Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:they strategically avoid mention of the other side - that reason provides us with understanding that mindless experience cannot.

Yes, it is likely just as foolish to think that our mindless experience is pure and real and complete... as it is to think that our reasoning can be pure and real and complete. By finding a balance between the two, we accomplish the best we can hope for: we avoid the obvious blindness of the extremes, and perhaps are more generally aware and efficient.

uwot wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:(1) Confirmation IS a 'verification' of a hypothesis.

Well, what I said was:

Earlier I wrote:Theories are not 'confirmed'; the predictions are either verified, or they are not and any complementary mathematical treatment either works or it doesn't.

It is the predictive power of an hypothesis which is confirmed, not the model on which it might be based.

There is a lot to respond to not to mention that I haven't caught up on everyone else's discussion here. Let me just take each things one at a time here.

First off, please get this straight of me off the top: I am FOR science and even stronger an advocate FOR logic and reasoning overall. I notice how you, as many do, tend to respond to me defensively when I criticize the "institute of science" as it is practiced today as though I'm defaulted to fit in to some anti-scientific (and anti-intellectual) position without knowing who I am. It's interesting to see how this very stereotyping occurs and why I am motivated more often to defend even the supposed 'nutcases' for seeing how arrogant attitudes foster the opposing reaction that defeats enticing people into more intellectual pursuits that embrace reasoning and science.

I am well-versed in science, math, history, and philosophy of most areas universally and so much of what I hear of others informing me is NOT news to me. As to the philosophy of science, I am most invested because I do have contributions to make yet have noticed that to my disappointment, many in this community I am discovering is actually as irrational as the supposed nutcases that get all to easily attacked.

On topic, science through its present 'method' emphasizes procedure that is most suited to a labor-union mentality that expects its practitioners to be mostly subject to 'labor' type positions in jobs relating to science. As such, since the early half of the last century, the focus of scientific method and any intellectual pursuits through Universities, is to optimize outputting students who can get jobs and to learn to think in terms of responding TO authority (as there bosses in such jobs) rather than to 'think' independently. So they have overhauled the education system to reverse the WAY people are taught from early education through to University that previous ways did. In particular, the older ways emphasized understanding from the get-go by focusing on logic initially and then to advance in a foundational step-by-step process of understanding.

Today however, the 'way' is for education to focus on clerical factors first with special attention to trying to make people 'mechanically' responsive, rather than to 'think' first. It demands students think in ways that place significance on HOW future intellectuals should respect authorities both in their careers and to those of the institutes representative 'heroes'. As such, initial attention is to require the young student to 'trust' blindly in the theories they are learning with relatively trivial proofs sufficient to justify 'faith' in those authorized to teach. Then the clerical type skills are focused on, such as how to do research papers that teach them to how to CREDIT others rather than to ones' own intellectual reflection, or to learn how to anally follow strict protocols in doing experiments and recording data.

While these are good for the political expedience of getting more of the variety of scientists needed to do 'footwork', it inhibits the type of thinking more suitable for theoretical thinkers because it places this type of education at the END of one's education rather than up front. For instance, to get a degree today, you begin as an undergraduate who learns the skills to 'follow' (not lead), then to "master" what has already been authorized as legitimate wisdom, and then and only then, to grant those post masters to philosophize freely (the 'philosophy degree' or doctorate).

The process though favors those with good 'clerical' skills foremost, like ones defaulted to naturally excelled memories, and less on those with intellectual reflective capacities that make them good self-driven learners of novel ideas. This is why, for instance, you don't find too many rock-and-roll stars with initial PHDs....creativity is a function of intuition, non-authoritarian faith, and novelty most normal to the young.

One of the major problems of this preference that is embedded in the modern 'method' is that it imposes those who want to compete intellectually to require investing in the lengthier processes established by present University institutes that upon reaching a PHD biases them to justify the 'way' they've been taught afterthefact based on that investment alone. As such, it only amplifies the tendency of the institutes to output more 'authoritative' individuals and less independent thinkers. And when or where they are 'creative', they come across rather awkward in how they are capable of relating to the lay person ideas that can be relatively clearer if the process was based on a foundational way instead.

To give a good example if you might know, the type of output students the method is designed to favor is to those of the Tycho Brahe variety versus a Kepler or Newton. Though we still emphasize the significance of the stronger credibility of the 'thinkers' of the past, we actually have science today promoting the 'followers' who are most 'anal' and obedient to procedure. And thus, even the "method" today is being treated as a closed and sufficiently sound process that is considered, "universal" as a form of ritualized commandment passed down to which others are not permitted to question.

And so I bring up my contentions here (as elsewhere) to the specific aspects of the paradigm to which shows some of its flaws. One is that science as a practice has now become a practice demanding that those who put forth "theories" should require a novel experiment to either confirm the present accepted theories OR, if they are to surpass them, must be of a type of experiment that overthrows the collective set of established theory thus far. It places a burden impossibly too high as a safeguard against having to go back an do a lot of repair on past authorities. It is also set up in such a way that actually hypocritically prevents the actual capacity to overthrow certain ideas that are politically derived. And yes, this is partly 'conspiratorial' but is often done without intent not notice that such actually exists. If people voluntarily comply to some set of behaviors, it is false to presume no one is conspiring. If you have a group of all men in some organization, for instance, while even most 'unintentional', you can rationally be sure that at least some 'conspiring' behavior against women can reasonably occur.

So my first issue I mentioned is this requirement of needing a "novel experiment" because it is NOT a universal requirement that should be set in stone. While most suitable to prove most things, with respect to the 'fringe' sciences, much of these are absolutely impossible to find. And so what occurs is that we have the initial person who suggested the theory that worked via some novel experiment, get to be privileged to also claim the copyright to the explanation. So, for example, Einstein had a set of explanations that initially treated 'time' as a kind of essence that altered relative to different inertial frames. But I, as well as others likely, place the phenomena on matter still in the same way one might use the physics of the brain as an explanation for consciousness rather than to a non-physical existence. Consciousness can be rationally argued as being the effect of the physics but not treat the effect itself as an essence that is independent of the brain. To Einstein's original position via his Special Relativity, 'time' was granted the same type of essence as a soul, even if not realizing it. But should I have a better explanation, it would be still resisted even as rational as it could be because there is a very real taboo against challenging the authority of Einstein. (And this DOES occur, contrary to your false impression that it doesn't.)

And this example is what is problematic as a good example. You could actually have a better explanation for some already clearly proven (confirmed proven) theory but it is impermissible because the institutions place the prerequisite burden that one must require a novel experiment to disprove the old or affirm an extension of the old even for simply altering the authoritative 'story' (the explanation). Treating it as mere 'metaphysics' is also insulting as this still lacks any power to change the explanation within the institute of science which has the advantage of providing better insight into other areas in conflict within science. It is completely irrational except if you consider it a result of a political motivation. I have many other examples too and can provide it if asked.

uwot wrote:

Greta wrote:Basically a few people are arguing that actual experience of something provides information that analysis can't yield.

Ah! I see your point. I suppose the difference is that introducing Mary to the experience of red is a simple matter of putting something red in front of her. None of the methods proposed for experiencing some god or other are anything like as efficacious.

I prefer to consider the phenomena as presented without Iron Age Abrahamic baggage. Theists call it God, others call it phenomena, but we're talking about the same things viewed through different paradigmatic filters.

Scott, I appreciated what you wrote and agree with you that science is becoming a tool to justify pragmatism rather than its initial intent to seek truth. At some point I'd like to read your impressions of Simone Weil's assertion

The last sentence she wrote in the notebook found after her death was: "The most important part of education--to teach the meaning of to know (in the scientific sense)."
The whole of Simone Weil is contained in these few words.
- Biographical Note, Simone Weil, Waiting for God (GP Putnam's Sons 1951, Harper 1975) p xi

We can know some scientific facts but is that what it means "to know?" How would you teach what it means "to know" in a scientific sense?

Scott Mayers wrote:First off, please get this straight of me off the top: I am FOR science and even stronger an advocate FOR logic and reasoning overall.

Fair enough. So let me tell you my position. I am currently going through a divorce and house move which means I have had to suspend my MSc in the history and philosophy of science at UCL, so logic and reasoning are my stock in trade. However, I keep in mind a quote attributed to several authors to the effect that the difference between a story and real life is that a story has to make sense. Fundamentally, philosophy of science is story telling; it has to be logical and well reasoned. There is no compulsion on science to be likewise; it simply has to work.
This may not be news, but it is worth repeating. In a nutshell, universities offer three degrees of qualification: bachelors, masters and doctorate. In terms of science, a BSc is awarded to people who have spent three years learning how to use the tools of the trade efficiently, the theories, laws and equations that make our modern world tick. A BSc course is not all drudgery, but you have to show that you are familiar with working practises and reasonably competent, precisely because the vast majority of jobs in 'science' actually are drudgery. So yes, you have a point; up to this level, you could argue that it is suited to labour-union mentality. Most people in the orchestra are doing what the conductor says and supporting the soloists, as it were.
If, as you do, you feel you have something to contribute, you then generally have to do an MSc, which is basically a one year crash course in contemporary thinking, at the end of which successful candidates are judged competent to analyse and comment on the cutting edge of their field.
Having seen what everyone else is up to, if you can find a gap that might be usefully filled, you can apply to do a PhD and do your own research. That is more or less the path I am on, although I am considering a degree in physics, precisely because I know that if my philosophy is to cut the mustard with physicists, I will have to provide them with something useful; a story is just a story.

Scott Mayers wrote:To give a good example if you might know, the type of output students the method is designed to favor is to those of the Tycho Brahe variety versus a Kepler or Newton.

Indeed. Precisely because Tycho Brahe did the sort of meticulous and dreary observations that Kepler used to generate his laws of planetary motion, which were instrumental in Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Scott Mayers wrote:Treating it as mere 'metaphysics' is also insulting as this still lacks any power to change the explanation within the institute of science which has the advantage of providing better insight into other areas in conflict within science.

Well, it is my metaphysical belief that gravity is the result of refraction, but I know perfectly well that in order to be taken seriously, I will need to come up with a mathematical treatment that describes the behaviour of celestial bodies in that context. Bit of a bummer, but that's life.

Greta wrote:I prefer to consider the phenomena as presented without Iron Age Abrahamic baggage.

You and me both.

Greta wrote:Theists call it God, others call it phenomena, but we're talking about the same things viewed through different paradigmatic filters.

More often god's work, but I take your point.

Nick_A wrote:Scott, I appreciated what you wrote and agree with you that science is becoming a tool to justify pragmatism rather than its initial intent to seek truth. At some point I'd like to read your impressions of Simone Weil's assertion

The last sentence she wrote in the notebook found after her death was: "The most important part of education--to teach the meaning of to know (in the scientific sense)."
The whole of Simone Weil is contained in these few words.
- Biographical Note, Simone Weil, Waiting for God (GP Putnam's Sons 1951, Harper 1975) p xi

We can know some scientific facts but is that what it means "to know?" How would you teach what it means "to know" in a scientific sense?

I can't speak for Simone Weil, but while many even in religious circles have grasped certain errors in science, you have to be cautious to know that the motivation of her beliefs may reasonably taint her complete investigation that should reflect errors in her own thinking as with anyone favoring science by default. That is, while I agree that anyone can rationally contribute to the skepticism necessary to enhance reasoning, often we attend only to those things that help prove our case and stop too short, too soon. My own reflection on this is from a default favor TO the science but I recognized that there is credibility to those apologists of certain religious interests. I disagree to the actual particular rationality of most in religion but it IS helpful to see where certain holes lie where they are most interested in trying to find them in 'rational' competition with the accepted science. I think that we have eras of cycles that go from sincere science to religion and back [see Marx's dialectic materialism as it relates to how politics cycles this way].

BTW, The name "Weil" reminded me of Andrew Weil, who is a good example of finding relative significance to some who have some value to contribute even where contrary to certain contemporary science. I didn't know he was a guru for alternative medicine, and had I, it may have prevented me from reading his very excellent and well argued book, "From Chocolate to Morphine". I completely disagree with the 'alternative' movements but to that one book, it shows how and why there is worthy value even to those with differing views out of the accepted paradigms of the age. This is why I defend the idea that even the most apparent 'wacko' is not necessarily so if given time to understand how or where their thinking comes from. And inversely, we tend to inappropriately grant the expert of one's status to other areas once we find something they've had to say very profound. Quotes from Einstein, for example, are often absurdly used to defend some unrelated area of his expertise as though once we 'trust' one, we should trust EVERYTHING they say in exactly the same but opposite way we judge some person with an infamous track record to mean anything they say must always be irrational. (Even a "Hitler" could contribute something positive of value, for an extreme example.)

uwot wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:First off, please get this straight of me off the top: I am FOR science and even stronger an advocate FOR logic and reasoning overall.

Fair enough. So let me tell you my position. I am currently going through a divorce and house move which means I have had to suspend my MSc in the history and philosophy of science at UCL, so logic and reasoning are my stock in trade. However, I keep in mind a quote attributed to several authors to the effect that the difference between a story and real life is that a story has to make sense. Fundamentally, philosophy of science is story telling; it has to be logical and well reasoned. There is no compulsion on science to be likewise; it simply has to work.
This may not be news, but it is worth repeating. In a nutshell, universities offer three degrees of qualification: bachelors, masters and doctorate. In terms of science, a BSc is awarded to people who have spent three years learning how to use the tools of the trade efficiently, the theories, laws and equations that make our modern world tick. A BSc course is not all drudgery, but you have to show that you are familiar with working practises and reasonably competent, precisely because the vast majority of jobs in 'science' actually are drudgery. So yes, you have a point; up to this level, you could argue that it is suited to labour-union mentality. Most people in the orchestra are doing what the conductor says and supporting the soloists, as it were.
If, as you do, you feel you have something to contribute, you then generally have to do an MSc, which is basically a one year crash course in contemporary thinking, at the end of which successful candidates are judged competent to analyse and comment on the cutting edge of their field.
Having seen what everyone else is up to, if you can find a gap that might be usefully filled, you can apply to do a PhD and do your own research. That is more or less the path I am on, although I am considering a degree in physics, precisely because I know that if my philosophy is to cut the mustard with physicists, I will have to provide them with something useful; a story is just a story.

Scott Mayers wrote:To give a good example if you might know, the type of output students the method is designed to favor is to those of the Tycho Brahe variety versus a Kepler or Newton.

Indeed. Precisely because Tycho Brahe did the sort of meticulous and dreary observations that Kepler used to generate his laws of planetary motion, which were instrumental in Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Scott Mayers wrote:Treating it as mere 'metaphysics' is also insulting as this still lacks any power to change the explanation within the institute of science which has the advantage of providing better insight into other areas in conflict within science.

Well, it is my metaphysical belief that gravity is the result of refraction, but I know perfectly well that in order to be taken seriously, I will need to come up with a mathematical treatment that describes the behaviour of celestial bodies in that context. Bit of a bummer, but that's life.

I hope you do well with your endeavors. I highly value the function of even the institutions for the same practical reasons politically too. As long as we recognize that this is about that practicality only. Now with the Internet, we'll now see how the next generations utilize this in effective ways that help those who at least want to do the foundational approach. I defend it as 'best' to my own bias. But if you DO have those exceptional skills to adapt to both ends of the spectrum, this is even more advantageous.

I'm skeptical of the 'institutional' politics from experience too. You can have a teacher who literally affects you powerfully in a negative way even with excellent qualifications should that teacher simply not like you! I once took a simple algebra class to update my original high school grade of 50% from my own later personal reinvestment. Mathematically, I had already self-taught myself Calculus by then and algebra was Mickey Mouse to me. Yet this teacher vehemently hated me. I hadn't known why this teacher seemed to be absurdly extreme to degrade me in tests I should have clearly passed. For instance, he arrogantly failed me on one test for me opting not to use brackets when using algebraic expressions using fractions simply because he literally demanded this??. Example, if the following expression was some correct answer to a problem,

a+4
7

he would mark it completely wrong for simply NOT using brackets around the 'a+4' as '(a+4)'. Obviously this is irrelevant as the line of the fraction in normal handwriting this as such means the same thing and there is no confusion. Only much later, I learned that I was sabotaged due to that teacher's personal intimate relation to someone of my recent past I was unaware was going on at the time! Another teacher at one time teaching biology demanded EXACT definitions she assigned for tests. There was NO allowance for one to use their own words even if very logically clear or improved. The whole class received a shock in the first exam and though we learned to 'adapt' to that in future tests, this is another example of politics within institutes even where no one in particular is necessarily targeted.

And, one last experience I had only a few years ago, doing a similar 'upgrading' for a chemistry class, since we now have a means for teachers to create distinct tests (normally randomized) by computers, the teacher was 'testing' me without me being aware by giving me questions that went beyond her teaching. Yet, from experience (as with the ones mentioned above), I learned to default to only USE methods that was taught ONLY with that particular class unless it was trivial and I added notes to that. One of a few similar questions got me stuck in that, though it could be solved using advanced methods not taught, it totally threw me off since I tried hard to figure out how it could be solved with the limitations of her teaching and the course level. I thought I missed something absurdly 'simple' but that I was losing my mind. So her perhaps innocent possible reasons to 'test' me may have been well intended, it completely screwed me up in that exam as I devoted way too much time on these 'tests' rather than the rest of the exam dealing with WHAT she particularly taught.

As you can see, these simple examples just demonstrate a tidbit of how 'politics' plays a role through institutes. Now amplify this to the institutions collectively as a whole!

Hi Scott. You wrote: I can't speak for Simone Weil, but while many even in religious circles have grasped certain errors in science, you have to be cautious to know that the motivation of her beliefs may reasonably taint her complete investigation that should reflect errors in her own thinking as with anyone favoring science by default. That is, while I agree that anyone can rationally contribute to the skepticism necessary to enhance reasoning, often we attend only to those things that help prove our case and stop too short, too soon. My own reflection on this is from a default favor TO the science but I recognized that there is credibility to those apologists of certain religious interests. I disagree to the actual particular rationality of most in religion but it IS helpful to see where certain holes lie where they are most interested in trying to find them in 'rational' competition with the accepted science. I think that we have eras of cycles that go from sincere science to religion and back [see Marx's dialectic materialism as it relates to how politics cycles this way].

I see I wasn’t clear in my question of what Simone meant by “to know” in science. It is a deceptively simple idea and this is what I believe she meant. I was first touched by it as a young chess player who admired the great fighting world champion Dr. Emanuel Lasker. When I read his remark I felt something important in it but underestimated its depth:

Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I have learned or read. Since then, I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. (...) I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of use in many and varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead.” ~ Dr. Emanuel Lasker”

Chess facts gradually evolved into understanding the game which meant the methods from which facts arose. When I read Simone’s remark she seemed to be saying the same thing. To know science as opposed to knowledge of facts means to know it in context. Facts are just external representatives of essential universal laws. Just as Dr. Lasker was free to discard memorized facts relevant to various positions, because he understood the game, its deeper relationships. A scientist could begin to understand the context within which facts become known. So to know science is really to become open to the context within whch isolated facts are united. In Platonic terms it means moving from opinions towards knowledge. Does that make sense?

Scott Mayers wrote:I hope you do well with your endeavors.

Thank you.

Scott Mayers wrote:...if you DO have those exceptional skills to adapt to both ends of the spectrum, this is even more advantageous.

Even I think it's a tall order, but fuck it, I'll give it a go.

Scott Mayers wrote:As you can see, these simple examples just demonstrate a tidbit of how 'politics' plays a role through institutes. Now amplify this to the institutions collectively as a whole!

I'm sorry to hear of your unfortunate brushes with poor teaching. I once had a maths teacher who came up with a formula designed to eliminate the effect of chance on a multiple choice test. As a result I got 102%. As I mentioned, I'm at one of the world's best universities, number 4, if you believe their own chest thumping, but you do have to mangle the stats a bit to push it that high. Local rivals Imperial College do better, by my reckoning. For the most part, the teaching is as good as you would expect, but one lecturer that I sat with was, frankly, hopeless.

For some reason the question of God and religion is only argued intellectually on this site. But what if these efforts are futile?

Suppose the descending hierarchy of Plato’s form of the Good is based on reality? If we cannot verify it intellectually, could we verify it emotionally through the experience of a higher emotional quality? Can a person “feel” the hierarchy of being and is a certain quality of religious music capable of opening a person to the inward conscious direction within which hierarchy is experienced? I tried a thread on this in on the Aesthetics board titled “The Anonymous in Religious Music.” The direction of the good is timeless so always present By definition this direction is anonymous. So far no one has felt it. Frankly I think this is sad. Does the futility of reason taken to excess lead to the inability to feel the mind and heart opening experiences that religious music of a certain quality offers and outside the domain of science?

Nick_A wrote: For some reason the question of God and religion is only argued intellectually on this site. But what if these efforts are futile?

Suppose the descending hierarchy of Plato’s form of the Good is based on reality? If we cannot verify it intellectually, could we verify it emotionally through the experience of a higher emotional quality? Can a person “feel” the hierarchy of being and is a certain quality of religious music capable of opening a person to the inward conscious direction within which hierarchy is experienced? I tried a thread on this in on the Aesthetics board titled “The Anonymous in Religious Music.” The direction of the good is timeless so always present By definition this direction is anonymous. So far no one has felt it. Frankly I think this is sad. Does the futility of reason taken to excess lead to the inability to feel the mind and heart opening experiences that religious music of a certain quality offers and outside the domain of science?

I don't talk the way you do or think the way you do, and I balance reason WITH an open mind and open heart -- and the beauty of religious music (sometimes) or any music, or all sorts of things, can make me cry... when I see the glory of who we are and the vast scope of beauty, creativity, and love. However, you have pigeonholed me too many times, because of what YOU are incapable of seeing/considering/accepting... and therefore, I likely cannot answer your questions in the way you might want. I do not think of "hierarchies"... I think of "scope" and "levels" and "dimensions". Balance and equality and oneness. I can tell you that people are not as limited (and mechanical) as you seem to suggest they are... they're simply not like you.

Peace.

(P.S. I don't know how you got off my ignore list... but here you are, and I felt compelled to respond.)

Lacewing wrote:

(P.S. I don't know how you got off my ignore list... but here you are, and I felt compelled to respond.)

I know we are far apart but that is OK. You are with the majority and I support the minority who have witnessed and personally experienced the results of the human condition within themselves.

As long as I don't get on the ignore lists of any more cute blonde women around 24 I'll be OK

Nick_A wrote:You are with the majority and I support the minority who have witnessed and personally experienced the results of the human condition within themselves.

Why do you make such judgments against me? You know very little about me!

This is YOUR STUFF... and you're arguing with IT, not with ME!

Lacewing, I’m not being critical of you but have only pointed out that we begin with different premises. You celebrate Man in the World as you pointed out in the Edge thread. I believe that Man in the World is as if in a cave asleep to the conscious potential for our species. Some have had a glimpse of it and I support them. A small minority understand in both their mind and their heart. I admire them. They are neither here nor there. Meister Eckhart describes them. The World may ridicule them but some like me know they have much to offer as it pertains to conscious potential and the Way home.

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" Meister Eckhart