Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

keep in mind that all those modern technologies that you, my friend, rely on every day,

Speak for yourself.

They are not reliable to me.

They are embedded in a civilization that like all other civilizations will eventually collapse.

Modern science and the technologies derived from it are no different from the knowledge sources and technologies of other civilizations except that unlike with, say, the Maya, the collapse that they cause may be global in scope and may cause the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens.

Other than one supposedly liberating us from superstition, magical thinking, etc. there is no difference, yet you do not hear about the "power" of other knowledge systems.

What I rely on are the things, such as intuitíon, that will help me survive collapse if it happens in my lifetime.

is the result of science.

And science is the result of many political and social developments, such as the forced removal of Native Americans.

People ignore the costs of something and assign it mystical qualities, all while claiming that it liberates us from things like mystical thinking.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

As a matter of fact there's not much that you're into today that doesn't have to thank science.

And when the role of science in things like anthropogenic climate change is brought up the subject is suddenly changed to "politicians" and other things that are merely human.

In other words, the beings that created it are mere fallible mortals. If something bad results from it, well, blame them. But if something good results from it it is because of things like its "predictive power".

Of course, maybe those mere fallible mortals did not create it. Maybe while they were busy dropping their jaws in awe of fictional entities with magical powers they accidentally stumbled upon it like a drunk stumbling over a rock. Maybe then they starting telling themselves a story about how they once lived in pathetic ignorance and believed in magic, miracles, superstitions and a lot of myths.

Liberated!

But then they take that thing that liberated them from magical thinking and talk about its "predictive power".

Maybe we should add that liberation to the myths, magical thinking, etc.?

Meanwhile, strip away the myths, the awe and the magical thinking and you get something that is nothing more than a complicated variation of flipping burgers at McDonald's. Making observations. Taking measurements. Manipulating material. Constructing models with symbols.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

But that's the heart of scientism: taking a fine method and turning it into comforting dogma.

It's an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that we want the world to make sense. The practice of science doesn't promise to bring order to seeming chaos. Science only investigates. Some folks, desperate to understand, layer atop science all the 'magical thinking' you point at. It's not enough for the folks to to simply appreciate the world and live with questions and uncertainty; they elevate the practice and method of science to holy writ, taking comfort in the promise of salvation (that all questions will be answered, all puzzles solved, that the proper way to 'be' will be handed to them).

This is religion, and religion is all about the ecstatic.

I am beginning to think that the science that scientism worships is not really science.

Those brief moments when our understanding and appreciation of ourselves and the world are expanded are probably the result of the purest form of the many things that have been called science (there is no universally accepted definition of science). But we get that same understanding and appreciation of ourselves and the world from things that have never been called science. Poetry. Art. Religion. Etc.

The science that scientism worships is what you describe. It is more of an ideological tool for those who seek to obtain and exercise power than it is an intellectual tool for inquisitive minds. It is only valued for its instrumental value in realizing certain political and economic outcomes.

There are many ideas competing to demarcate science, pseudoscience, mysticism, etc. Falsifiability seems to be a popular one. However, there is plenty from disciplines almost never considered to be science, such as history, that is falsifiable.

It seems to me that human inquiry is a seamless whole and that the classifications that we break it up with are arbitrary and the result of the need for convenience, specialization, intelligibility, etc.

That brings us to the real flaw in scientism: it takes an arbitrary cross section of human inquiry and treats it like it is a natural, autonomous, exceptional, triumphant whole.

Science taken out of its philosophical, historical, psychological, geographical and cultural contexts is a fictional character that scientism assigns all kinds of powers, qualities, properties, virtues, etc.

It all begins with taking something arbitrary and then arbitrarily assigning all kinds of boundaries and enclosures--falsifiability, a self-correcting method, etc.--to it and declaring it to be a sovereign territory.

Nobody is so obsessed with, oh, history vs. pseudo-history or theology vs. pseudo-theology, you know.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

Science taken out of its philosophical, historical, psychological, geographical and cultural contexts is a fictional character that scientism assigns all kinds of powers, qualities, properties, virtues, etc.

Exclusively assigns, I should add.

[Atla]

But you know - the very fact that you confuse language with empiricism... I don't know what to make of that.

Okay fair enough. I admit that I don't understand why someone who avoids actual metaphysics and is only talking about models, would comment on a philosophy forum.

[TimeSeeker]

Okay fair enough. I admit that I don't understand why someone who avoids actual metaphysics and is only talking about models, would comment on a philosophy forum.

But I am not avoiding metaphysics? It's just my metaphysical, epistemic and ontological frameworks are all grounded (unified?) in Information theory.
I CHOSE this for myself because I am actively striving against pluralism.

[Atla]

Okay fair enough. I admit that I don't understand why someone who avoids actual metaphysics and is only talking about models, would comment on a philosophy forum.

But I am not avoiding metaphysics? It's just my metaphysical, epistemic and ontological frameworks are all grounded (unified?) in Information theory.
I CHOSE this for myself because I am actively striving against pluralism.

Information theory is an abstract, dimensionless construct. I can't make sense of grounding metaphysical/epistemic/ontological frameworks in it.
I can make sense of applying information theory to different fields, which I do all the time too btw.

[TimeSeeker]

Information theory is an abstract, dimensionless construct. I can't make sense of grounding metaphysical/epistemic/ontological frameworks in it.
I can make sense of applying information theory to different fields, which I do all the time too btw.

Everything in your head is abstract (broad interpretation). Go ahead and point something that you think isn't and I'll make you doubt it.

[Atla]

Information theory is an abstract, dimensionless construct. I can't make sense of grounding metaphysical/epistemic/ontological frameworks in it.
I can make sense of applying information theory to different fields, which I do all the time too btw.

Everything in your head is abstract (broad interpretation). Go ahead and point something that you think isn't and I'll make you doubt it.

We have to make a distinction between words/concepts that directly refer to an "object"/"thing in itself"/etc., and words/concepts that refer to other words/concepts.

Also, your confidence is nauseating, especially seeing how so far you've been wrong about everything you wanted to teach me.

[TimeSeeker]

We have to make a distinction between words/concepts that directly refer to an "object"/"thing in itself"/etc., and words/concepts that refer to other words/concepts.

Maybe we do. Maybe we don't. Can we take it on case-by-case basis and solve it just-in-time?

There are only two fundamental problems with language:


Problems of reduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

Is a Cat a "thing in itself" or a collection of cells?
Is a cell a "thing in itself" or a collection of molecules?
Is a molecule a "thing in itself" or a collection of atoms?
Is an atom a "thing in itself" or just a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons?

Turtles all the way down!

And symbol-grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem )
Is an electron a "thing in itself" or is it made up of smaller parts yet?

Lets just say I don't know the answer to that and I am defaulting to the Electron being an abstraction. Because every time in the past we thought a thing is a "thing in itself" (like atoms) we keep being proven wrong.

Also, your confidence is nauseating, especially seeing how so far you've been wrong about everything you wanted to teach me.

Ah! You have some notion of 'right' and 'wrong' by which you adjudicate my arguments? I would like to hear them, BUT I also want to introduce you to the coherence theory of truth.

Is 6+6 = 14 true or false? You would probably say false until I point out that I am interpreting it in Octal not decimal number system.

And so would you say that you trying to interpret my words in your reference-frame would lead to wrong conclusions?

Expecting short inferential distances is a typical flaw in reasoning: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

And it is a hard problem to solve - because I don't know what you don't know (and vice versa) and so we keep falling for the illusion of transparency. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Illusio ... ansparency

[Atla]

Maybe we do. Maybe we don't. Can we take it on case-by-case basis and solve it just-in-time?

There are only two fundamental problems with language:


Problems of reduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

Is a Cat a "thing in itself" or a collection of cells?
Is a cell a "thing in itself" or a collection of molecules?
Is a molecule a "thing in itself" or a collection of atoms?
Is an atom a "thing in itself" or just a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons?

And symbol-grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem )
Is an electron a "thing in itself" or is it made up of smaller parts yet?

Lets just say I don't know the answer to that and I am defaulting to the Electron being an abstraction. Because every time in the past we thought a thing is a "thing in itself" (like atoms) we keep being proven wrong.

What you wrote isn't about abstraction vs thing-in-itself, it's about one big thing-in-itself vs many smaller things-in-themselves.

Ah! You have some notion of 'right' and 'wrong' by which you adjudicate my arguments? I would like to hear them, BUT I also want to introduce you to the coherence theory of truth.

Is 6+6 = 14 true or false? You would probably say false until I point out that I am interpreting it in Octal not decimal number system.

And so would you say that you trying to interpret my words in your reference-frame would lead to wrong conclusions?

Expecting short inferential distances is a typical flaw in reasoning: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

And it is a hard problem to solve - because I don't know what you don't know and so I don't know what level of abstraction to default to when speaking to you.

Since you try to enlighten me about stuff all the time, it's hard to imagine that you don't have a notion of 'right' and 'wrong'.
You also seem to think that you're the only one who is aware of different reference frames. Maybe I'm too, I just try to not jump around randomly between them, but trying to find a common language. And I haven't yet seen a common language in which falsification was a physical law btw.

[TimeSeeker]

What you wrote isn't about abstraction vs thing-in-itself, it's about one big thing-in-itself vs many smaller things-in-themselves.

That sounds like a linguistic distinction. It seems like you are trying to draw a line between things in your head and things outside of your head.
The problem though is that this is the definition of abstraction: "freedom from representational qualities".

The word "cat" is just a representation of actual cells (molecules(atoms(protons(...), electrons(...), neutrons(...)))))

So in my language everything is an abstraction. In your language everything is a thing-in-itself.

From quarks to the universe. So then why bother drawing the distinction? Can you point out something that isn't a "thing in itself" ?

Since you try to enlighten me about stuff all the time, it's hard to imagine that you don't have a notion of 'right' and 'wrong'.
You also seem to think that you're the only one who is aware of different reference frames. Maybe I'm too, I just try to not jump around randomly between them, but trying to find a common language. And I haven't yet seen a common language in which falsification was a physical law btw.

Well, not quite. In the context of a particular goal/objective/pursuit I know what works and what doesn't. If your purpose is different to my purpose then I don't care much to impose my values/language on you.

I think you may find this video very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78

[Atla]

That sounds like a linguistic distinction. It seems like you are trying to draw a line between things in your head and things outside of your head.
The problem though is that this is the definition of abstraction: "freedom from representational qualities".

The word "cat" is just a representation of actual cells (molecules(atoms(protons(...), electrons(...), neutrons(...)))))

So in my language everything is an abstraction. In your language everything is a thing-in-itself.

From quarks to the universe. So then why bother drawing the distinction? Can you point out something that isn't a "thing in itself" ?

Great, one more poster on the forum who can't distinguish the abstract from the concrete. Eodnhoj7 will love you.

Well, not quite. In the context of a particular goal/objective/pursuit I know what works and what doesn't. If your purpose is different to my purpose then I don't care much to impose my values/language on you.

I think you may find this video very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78

And what is your goal in philosophy?

[TimeSeeker]

Great, one more poster on the forum who can't distinguish the abstract from the concrete. Eodnhoj7 will love you.

I think I can draw far more distinctions than you can? I just choose not to unless absolutely necessary.

Nature has no categories (taxonomies), introducing an arbitrary one in your head is going to bite you in the ass later on.

And what is your goal in philosophy?

I don't have a goal in philosophy - I use philosophy. It's just a tool in my problem-solving toolbox.

I AM trying to find whether others have a goal. Everybody avoids the question for some reason.

Taxonomies/categories are also just tools. They allow us to simplify complexity so our primitive brains can comprehend this place we find ourselves in.

[Atla]

I think I can draw far more distinctions than you can? I just choose not to unless absolutely necessary.

Nature has no categories (taxonomies), introducing an arbitrary one in your head is going to bite you in the ass later on.

It's pretty common actually. People who get too lost in information theory / emergence / instrumentalism, including many scientists unfortunately, tend to lose the ability to realize what's abstract and what's concrete, even though they use abstract thinking all the time. Imo it's starting to cause a major problem in science.

I don't have a goal in philosophy - I use philosophy. It's just a tool in my problem-solving toolbox.

I AM trying to find whether others have a goal. Everybody avoids the question for some reason.

Taxonomies/categories are also just tools. They allow us to simplify complexity so our primitive brains can comprehend this place we find ourselves in.

Some people have goals, other don't. I don't truly have a goal, if I had to name something, it would be figuring out as much about existence as I can (and then maybe see if I can use some of it to my advantage). But I'm basically on this forum just for fun, no particular reason. Also, maybe someone can say something I haven't considered yet.