The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[xjx388]

I don't quite understand. What do you mean, "create" a difference?

There's a real difference between painting my room red or white.
There is a real difference between putting an observer in the background of the room and introducing a provocateur into the discussion group.
Don't you think these differences are real?

Nothing is real. This is all an illusion created by hostile alien forces . . . Oh wait, wrong forum!

There are distinctions that exist in nature. The different wavelengths of light that the paint reflects are real.

I was responding to your assertions about the distinction between science and non-science. Those are human distinctions and they aren't real. The monkey cracking a nut through trial and error doesn't make such a distinction; it just cracks the nut to get food. So it is with humans. We do a lot of things to explore the real world. We call things that get actual measurable results "science" and we call other stuff non-science.

I made such a distinction myself betweeen Hard Science-the formal stuff follwing strict methodology to eliminate bias- and Soft Science-the informal trial and error stuff we all do, like the monkey does with the nut. I make a further distinction between Science and Philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with thinking and talking, supporting arguments with logic, etc. It isn't so concerned with the actual truth of how things work in the real world*, only if the arguments are logically coherent with the assumed axioms and proffered premises.

What we are ultimately all concerned with is: Which form of inquiry gives us the best information about the world? Hard science has shown to be that form of inquiry. Soft science can work. Philosophy is good at giving ideas to explore but not at actually giving us information we can use.





*I'm probably being too harsh with Philiosophy. There are some that do try and ascertain the truth of reality and get pretty close. But it can't ever arrive at (or confirm) such truth alone**, by mere thought and argument; there has to be actual science done at some point to confirm or discard the idea. Bad philosophy, in my view, is when an idea is refuted by the scientific evidence but still clung to by adherents.



**Unless of course we are talking only about human constructs like Morals, Ethics and Law. Those things only exist in the human mind and they are important things to civilization and society. But they aren't real and aren't really amenable to scientific inquiry because there is no ultimate Moral, Ethic or Law to refer to.

 

[xjx388]

'Hard' science? Is there a 'soft' science? Where's the difference?

I don't know why you exclude philosophy from science. The philosopher says, "Man is a wolf to man." And then he looks around and "proves" his idea.

Because "Man is a wolf to man," is just an analogy -It's not saying that men are actually literal wolves and seeking confirmation of such. It's saying humans are ******** each other, but more poetically.

Magic is also science. The medicine man has his recipes for curing diseases. They usually work and if this doesn't happen it's because someone has cast an evil eye. That is proven by his experience as a healer. He can cite a lot of cases he has treated before.

This is what I would call Folk Science. There are a lot of medical treatments that have come from studying things used in folk medicine.

And homeopathy. Because there are a lot of people saying that they have been cured by drinking homeopathic water. Then it's proven.

This only illustrates the shortcomings of Folk Science. Arguments by popularity don't work in Hard Science.

And the housewife who tries adding a little saffron to the broth to see if it tastes better. She tries it and says "it tastes better". Then she's doing science.

Again, that's a Folk/Soft Science. Cooking is a scientific endeavor to some extent but it's more subjective because it can't come up with a universally accepted: "This tastes good to everyone." Mac and cheese notwithstanding.

Everything is science!

Any attempt to explore the world and explain it that uses experiment/trial-and-error/measurement to arrive at reliable answers, sure, I would agree with that -even if it turns out wrong. But that doesn't include "everything." Once an idea is shown to be wrong, continuing to use the idea or assert that it is right? Or worse, asserting the "correctness" of an idea without even attempting to rigourously test it? That's when it's no longer Science, but psuedoscience, religion, philosophy.

Either you make a distinction between the scientific way of testing ideas and what isn't. Then you're in the problem of the demarcation of science. And not everything is science! And the problem is not so simple that you can solve it with blunt, vague phrases.

I don't worry about strict demarcations of "This is Science." I am concerned only with the question: "Is the idea supported by evidence or not?" Philosophical ideas are interesting and thought-provoking but they aren't evidenced.

 

[David Mo]

Isn't 'knowledge' the original definition of the word 'science'?

"Original" means Plato. Doesn't it?
It's a bit of an old meaning for me. Even in its time, it was corrected by Aristotle.
Anyway, tracing the origins of a word is interesting as a historical exercise. No more.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Original" means Plato. Doesn't it?
It's a bit of an old meaning for me. Even in its time, it was corrected by Aristotle.
Anyway, tracing the origins of a word is interesting as a historical exercise. No more.

I studied Latin for four years in high school. I'm sure you're aware that many English words are derived from Latin. I learned more about English in Latin than I did in English. Studying etymology can have immediate practical benefits. It isn't just a historical exercise.

 

[David Mo]

Nothing is real. This is all an illusion created by hostile alien forces . . . Oh wait, wrong forum!

There are distinctions that exist in nature. The different wavelengths of light that the paint reflects are real.

I was responding to your assertions about the distinction between science and non-science. Those are human distinctions and they aren't real. The monkey cracking a nut through trial and error doesn't make such a distinction; it just cracks the nut to get food. So it is with humans. We do a lot of things to explore the real world. We call things that get actual measurable results "science" and we call other stuff non-science.

I made such a distinction myself betweeen Hard Science-the formal stuff follwing strict methodology to eliminate bias- and Soft Science-the informal trial and error stuff we all do, like the monkey does with the nut. I make a further distinction between Science and Philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with thinking and talking, supporting arguments with logic, etc. It isn't so concerned with the actual truth of how things work in the real world*, only if the arguments are logically coherent with the assumed axioms and proffered premises.

I don't want to launch an argument about what reality is. Much less about qualia and subjectivity.
I wasn't demanding a debate on classifications and conventions.

You seem to accept the existence of "natural" differences when you paint a room in red or blue (whatever you define as colors - qualia or wavelengths).
I suppose the same kind of difference exists when you put an observer in the background of the room or introduce a provocateur. Whether they are atoms, substances or spiritual entities.

I call these "real" differences. And I maintain the relevance of separating them as two different types of inquiry: observation and experimentation.

Of course, similarities can be found between the chimpanzee learning to put a wet stick in the anthill to hunt ants and Albert Einstein devising the theory of relativity. But you have to recognize that the differences are obvious. Since language is used to point out differences and similarities, you will have to establish some kind of words to mark the differences. You had chosen "soft" and "hard" science. I will not discuss the words now. You are talking about formal or strict knowledge. That's a start. If you continue to clarify this distinction between hard and soft, sooner or later you will find controlled experimentation as a characteristic feature of the natural sciences and a model for any kind of strict knowledge.

If I don't understand bad you think that other kinds of knowledge are possible aside from hard science. I think we agree on this.

 

[David Mo]

I don't worry about strict demarcations of "This is Science." I am concerned only with the question: "Is the idea supported by evidence or not?" Philosophical ideas are interesting and thought-provoking but they aren't evidenced.

When you face to someone (alchemist or homeopath) who pretends that he is doing science like the atomic physicist you will have no choice but to consider the problem of demarcation. Or the guru who claims that his spiritual knowledge is superior to the scientific one. Then you will have to ask what kind of evidence has the scientist who is not like the others. And that is the problem of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.

You can write whole books about what philosophy does. I'm sure there's a philosopher who disagrees. In any case, there is something that philosophy does not do: experiment and quantify. There seems to be total agreement on that.

 

[David Mo]

Because "Man is a wolf to man," is just an analogy -It's not saying that men are actually literal wolves and seeking confirmation of such. It's saying humans are ******** each other, but more poetically.

Sure. I meant the idea behind the metaphor. That man is naturally selfish and violent. This is a typical philosophical idea that Hobbes held based on what he had observed in the behavior of human beings in his time.
I'm not so sure that seeing what's going on today isn't a strong argument. Instead Pinker pretends to rely on his own observations to argue the contrary. This way of dissenting is also a feature of philosophy that despairs those who only want to see black reality against white.

 

[David Mo]

I studied Latin for four years in high school. I'm sure you're aware that many English words are derived from Latin. I learned more about English in Latin than I did in English. Studying etymology can have immediate practical benefits. It isn't just a historical exercise.

I don't deny it. But you have to see that the knowledge of things has changed quite a bit since Plato.
And I add that I still enjoy reading some of Plato's dialogues... placing them in their time. You learn things from them, but in perspective.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I studied Latin for four years in high school. I'm sure you're aware that many English words are derived from Latin. I learned more about English in Latin than I did in English. Studying etymology can have immediate practical benefits. It isn't just a historical exercise.

I am with you. Nietzsche, for one, was big on understanding the genealogy of ideas and investigated etymology of ancient Greek words.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't deny it. But you have to see that the knowledge of things has changed quite a bit since Plato.
And I add that I still enjoy reading some of Plato's dialogues... placing them in their time. You learn things from them, but in perspective.

“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato” Alfred North Whitehead.

 

[Thorkil2]

_{[The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE]}

But the study of the structures they form and the functions of those structures might. You leap from atoms to red without consideration of all the levels of increasing complexity between. It is impossible to predict the possibility of intelligence from the structure of an atom, but intelligence is a property emergent from the complexity of interacting structures formed by many atoms (and the exchange of energies within and between those structures).

 

[David Mo]

I am with you. Nietzsche, for one, was big on understanding the genealogy of ideas and investigated etymology of ancient Greek words.

Watch out for Nietzsche. A few years ago, I attended a seminar given by an expert in Dionysian cult. When someone - a philosopher, of course - asked him about Nietzsche, he shrugged and said more or less:
-"Nietzsche was a great philosopher but his vision of the Dionysian and the Apollonian was rather..." -here he paused - "imaginative".

I personally believe that Nietzsche's idea of Greece was a springboard for his attack on Judeochristianity. In fact the opposition Dionisos-Apollo ended up disappearing from his writings.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Watch out for Nietzsche. A few years ago, I attended a seminar given by an expert in Dionysian cult. When someone - a philosopher, of course - asked him about Nietzsche, he shrugged and said more or less:
-"Nietzsche was a great philosopher but his vision of the Dionysian and the Apollonian was rather..." -here he paused - "imaginative".

I personally believe that Nietzsche's idea of Greece was a springboard for his attack on Judeochristianity. In fact the opposition Dionisos-Apollo ended up disappearing from his writings.

That is a great example of a problem with philosophy. Same can said of Freud’s psychoanalysis accounts (also philosophy). They may be well constructed, internally coherent and address criticisms well but in the end they are untestable “just so” stories. This is the kind of thing Popper was rallying against in Adler and Marxist accounts. Every observed event can be used to support the model (even polar opposites) and nothing contradicts it. They are unfalsifiable. And they can be motivated by all kinds of axe grinding as you suggest.

I believe we operate with a lot more of these kinds of just so stories than we care to admit, having been indoctrinated into them from birth. Is it not better to have an understanding of their assumptions and problems in a way a philosophical treatise might lay bare? This kind of understanding also allows for working within such accounts with ironic detachment where they breakdown. This kind of perspective is what appeals to me about genealogy of ideas too. (Must read Foucault one day)

None of our political or morality stances are testable by science yet we take our positions. Nor foundational notions of epistemology or ontology. We have a need for stories that give ourselves a sense of understanding but they fail under the hard light of scrutiny. We must make our own Kierkegaardian choices.

ETA: Reckon there is a bit of Nietzsche in what I have said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

 

[LarryS]

But the study of the structures they form and the functions of those structures might. You leap from atoms to red without consideration of all the levels of increasing complexity between. It is impossible to predict the possibility of intelligence from the structure of an atom, but intelligence is a property emergent from the complexity of interacting structures formed by many atoms (and the exchange of energies within and between those structures).

Thanks for the attempt to get conversation back on track . . . your key word above is 'might'. It appears as though this thread has posters along a continuum . . . those who suggest the word 'might' or any conditional language is unwarrented, science has already figured it out and our understanding just requires a few details - to the other end of continuum, that perhaps some new properties of matter need to be discovered to explain consciousness.

 

[David Mo]

That is a great example of a problem with philosophy. Same can said of Freud’s psychoanalysis accounts (also philosophy). They may be well constructed, internally coherent and address criticisms well but in the end they are untestable “just so” stories. This is the kind of thing Popper was rallying against in Adler and Marxist accounts. Every observed event can be used to support the model (even polar opposites) and nothing contradicts it. They are unfalsifiable.

You don't have to take Popper literally either. After all, he was a philosopher and his theory on falsifiability was infalsifiable too. We must remember that he modified it several times with important consequences. Marxism, for example, was changed from a metaphysical (and therefore non-falsifiable) theory to a meaningful but false theory.

So when our beloved forum comrades repeat like a mantra that a theory is unscientific because it is not falsifiable or verifiable, they would realize that their own theory is not scientific and therefore unsafe.

That is the problem and the charm of philosophy. The problem for those who are incapable of maintaining a justifiable, even if not infallible, criterion of demarcation of science. The charm because it is not true that in philosophy there are no rules. They do exist, but they force you to look for a a certain relative truth into the rational exchange of ideas. And that is also knowledge. Or is establishing hypotheses not knowledge?

That is why scientists who move in the field of revolutionary hypotheses often feel twinned with philosophy, and scientists who move in the field of daily routines look at them with distrust. Both of them, not just to the philosophers.

Nietzsche's - and the Nietzscheans' - mistake was believing that he was establishing factual truths, when in fact, he was making an interesting philosophy. And as I said before, you have to be able to distinguish what is science from what is philosophy. It's not easy sometimes.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Ted: "Is there polka dotted bear riding on my roof?
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there an invisible, undetectable dragon in my garage?"
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there a teapot orbiting Saturn?"
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there a God?"
Bill: "Oh jeez... well I don't know... I mean I can't say for certain... I don't want to make a definitive statement... let me hem and haw for 20 minutes before saying 'I can't be sure'...."

Then yes let's cut the crap, Bill is saying there is a God.

1) False analogy ,Gods are a result of teleology (which is a deceptive kind of reasoning). Teapots and dragons are not.
2) Bill here could be an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist.

 

[Thorkil2]

Thanks for the attempt to get conversation back on track . . . your key word above is 'might'. It appears as though this thread has posters along a continuum . . . those who suggest the word 'might' or any conditional language is unwarranted, science has already figured it out and our understanding just requires a few details - to the other end of continuum, that perhaps some new properties of matter need to be discovered to explain consciousness.

I'm not sure where I fall in that continuum. I say "might" only because I lack full empirically derived answers, but there is no shortage of places to examine for those answers within the continuum.

 

[The Common Potato]

Aristotle did no experiments. I would have thought this a necessary condition to call an activity science. Nor did he quantify his subjects and examine relations. Surely both are essential ingredients to the scientific method. It is these elements that allow us to generate new facts about the workings of the cosmos.

But he presumably did make observations, which is why experiments are done.