystical contemplation" has some tangible and useful ANSWERS to bring to the table, be sure to let me know.

 

[Roadtoad]

What "scientism"?

In an otherwise excellent reply, this stuck out for me. I think this is a typo, PM.

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm such a deep philosopher
my concepts pass above the heads
of ignorant cryptographers
and scientists and biomeds.
I'm so deep that I tack extra lines onto my stanzas that don't rhyme and call them 'postmodern'.

Subjectively the student spoke
of isotopes that might go 'boom'
if some misguided petty bloke
should blow them up and leave a tomb.

Just down the hall a teacher's aid
discussing relativity
subjectively told how it laid
foundations for technology.

While Doctor Watson, in the lab
subjectively explained to you
why sticking people with a jab
can help their body fight the flu!

Of course, subjectively, it's moot
cause all subjective people know
philosophy's 'subjective fruit'
subjected to an ebb and flow...

I'm so deep in philosophy
my concepts are a cryptic pest
but all the money, thankfully
will go to who can b****** best.
And sometimes I like to tack extra lines onto my stanzas that don't rhyme and call them 'postmodern'. Banana.

 

[PixyMisa]

In an otherwise excellent reply, this stuck out for me. I think this is a typo, PM.

I don't think so; scientism is a term often used by woos to accuse anyone who asks for evidence of being beholden to a religion. (If that sentence makes sense.) It's a tu quoque argument.

If John didn't mean it that way, then I'm happy to withdraw that question.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm such a deep philosopher
my concepts pass above the heads
of ignorant cryptographers
and scientists and biomeds.
I'm so deep that I tack extra lines onto my stanzas that don't rhyme and call them 'postmodern'.

Nominated.

 

[John Freestone]

What is the non-arbitrary confidence level of the information available to you via meditation?

That is a very good question. Of course, it is 0%, a fact that has already been conceded in non-mathematical language: the possibility that I am dreaming all of this. It's important to clear that up. Now, against that, of course, there are all sorts of practitioners of spiritual disciplines who will talk about immediate, absolute knowledge, a personal certainty, sometimes called 'intuition', but clearly this is impossible to verify, and impossible to give any support from scientific investigation, since it relates to 'interior', non-physical conditions, which science can't measure.

This seems to be conceding immediately that science is 95% certain and meditatation 0%. It is a defensible conclusion to draw, already implicit in the question. My discussion of science, however, was meant to draw attention to the fact that, where reality is concerned, actually 95%, even 99.9999% is not actually reality or truth. So taking the most taxing, biggest questions human beings ask, which involve the perception of having an inner, subjective consciousness, or whether the universe can possibly have created it's own space-time and energy-matter at a particular time and position, etc., science is not necessarily a more solid source. In other words, those who report that decades of meditation develops a pure, unhampered vision of truth might just happen to be right, I might be living in an unenlightened state of consciousness, and 95% could mean little more than "somewhat deluded".

Maybe I asked, as some have pointed out, an intractable question, and all we're doing is elaborating it. It will always be possible to explain everything put here (or anywhere!) with scientific materialism, and always possible to explain it with mysticism. Scientists have an easier time pointing out how mysticism involves delusive mental trickery, that's all. The insight that science might actually also involve such delusive mental trickery is a much harder one to contemplate. That will itself give scientific minds more confidence, but that doesn't mean they're right (and arrogance won't make up for the relativity of viewpoints).

Over time, I believe, we make paradigm shifts, and science itself demonstrates that the leading edge of humanity can live for centuries with no idea that their worldview is in some deep sense completely wrong. I tried to point that out in relation to the Newton-Einstein paradigm shift. A great many learned people suspect that a paradigm shift is upon us now, which involves the re-appreciation of the internal, subjective view (the reinstatement of the whole subject of metaphysics, perhaps, or the inclusion of science as a branch and method of philosophy pertaining to a certain realm, instead of the only one we trust). Thus a wider philosophy would include, transcend and re-evaluate science (not overturn it). I don't suppose I need to invite refutation of this as all 'woo' and 'baloney', or contribute other useful contemplations.

I was trying to point to the possibility that this might be true. When some bald bloke in an orange robe says he has direct knowledge of other realms, it is easy to conclude that he's deluded. When some suited narrator announces on TV that scientists believe that there may be many more dimensions, or that there just has to be dark matter in the universe to make the sums work, we just lap it up, utterly ignoring the missing percentages-of-confidence that make all science speculative.

I have no problem with people who admit that science gives us best guess theories about a physically measurable universe. I am concerned that so many - as I said before - transmute this web of self-referential evidence into hard fact. I was advised by someone that I ought to distinguish between the two, and that the latter was more commonly called scientism. Since I have heard it used that way before, I adopted the term. This is another insight of postmodernism that scientists fail to understand - words are just labels. Indeed this is one way of looking at the wraith of imaginary reality that science says it is measuring - it is all words, numbers, categories, which are ultimately mental constructs. For instance, when I was studying geology in the first year of a degree course, I was reading about two types of rock, studying their different properties, where they were found, how they were formed, etc., etc., thinking all the while that they were different things because they had different names, when I realised that they in fact formed a continuum: the two were discriminated by how much of a certain mineral they contained - a percentage measurement - meaning that a particular sample could be one side or the other of this arbitrary line, or theoretically on it.

Okay, might not be a big deal until you realise that this kind of continuum is a ubiquitous quality of reality, perhaps more inherent to reality than "rock" and "water", and that science (indeed our habitual, linguistic and cognitive capacity generally) chops our view of reality up into categories in order to measure it. Hence we have disputes about whether planets are planets or not......I could give dozens of examples out of possibly unlimited ones in science.....which leads some to consider again wholistic theories, or just to question again the clarity of our vision that looks out, thinks it sees matter in particular forms, labels the forms as distinct things, and starts saying things about their relationships - perfectly useful and valid things - just possibly within a limited philosophical perspective.

I tried to draw attention to this - what amounts to our projection of ideals onto the world (as much as or rather than the perception of real objects out there) - with the 'chair' continuum example, but I was told that there is no such continuum. It was a thought experiment. If it fails to be noted in one mind, I can only report that I note it in my own.

What are the insights into reality that this "new, mature mystical contemplation and learning" have provided? It seems to me that all you've added to the discussion here is a lot of questions, which essentially boil down to "What if there is more?"

Questions are easy. Answers are hard. Science provides answers. For as long as humans have had culture, it has provided more answers about the nature of reality, and better answers about the nature of reality, than any other discipline. Of course there's more, but the scientific method has a pretty good track record for transforming "poorly understood" into "better understood."

When "mystical contemplation" has some tangible and useful ANSWERS to bring to the table, be sure to let me know.

Well, there have been many answers, but personally I remain agnostic. Maybe next year I will say that all that mystical, meditation stuff was nonsense - it's a mechanistic universe and "I" am just a mindboggling illusory froth noticing its mechanical existence, or maybe I'll say I have reaffirmed my capacity for direct intuition and here at JREF I would sound like even more of a nutter.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is a very good question. Of course, it is 0%, a fact that has already been conceded in non-mathematical language: the possibility that I am dreaming all of this. It's important to clear that up. Now, against that, of course, there are all sorts of practitioners of spiritual disciplines who will talk about immediate, absolute knowledge, a personal certainty, sometimes called 'intuition', but clearly this is impossible to verify, and impossible to give any support from scientific investigation, since it relates to 'interior', non-physical conditions, which science can't measure.

The problem I have with this is that there is no reason - none - to believe that these "'interior', non-physical conditions" exist at all.

My discussion of science, however, was meant to draw attention to the fact that, where reality is concerned, actually 95%, even 99.9999% is not actually reality or truth.

All science is tentative. We know that; all scientists know that, so there's no argument there. That didn't appear to be the gist of your original post, hence the disagreement.

So taking the most taxing, biggest questions human beings ask, which involve the perception of having an inner, subjective consciousness, or whether the universe can possibly have created it's own space-time and energy-matter at a particular time and position, etc., science is not necessarily a more solid source.

Whoa there. Now, on the latter point, science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe, and things outside that causal bubble are beyond the power of science to explain.

But it can be argued - and I do argue this - that things outside that causal bubble cannot be meaningfully said to exist, either.

On the former point, though, there is no reason to believe that there is not a straightforward material explanation for subjective experience, and indeed, we have made enormous progress towards exactly that. The MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series covers a lot of ground in how physical processes give rise to perception and experience, and how we know that. It's also extremely accessible and well-presented, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

In other words, those who report that decades of meditation develops a pure, unhampered vision of truth might just happen to be right, I might be living in an unenlightened state of consciousness, and 95% could mean little more than "somewhat deluded".

Nope.

It's not 95%. It's untold trillions of 95 percents. In our modern technological civilisation, we all perform subtle tests of scientific theories every day without ever thinking about it. Every time you press a key on your keyboard, the result depends on solid state physics, which depends on Quantum Mechanics. Every time you turn on your car navigation system to visit someone, you're testing the Theory of Relativity.

Whereas, in all of recorded history, no-one has ever demonstrated a "pure, unhampered vision of truth".

Maybe I asked, as some have pointed out, an intractable question, and all we're doing is elaborating it. It will always be possible to explain everything put here (or anywhere!) with scientific materialism, and always possible to explain it with mysticism.

It's not a given that we can explain everything via the scientific method; it's just that so far we have an excellent track record.

Mysticism explains nothing by the definition of "explain" you used when talking about science.

Scientists have an easier time pointing out how mysticism involves delusive mental trickery, that's all.

That's not even relevant. The important thing is that mysticism does not work.

The insight that science might actually also involve such delusive mental trickery is a much harder one to contemplate.

No; it's easy to contemplate. It's just wrong.

That will itself give scientific minds more confidence, but that doesn't mean they're right (and arrogance won't make up for the relativity of viewpoints).

Of course they're right. Fly to the moon and back via mysticism; make a phone call by mysticism; heck, light a fire by mysticism. Go on. We'll be here when you get back.

Over time, I believe, we make paradigm shifts, and science itself demonstrates that the leading edge of humanity can live for centuries with no idea that their worldview is in some deep sense completely wrong.

Eh?

I tried to point that out in relation to the Newton-Einstein paradigm shift.

Not so great as all that. Yes, Einstein made a significant breakthrough. But (as I just noted in another thread) his work depended on the prior work of other physicists and mathematicians such as Maxwell and Lorentz, who depended on the work of earlier scientists.

Newton wasn't wrong; it's just that the laws he proposed don't work in all cases. And it was known for a considerable time before Einstein was even born that something was up with Newtonian physics, because the orbit of Mercury does not follow those rules. That was one of the puzzles that the Theory of Relativity solved.

A great many learned people suspect that a paradigm shift is upon us now, which involves the re-appreciation of the internal, subjective view (the reinstatement of the whole subject of metaphysics, perhaps, or the inclusion of science as a branch and method of philosophy pertaining to a certain realm, instead of the only one we trust).

Metaphysics never went away. Philosophy never went away. There is no sign that anything interesting is about to come out of them, though. Unlike science.

Thus a wider philosophy would include, transcend and re-evaluate science (not overturn it).

Why? How? What would it change?

Science is based on a very small number of very straightforward assumptions. And science works. If you monkey with those assumptions, science doesn't work; you get pseudo-sciences like Homeopathy instead.

So what is this re-evaluation going to accomplish? And how? How can it transcend science? Replace the materialistic ontology with something else? If that something else is monistic, then either it agrees with materialism, in which case you haven't changed anything, or it doesn't, in which case it's at variance with much of what we've already discovered. If it's dualistic, then you have to overcome the inherent contradiction of dualism.

I don't suppose I need to invite refutation of this as all 'woo' and 'baloney', or contribute other useful contemplations.

What you have said is just waffle. It contains no specifics; as it stands, it hardly makes any sense at all.

I was trying to point to the possibility that this might be true.

There is no reason to think so.

When some bald bloke in an orange robe says he has direct knowledge of other realms, it is easy to conclude that he's deluded.

We don't do that, though. We say, show us.

When some suited narrator announces on TV that scientists believe that there may be many more dimensions, or that there just has to be dark matter in the universe to make the sums work, we just lap it up, utterly ignoring the missing percentages-of-confidence that make all science speculative.

Bzzt. You lose.

Here's the thing: These statements are actually based on something; there's a real, physical, objective reason for them. With the case of dark matter, it's that the gravitational behaviour of galaxies requires more matter than we can see. If it was bright, we could see it. We can't see it, therefore it's dark. It's not some wild speculation.

As for the additional dimensions, even you realise that this is speculative. Theoretical physicists working on comprehensive models of the behaviour of our universe have found that the maths works far better if they introduce additional dimensions. These additional dimensions produce real, physical, measurable (in principle) differences. The size of the difference depends on the size of the dimensions, so with the current limitations of our instruments all we can say is that they are smaller than about one millimetre in diameter.

Both of these statements are in an entirely different category to your saffron-robed monk.

I have no problem with people who admit that science gives us best guess theories about a physically measurable universe.

They are not guesses.

I am concerned that so many - as I said before - transmute this web of self-referential evidence into hard fact.

Nor is it self-referential. Science is based on specific metaphysical assumptions, and builds from there. It is not circular.

I was advised by someone that I ought to distinguish between the two, and that the latter was more commonly called scientism.

"Scientism" is most commonly used as a slur by those who do not understand science; you'll not find that scientists react well to this.

Since I have heard it used that way before, I adopted the term.

Terrific.

This is another insight of postmodernism that scientists fail to understand - words are just labels.

Nope. Wrong. Completely and hopelessly wrong.

Science raises the production of new terminology - of labels, as you have it - to an art form. The precision of the defintions of terms in science makes the quibbling of lawyers and literary critics look like the babblings of a pre-schooler. Scientists know damn well that words are just labels. That's why they use mathematics.

Indeed this is one way of looking at the wraith of imaginary reality that science says it is measuring - it is all words, numbers, categories, which are ultimately mental constructs.

You're confused.

A measurement is a mental construct. But science is not measuring mental constructs, it is measuring reality.

For instance, when I was studying geology in the first year of a degree course, I was reading about two types of rock, studying their different properties, where they were found, how they were formed, etc., etc., thinking all the while that they were different things because they had different names, when I realised that they in fact formed a continuum: the two were discriminated by how much of a certain mineral they contained - a percentage measurement - meaning that a particular sample could be one side or the other of this arbitrary line, or theoretically on it.

And? The rocks are real. The minerals are real. The label is arbitrary. No-one disputes this.

Okay, might not be a big deal until you realise that this kind of continuum is a ubiquitous quality of reality, perhaps more inherent to reality than "rock" and "water", and that science (indeed our habitual, linguistic and cognitive capacity generally) chops our view of reality up into categories in order to measure it.

This doesn't change two very important things: One, the nature of reality; two, the fact that science works.

Hence we have disputes about whether planets are planets or not......I could give dozens of examples out of possibly unlimited ones in science.....

So can anyone. It doesn't matter in the least.

which leads some to consider again wholistic theories

Just as an aside, it's "holistic". More to the point, how do you jump from the fairly mundane insight that words are just labels to discarding the only metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use?

or just to question again the clarity of our vision that looks out, thinks it sees matter in particular forms, labels the forms as distinct things, and starts saying things about their relationships - perfectly useful and valid things - just possibly within a limited philosophical perspective.

Nope.

Science makes certain metaphysical assumptions, as I've said time and time again. But that's just the structure used for scientific research. When it comes to results, science doesn't give a rat's patootie what your metaphysical assumptions are. It works exactly the same for everyone.

I tried to draw attention to this - what amounts to our projection of ideals onto the world (as much as or rather than the perception of real objects out there) - with the 'chair' continuum example, but I was told that there is no such continuum.

Right. There's no such continuum, and the Platonic concept of ideals is simply false. There are categories. There are concepts. You can't project ideals onto the world because there's no such thing.

It was a thought experiment. If it fails to be noted in one mind, I can only report that I note it in my own.

And what does that achieve?

Well, there have been many answers, but personally I remain agnostic.

Do you know what the word "agnostic" means?

Maybe next year I will say that all that mystical, meditation stuff was nonsense - it's a mechanistic universe and "I" am just a mindboggling illusory froth noticing its mechanical existence, or maybe I'll say I have reaffirmed my capacity for direct intuition and here at JREF I would sound like even more of a nutter.

Or maybe you'll make an attempt to read and understand what people here are telling you.

 

[John Freestone]

When I said

It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa.

you replied

Because it's not relative.

I was saying that people have different opinions. You appear to disagree. QED.

There is no misconception of "trusted beliefs" as "fact", because there are no "trusted beliefs" involved. We start with certain metaphysical assumptions; we construct hypotheses, we test them, we refine them. From the resulting theories we can construct and test further hypotheses. And if any of it contradicts our observations, it's not the observations that are rejected.

"Trusted beliefs" - how different is that idea from "metaphysical assumptions"? I understand that observations take precedence over current hypotheses. Despite this, science invloves some metaphysical assumptions that are habitually left unchallenged, fixed axioms behind the transient theories or hypotheses. One such is the very question my OP asks. Science assumes materialism. It assumes that mind is a function of certain systems of matter. It assumes that spirit is meaningless. Etc. It assumes that its own methods are not flawed at a metaphysical level. In fact, 'metaphysics' is made, by choice, arbitrarily, irrelevant, and only 'physics' is allowed.

It cannot be criticised for that within its own limits, because metaphysics is not the remit of science. The metaphysical assumptions you talk about are not testable, they are assumptions beyond scientific reach. In that sense, science is built on unscientific foundations, untestable axioms. You believe them, that's all.

Why do you consider that there is anything problematic with subjectivity? Computer programs exhibit the same properties, and yet they are precisely understood physical systems.

It seems we must either have very different concepts of 'subject' or programming is way ahead of anything I've heard of. What computer program has intuited its own existence? What computer program has said, "Hey, I think therefore I am!" Do these computer programs ask who created them, by any chance, or haven't they got that sophisticated yet? Please, I'm serious. I'd love to know.

What does this perspective actually tell us? How does it transcend the earlier paradigm? Of what use is any of this? Does it agree with purely materialist metaphysics or contradict it, and if the latter, what evidence is there that this new paradigm has any connection with reality?

It recognises the metaphysical assumptions of the old paradigm as being just that, first of all. That is how it transcends the old paradigm. It is useful because human beings like to try to understand reality and transcend their delusions. You seem to equate utility with technological complexity, yet for every beneficence of technology, someone else could point out a terrible consequence. Science is proud of its value-nutrality (we're only interested in what is true), then, when that truth is questioned, it appeals to its value. We can love science for giving us modern civilisation, or hate it for it. That is a matter of taste. Is the internal combustion engine a boon or a contributor to the sickness of the ecosystem?

Again with the "scientism". You deliberately mischaracterise science, and then blame people for adhering to your strawman. Not going to win you any points here.

I'm not after points.

The graviton, in turn, is the hypothetical carrier particle of the force of gravity. It's not intrinsically any more weird than the photon or the gluon, or indeed the electron, all of which we use quite successfully to describe real-world interactions.

There you go with the 'real world' again. Metaphysical assumption.

Whereas with reincarnation and spirits, the first thing we find is that there isn't even a single standard definition of these terms. The second thing we find is that there is no evidence at all to support these concepts in reality. And the third thing we find is that supporters of these ideas have no coherent ideas as to how to ascertain the validity (or otherwise) of these phenomena.

Quite right. These are metaphysical assumptions too.

And where do you get off advocating navel-gazing at the expense of science, which has done more to improve human quality of life than any other thing ever?

More assumption and utility and value-judgements (which, no doubt aren't relative either, you're just right and that's and end to it). It might well be that navel-gazing lifted us from conscious proto-humans to self-conscious humans. It might be that the development of philosophy, pre-science, and with it aesthetics and morals, was the best invention. It might be arguable that had we not gone further we would not now be desperately trying to pull ourselves back from environmental disaster. I hope science is as good at clearing up the mess as it was in causing it.

 

[ceo_esq]

Whoa there. Now, on the latter point, science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe, and things outside that causal bubble are beyond the power of science to explain.

But it can be argued - and I do argue this - that things outside that causal bubble cannot be meaningfully said to exist, either.

What's the argument again? And could you elaborate on the notion of "causally closed"?

The important thing is that mysticism does not work.

By reference to what are you concluding that mysticism doesn't "work"? What would it mean for mysticism to work? Because it doesn't seem likely that your examples of flying to the moon or making a phone call via mysticism would constitute instances of its working ("work" arguably implying, in this context something, along the lines of final causation).

Metaphysics never went away. Philosophy never went away. There is no sign that anything interesting is about to come out of them, though. Unlike science.

Science came out of them, in a sense. That's pretty interesting. "Interesting" itself being a concept that arguably involves metaphysical suppositions, of course.

They are not guesses.

Well, whether they are or not (John Freestone's phrase was "best guess theories about a physically measurable universe") would appear depend on what you'd include within the scope of a "guess", which has rather a variable usage. They're not random guesses, certainly, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's not in the nature of science to assert that a particular theory is the only explanation - even the only physical explanation, the only complete explanation, the simplest explanation or the best possible explanation - for a given phenomenon. I daresay this might defensibly fall within some people's usage of "best guesses".

Just as an aside, it's "holistic". More to the point, how do you jump from the fairly mundane insight that words are just labels to discarding the only metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use?

Just as an aside, "wholistic" is a perfectly standard variant spelling. How do you justify the suggestion that there's only "one metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use"? Indeed, whether something strikes one as "useful" is itself going to depend, again, on suppositions of a metaphysical nature.

There's no such continuum, and the Platonic concept of ideals is simply false.

I'm not expressing disagreement here, but I for one would be very interested in an objective demonstration of the falsity of the Platonic concept of ideals. You should consider publishing it, too, because its novelty will no doubt attract much attention.