To me, “scientism” means having a certain attitude about science, an attitude that it is the best kind of knowledge, and sometimes that one’s attitude toward science can cloud one’s judgment, accepting without understanding a particular theory.

So "In what way does 'this is something I'm perceiving' go beyond our experience?" doesn't make sense in the context of the question I asked and your initial answer to it. "Just a tree" is not the same thing as "This is something I'm perceiving."

That suggests that maybe you didn't really understand the question. — Terrapin Station

@Dfpolis

Terrapin, if I understand him, believes that there is a direct apprehension of the physical world. There is nothing lost in perceiving. He doesn’t buy the cognitive science theory of perception.

Did I get that right, Terrapin?

dimensionally diminished mapping. — Dfpolis

Can you explain this, though?

To me a projection is first some aspect of reality existentially penetrating us -- projecting itself into us -- and second, our fixing on some part of that presentation and projecting it into our conceptual space. Each of these steps is represents a potential loss of content and so is a projection in the mathematical sense of a dimensionally diminished mapping. — Dfpolis

I actually think this might be a better model than Kant’s from Critique of Pure Reason. Df’s model isn’t saying that time and space are mental constructs projected on the world as Kant said, and I kind of have a problem with that aspect of CPoR.

For me, any reasonable definition of spirituality would have to include, not mere happiness, but cultivation of the good life, however you might conceive of that. Cultivation implies something beyond merely espousing some set of beliefs that might make you feel secure or happy, but would include actually working on yourself to make yourself into a better person. So, I think spirituality is neither "purely mystical" nor would it include religious fundamentalism, since the latter exemplifies a narrow bigoted life that could not qualify as "virtuous" or "thriving". — Janus

This is a good point, and I think @Wayfarer would agree.

I suppose an interesting topic of discussion might be whether spirituality is purely mystical or whether it includes religious fundamentalism?

If, though, it's sort of like receiving prophecies and you insist those prophecies are revelations of truth, that would satisfy the JTB criteria. And isn't that what biblical knowledge allegedly is, with prophets receiving truth from atop a mountain? — Hanover

I granted you this.

. It's like seeing a robin hopping around on the ground and feeling happy. — Hanover

Why couldn’t this be spiritual? Emotion can be spiritual, especially as consciousness to me is inherently spiritual.

It's not a category error. It's a definitional issue, where you wish to limit the definition of spiritual knowledge as that which is received in a mystical manner as opposed to through sacred documents. — Hanover

It is a category error in so much as what I intended to mean by “spiritual.” Insofar as you didn’t know what I was talking about, and you define it another way to include religious fundamentalism, it is not a category error.

There is a meta solution. One needn't regret or feel pain for what had to happen in actuality, this thus obviating "if's", "should have's", etc. — PoeticUniverse

That is the philosopher’s excuse. With that line of thinking, no one would change for the better.

I agree. Scientism seems to rest on how one justifies a belief. That said, I still think a lot of people fall for the consumer products sold by self-interested capitalists that say “science shows.” That is another insidious form of scientism.

If yes then is it safe to say that people don't truly wanna know themselves and choose to be ignorant. — Sheik Yerbouti

I tend to agree. It’s difficult to look in the mirror.

To me, belief is a decision to affirm or deny. One can also not hold a belief if they withhold judgment or if one hasn’t been exposed to the subject. Belief is based on justification, the driving force of the determination to affirm, deny, or withhold judgment (when there is no justification). Justification is coherency which includes consistency (consistency doesn’t include coherency necessarily, but that’s getting off topic). The foundation of justification for science is observation of the physical world. The foundation for justification in religion is usually scripture. I owe that one to @Hanover

Basically, I am trying to understand what he means by love is rational because it is beautiful and you can know something is truly beautiful or not by thinking about it, but not by feeling or seeing. — Sameer

Well, without reading the progression of this thread, I will give my opinion. Beauty is driven by feeling, but the concept of beauty must be rationally arrived at through thinking. For Plato, that concept adheres to the Form of Beauty, in the Platonic realm of Forms, something rational thought refers to.

And then you make a breakthrough when you realize that many of the people who criticize man-made global warming or the theory of evolution are not ignorant and that the evidence is not overwhelming, it's rather the people pushing them who are overwhelming :wink: — leo

What is a better explanation for global warming than the one I’ve given? I might want to debate this. Also, what is a better explanation for the variety of life on the planet than evolution? I might want to debate this as well.

Spiritual experiences are self-justifying as spiritual experiences if one defines spirituality a certain way, viz. the feelings of awe and wonder and heightened states of consciousness. Given that they are a given to the individual, the person must know when they are experiencing them.

Also, the topic was spiritual knowledge, not religious fundamentalism. Were you deliberately trying to confuse me with this category error, or was it an honest mistake on your part?

Well, if justifying Statism is something you have no interest in doing, then you're not presenting anything that is particularly threatening to my thesis. — Virgo Avalytikh

So far, no good arguments have been given for Statism over Anarcho-Libertarianism regarding market failure. It’s just a matter of the proven, tried and true, for protecting relative freedom, and the unproven of Anarcho-Libertarianism.

But, that only addresses the thesis. The practical matter is, there isn’t enough real estate to divide up the world equitably to start this project out from the beginning. That’s why, I believe, the billionaire class loves this idea of Anarcho-Libertarianism. They seem to get that they would get to keep their shares that were gained through the State because there is no practical way to start from a blank slate. The powers that be JUST SIMPLY WON’T ALLOW IT, anyway. And the riff-raff would rebel in a system without a centralized propaganda machine if the billionaire class got to keep their property.

This all, of course, doesn’t address the OP, so I wouldn’t expect Virgo to respond to these points if she doesn’t want to.

I don’t have a good argument as to how there is a theoretic difference between scientific knowledge and spiritual or religious knowledge. One might say that science often makes accurate predictions, while the Bible has made none. Also, technology seems to work. So, one could argue that one appears to satisfy the truth condition while the other does not, but that wasn’t what I said in the OP.

You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality, so I don’t know how I would disagree. Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point, but like I said, it seems like what you say might be true. Much of it speculates on motives, but what you describe as potential motives may very well be the true motives of the parties in power. That said, we’ve enjoyed a relatively long stretch of relative peace since WWII, so there’s that to be said for the powers that be, and I think free trade is a good means of helping to ensure peace, at least among nations states when it comes to hot wars. All of what I’ve said can be argued against, as its not very nuanced, and my simplistic explanations may just be what the neocons want us to believe. I would add that institutions aren’t inherently bad, but there are always selfish actors.

Sorry for my stream of consciousness, here and elsewhere. I like to debate myself.

People just look like hairless apes.

BUT... when it comes to man-made global warming or the theory of evolution, saying “I believe they are true” gives license to the ignorant and the disinformation machines to say “We believe they are not true” when there is overwhelming evidence for them to be true. So, yeah. There’s that.

Ah. Well, I still think you’re gracious for not being vengeful. You are true to your philosophy, something very few of us can say.

But, @Virgo Avalytikh is saying that the State is redundant. Rights can be enforced through private means if necessary.

whereas in "I believe X is true" one at least acknowledges a belief and presumably the idea that X is possibly faillible. — leo

Which is why belief in any scientific model should explicitly say, “I believe X is true.” It’s not the same as “I believe my keys are on the table” when one is looking at the table and sees keys on it. There’s no need for “I believe” in this latter case because it is evident. Scientific models are not evident. So, yes, I agree with you.

I tend to think that if half of the planet weren’t complete animals like myself, and more of us were like Virgo, then this whole libertarian thing would work out splendidly.

dabs — Virgo Avalytikh

Plus, I’m not really sure what this means. I assume it’s forgiveness? That seems like something a gracious person would do, and that’s how I now think of you.

Therefore, declaring a right of ownership in the first instance cannot be aggression. That is to put the cart before the horse. — Virgo Avalytikh

I think I actually agree with this point.

No need. I know when I’m wrong. :kiss:

Could we maybe stop with all the ad hominem, please? I thought we were doing political philosophy here. You really don't know enough about my life to make these kinds of judgements. — Virgo Avalytikh

Yes. You’re absolutely right to call me out. I respect your dignity.

There may be a ‘common sense’ that the State is the source of rights, but I think there is an equally strong ‘common sense’ that it is possible for States to commit rights-violations of their own, implying that there is a higher standard of rights to which States are subject. It is probably the case that most people’s common-sense intuitions just are not terribly refined on this point. — Virgo Avalytikh

She makes a valid point. And I respect her for not taking my bait.

Right, but in that case your argument boils down to "no system is perfect, all systems have their problems to deal with". That may be an insightful realization, it just doesn't do anything to argue for any particular system. — Echarmion

Because she drank the Kool-Aid of the billionaire class that funded her educational curriculum. Perhaps daddy is rich, too? States seem particularly coercive to the rich when they don’t want to pay taxes.

Doesn’t it at all concern you that Brexit is what Putin wants? Hmm. I suppose Putin and the common people of the UK could have interests in common by accident and for different reasons... Never thought of it that way actually. You say the EU would be another step removed from the people they are supposed to represent, so that would be bad for the common folk. Putin doesn’t want a strong and united Europe for a couple of reasons, probably because they are his historical enemies, but also maybe because they won’t then need Russia for trade as much? I don’t know. That would be a common goal by coincidence, the common people of the UK and Putin. I don’t know. That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me that the corporate media is solely trying to line its pockets by hoodwinking the commoners who have a common goal as Putin?? Hmm. Maybe? Perhaps the corporate media isn’t all evil? In the US, there is MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. Fox News is the corporate media and so is MSNBC, but they don’t see the world from the same lens. Fox News is pro-Trump while MSNBC is anti-Trump. Where is the conspiracy there? Both are corporate enterprises, so where is the conspiracy? Does the UK have a pro-Brexit network and an anti-Brexit network, too? I’d be interested to know.

we suffer because it is natural. — Wallows

To me, “we suffer because it is natural,” is a brute fact, not a suggestion that you can’t do anything about it. Isn’t that a point of meditation? To separate one’s mind from the ego, the part that suffers? @Wayfarer, is that right?

In a small town, a few lunatics are very noticeable. It's easy for the whole cloth community (to which the fringe is attached) to make life difficult for the small group of deluded, mistaken, misinformed, deviantly opinionated, bigoted, faggoted, torqued out, commie, rebel yelling people. Or at least make them uncomfortable. — Bitter Crank

Not really. We’re all mostly polite here. The lunatic fringe here is just passive-aggressive. Confederate flags and bumper stickers mostly. I hope you’re right about the gun-confiscation thing because they would go from passive-aggressive to aggressive-aggressive I fear. But what’s the solution to the mass shootings then?

But I don’t think Evangelical Fundamentalism works very well if one wants to be an astrophysicist.

An Evangelical Fundamentalist, for example, would declare himself a foundationalist, asserting truth is founded in the Bible and that it can't be challenged, just as you say sense data is foundational in terms of it yielding truth. — Hanover

Well, living my life by my and my wife’s senses work better than following the Bible in the practical world. It works, and I would really doubt that an Evangelical Fundamentalist does anything differently. They just have another kind of truth as well.

How isn't this synonymous with declaring yourself a person of faith?
— Hanover

What do you mean? — Noah Te Stroete

If you’re asking me if I have faith in my senses, then you may have a point. That’s why I check in with my wife. She’s my eyes and ears on a lot of things. I suppose that is faith, so if that’s your point, then point granted.

How isn't this synonymous with declaring yourself a person of faith? — Hanover

What do you mean?

I know based upon my own driving experience, my own understanding of math and physics, and a strong sense of spatial relations that there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks. What happened to me is physically impossible by those standards, and yet... it most certainly did happen. — creativesoul

:smile:

My mistake. Sarcasm can lose it's umph when presented with written word alone. It's easily mistook for sincerity. That's my default position. Trusting that a speaker believes what they are saying. — creativesoul

No worries