Yes, we don't make the world into what we want it to be, we accept the world as it transpires to be. — Pseudonym

Really? It seems to be quite the opposite in the case of science. Tell me, can science predict what I am going to do today? That's the only thing meaningful to me - my life. Can science predict what I am going to experience today, besides the sun I mean? Not to trivialize science, but for all its bluster, it really ignores everything meaningful in order to give itself enormous self-importance. At the end of the day (literally) science really explains and understands almost nothing yet pretends that it does.

Yes, and magic flying unicorns are asserted by the scientific worldview to be non-existent too. — Pseudonym

So the things in concepts are non-existent? What about numbers and circles?

A theory is developed which is as simple as possible, inventing a few new concepts as it can and which is falsifiable. That theory is tested and whilst it remains unfalsified, it is held to be a currently good approximation to the truth. — Pseudonym

But what about the concepts themselves? How would one make a falsifiable theory concerning the existence of concepts? Or is it the case that some of us just take it for granted that they are real, and some take it for granted that they are not real?

What science does is simply say that we have no way conducting objective knowledge-seeking discourse about things which are entirely subjective. — Pseudonym

Are all concepts either entirely subjective or entirely oblective though? I think the issue is a lot more complex than a simple division between objective and subjective.

Tell me, can science predict what I am going to do today? — Rich

You're going to breathe, your heart will pump blood round your body, your feels will continue to divide and grow, Microbiology can tell you a huge amount of what's going on in every single cell in your body.

Beyond the firm predictions, science can make some really tight predictions about the scope of your actions. You will not fly, you won't suddenly speak Japanese if you don't already know it.

Then we can get into some good estimates of liklihood from social sciences. You will more likely than not engage socially, you'll more likely than not be repulsed by a list of things and attracted to a list of thing common to most humans.

I could go on.

Now, how well does theology do at the same task?

You're going to breathe, your heart will pump blood round your body, your feels will continue to divide and grow, — Pseudonym

You think one needs science to know we are breathing and we have a heart that is pumping, and that we are growing and dying?

Beyond the firm predictions, science can make some really tight predictions about the scope of your actions. You will not fly, you won't suddenly speak Japanese if you don't already know it. — Pseudonym

Science cannot make any predictions on any of this (in fact there are people who start speaking in foreign dialects out it no where). What they can do is guess like the rest of us do. I'll guess that I'll eat breakfast this morning - but maybe not.

Science barely figures into the untold number of events that one experiences in life. Yesterday I played three hours of pool. Do you know how people learn to play pool? By feel.

So the things in concepts are non-existent? What about numbers and circles? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've been through this in my previous posts. I've not personally heard any scientist make claims about the non-existence of concepts, nor that science can prove its own axioms. I've asked for examples of scientists making these claims but have yet to hear any. Science does, quite justifiably claim that unicorns do not have any effect on the world. It makes the same claim about God, that it probably doesn't exist in such a way as to actually effect the world we collectively experience.

But what about the concepts themselves? How would one make a falsifiable theory concerning the existence of concepts? Or is it the case that some of us just take it for granted that they are real, and some take it for granted that they are not real? — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends what you mean by 'concept'. If you mean an idea of something that might exist (or might be the case) in someone's mind, then I don't see any other conclusion than that all concepts which have ever been conceived of self-evidently exist. How could a concept possibly not exist?

The scientific method could be considered an attempt to determine what concepts (by which I mean things which might exist or be the case) actually do exist or are the case in the world as we collectively experience it.

So concepts are neither wholly objective nor subjective. The job of science is to determine which are which. On end of the tasks of philosophy might be to prepare concepts for such a test by clarifying them and resolving semantic issues from physical ones.

Well, I thought I'd try at least one reply, but you've descended into nonsense already so we'll leave it there.

Really, worshipping science, is nonsense. But I realize that worshipping is part of the human psyche. As far as I can tell, it is most likely to appear when one has little faith in oneself. It is why I suggest that one practices belief in one's own ability to navigate life. Otherwise one must cede this ability to some outside force. To me, science worship snacks of religious evangelism.

I've been through this in my previous posts. I've not personally heard any scientist make claims about the non-existence of concepts, nor that science can prove its own axioms. I've asked for examples of scientists making these claims but have yet to hear any. Science does, quite justifiably claim that unicorns do not have any effect on the world. It makes the same claim about God, that it probably doesn't exist in such a way as to actually effect the world we collectively experience. — Pseudonym

So, on what basis then would a person with a science based worldview claim that things like flying unicorns, and gods don't exist?

If whether or not one believes in God affects the way that they behave, then the claim about God, which you say that science makes, that God doesn't actually effect the world that we experience, is blatantly false. That's the thing about beliefs, they clearly have effect on the way that we behave. So the thing believed has obvious effect on the world we experience. Just look at the principles of geometry. So if you assume to validate whether a concept exists or not based on whether it effects the world we experience, then it is necessary to conclude that they exist. And since the belief in God affects the way people behave, just like the belief in geometrical principles affects the way they behave, thus affecting the world we experience, then we ought to conclude that God definitely exists "in such a way as to actually effect the world we collectively experience".

So concepts are neither wholly objective nor subjective. The job of science is to determine which are which. On end of the tasks of philosophy might be to prepare concepts for such a test by clarifying them and resolving semantic issues from physical ones. — Pseudonym

This is where you have things mixed up. Philosophy determines the difference between objective and subjective. So philosophy distinguishes between which concepts are objective and which concepts are subjective, not science. Science produces concepts, philosophy determines the objectivity of these concepts.

If whether or not one believes in God affects the way that they behave, then the claim about God, which you say that science makes, that God doesn't actually effect the world that we experience, is blatantly false. That's the thing about beliefs, they clearly have effect on the way that we behave. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair enough. That sounds an entirely reasonable way to define the existence of a concept and I agree that under that definition a concept can have a effect on the world through the way in which it steers a person's thinking. So every single God exists in all varieties that humans ever thought of. Unicorns, fairies, dragons all exist insofar as they affect people's behaviour (the concept certainly motivated fantasy authors who would behave differently without the concept). Aliens exist, the illuminati exist, lizard men in the centre of the earth exist. I'm quite happy with your definition, I think it eliminates a lot of semantic issues, but I think it's a far cry from the claim theologians are apt to make.

Science produces concepts, philosophy determines the objectivity of these concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I could agree with you here only to the extent that scientists do philosophy. Scientists certainly do not consult philosophers to check whether their results are objective. They already know whether their results are objective by the confirmation of others.

Thereby subjugating every human attribute to adaptive necessity. — Wayfarer

At some point in the next couple of weeks I will do a thread on this, but the idea that 'we are all evolved by a process of natural selection' = 'every human attribute is an adaptive necessity' is bogus science and that fact that you keep repeating this line is a testament less to the poverty of evolutionary thought than an ignorance regarding how evolution works. NS lays down limits, constraints on the possible, it does not imply that 'every human attribute is an adaptive necessity'. NS is a 'baggy' principle such that there is plenty of trait variation which NS is simply blind too. And as is usually the case, this line completely forgets that sexual selection is an entirely different selection mechanism whose influence on phylogenesis is both massive and overlooked. Please please please stop perpetuating this vicious lie.

Some basic reading on this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/education/2015/05/biggest-evolution-misconceptions-part-1/ [see 'Misconception #2']

Aliens exist, the illuminati exist, lizard men in the centre of the earth exist. I'm quite happy with your definition, I think it eliminates a lot of semantic issues, but I think it's a far cry from the claim theologians are apt to make. — Pseudonym

This is why we have different terms, like "real", "exist", and "being". Different philosophers would set out different semantic rules for distinguishing one from the other. But if you mix up one philosopher's meaning with another, or pay attention to no formal semantic rules, simply referring to layman's vernacular, then we're lost in ambiguity this matter.

I could agree with you here only to the extent that scientists do philosophy. Scientists certainly do not consult philosophers to check whether their results are objective. They already know whether their results are objective by the confirmation of others. — Pseudonym

I agree that scientists do philosophy because I think that science is a form of philosophy. However, I am not convinced that scientists are qualified to determine whether or not their results are "objective". That is because "objective" is another one of those ambiguous words, such that "objective" according to one philosophy is not the same as "objective" according to another.

Fundamentally, "objective" means of the object. There are two principle senses of "object" such that one is physical and the other non-physical. So we have "objective" in the sense of "of the physical object", and in the sense of "of the non-physical object" (implying a goal, or an aim). The latter form of "objective" is proper to the subject.

To make matters worse, there is another sense of "objective" which seems to cross the boundary between these two in common usage. Epistemologists sometimes say that knowledge is "objective" if there is agreement amongst individuals concerning the thing known. Generally, when people say that scientific knowledge is "objective", it is in this sense that they use the word, peer reviewed or something. It doesn't mean "objective" in the sense of "of the object, because knowledge is property of the human beings, not the objects which are known. Nor is it really "objective" in the sense of an aim or a goal of a subject, because it is common to many subjects. It is a sense of "objective" which means "inter-subjective". We must be careful not to confuse this sense of "objective" which is inter-subjective, with "objective" in the sense of "of the object".

every human attribute is an adaptive necessity' is bogus science — StreetlightX

Right - I perfectly agree. But it is writ large in cultural discourse, regardless. You see that in many comments and posts on this Forum - posters frequently muse on whether 'happiness has evolved for a reason' or some such - if I could be bothered I could find current examples right now. So I'm perfectly aware of the 'myth of all traits being adaptive' - it's exactly what I'm criticizing. Michael Ruse, who I'm sure you are well aware is no friend of intelligent design, says

There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation.

Again, I'm criticizing what is generally called 'scientism' - the deeply-embedded view that science is the definitive guide to what is real, and that (as Pseudonym says), other sources of insight are ultimately or only subjective in nature.

And you can say all of that without maligning the science of evolutionary biology in the slightest.

Please please please stop perpetuating this vicious lie. — StreetlightX

This perpetuation is an example of the disingenuousness I referred to earlier, but I predict Wayfarer will remain in denial about this, refuse to address it, and continue to promulgate the same tired old tropes. To what end exactly I have no idea. :roll:

I predict Wayfarer will remain in denial about this, — Janus

Many of your criticisms of my posts are based largely on not understanding what I'm talking about. You 'fail to see why such and such' is the point, then blame me for not having explained it properly, and then propogate the same tired old ad hominems. That is why I will set an example by ignoring your posts henceforth.

If SLX does create that thread on evolution and ethics, I will be pleased to jump in.

This is an edit of a post from a few minutes ago:

Thus, when Plotinus says that Intelligence emanates from the One, and the Soul emanates from Intelligence, and the multiplicity of beings follows from the Soul, this appears to be completely backward and unintelligible to a perspective of emergence, so it's just designated as mysticism, and ignored. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't call that metaphysics. As I mean metaphysics, it's the discussion of what discussably, describably is.

In your quote of Plotinus, he's talking about something other than metaphysics. He isn't discussing, but only asserting.

Or, if his statement is taken as metaphysics, it's unsupported metaphysics:

Metaphysical statements should be supportable and supported. Because there are one or more metaphysicses that neither have nor need any assumptions or brute-facts, then there's no need for brute-facts or assumptions in metaphysics.

I don't think that metaphysics can cover, describe or discuss all of Reality.

(But, to me, "emergence" is part of Materialist or quasi-Materialist philosophers' Spiritualist mumbo-jumbo.)

From your quote, it sounds to me like Plotinus is expressing an opinion or individual feeling, and that's legitimate. But it seems to me that he's saying more detail than can be said about meta-metaphysics.

...and, as I said, if his statement is taken as metaphysics, then it's insufficiently-supported metaphysics.

Plotinus's statement sounds similar to things that are said in Vedanta writings. Those Vedanta writings, and Plotinus's statement, could be interpreted as meta-metaphysics that I don't understand, and which (I feel) says more detail than can really be said about meta-metaphysics--or else as metaphysics that doesn't meet my standard of support, and absence of assumptions or brute-facts. ...and of complete uncontroversialness.

Michael Ossipoff

Many of your criticisms of my posts are based largely on not understanding what I'm talking about. You 'fail to see why such and such' is the point, then blame me for not having explained it properly, and then propogate the same tired old ad hominems. — Wayfarer

This is untrue. You simply fail to address most of my criticisms of your claims, criticisms which are similar in kind to criticisms made by others; which you also fail to address, often by deflection. But, strangely, you seem to take particular offense at my questioning of your ideas.

If you really believe your characterization here of my responses to your posts is true and accurate; then present an example and explain why you say it is "not understanding what you are talking about" and/ or "ad hominem". Why not engage in honest and open discussion in a spirit of having nothing to protect?

I am simply nonplussed that you take all this so personally. From my point of view, I have genuine criticisms of the ideas you are presenting, ideas which I understand only too well insofar as there was a time when I argued for similar ideas myself. I'm not questioning your right to believe whatever you want; but this is a philosophy forum, and all ideas presented here should be prepared for merciless questioning.

In your case, there is a type of passive-aggressive tone - that I’m being disingenuous, that I’ve been ‘wasting my time’ repeating the same ‘tired old tropes’ again and again - which are all things you have said in the recent past. I do try and explain the points I make in more detail, but I honestly feel like a lot of it goes right over your head - which you say then is ‘a deflection’. There many posters who ignore my posts, and many posters that I don’t respond to. You’re simply added to that list now.

If there is a "passive-aggressive" tone then it is due to feelings of frustration at your lack of engagement. It didn't start out that way. Even if there is such a tone; why should it matter? the important thing is the critique of ideas, isn't it?
If you truly believed it is "going over my head' then you could take the trouble to explain what points you think I don't understand. But you never do that. But, if you want to ignore my posts in the future then that's fine; I'll return the favour.

You see that in many comments and posts on this Forum... So I'm perfectly aware of the 'myth of all traits being adaptive' — Wayfarer

Yet you have never once ceased to bring up the adaption myth when talking about evolution, almost always without acknowledging its mythic status, and instead of correcting the science, use it time and time again as a crutch with which to browbeat it. Whether or not you are 'perfectly aware', your consistent instinct to is wield the worst of scientific interpretations in order to characterize the field of science in its generality, making it the conveinent 'other' against which you can push your spiritualist agenda. Your rhetoric is consistently dishonest in this respect, and of all the apparent plethoa of posters who link evolution with the adaptationist myth, you are without doubt its number one practitioner. The irony seems to be that the more the science begins to align to your philosophical POV, the less likely you are to mention it, because it rids you of your ability to demonize it. A rejigged anxiety of influence, l think.

Your criticism is correct, but your tone is way over the top.

Poor old Wayfarer. He has his views and he promotes them pretty politely. He doesn’t deserve your shrill tirade.

Ah yes, the most toxic poster on the forum, speaking in defense of tone, how quaint.

I criticise the influence of evolutionary materialism on philosophy and culture because it is pervasive, persuasive and pernicious. I will continue to do so whenever I see fit.

@Apokrisis - :ok: Actually learning to deal with counter-factuals is one of the main reasons I post to forums. That, and because I love to write this kind of stuff. But, appreciated.

*Whenever it helps you pitch your spiritualism as a 'reasonable' alternative to the scientific caricatures with which you like to tar science with, even though - especially though - you know better. Nothing worse than a 'reasonable' extremist.

I'm really not 'caricaturing science' in the least. What I am saying is that many people derive beliefs or ideas from evolutionary theory that are beyond the scope of the science. You see threads here all the time that are wanting to argue for something like 'the pursuit of happiness' on the basis that 'evolution must have selected for these kinds of behaviours'.

Now, the comment I was responding to, was from a contributor whose orientation seems to me overall 'positivist' and oriented around science as a source of normative truths. That was the context of the remark.

Look at the top paragraph of that post I was responding to, and see if you can use your analytical skills to spot the blatant self-contradiction it contains. Furthermore, I was quoting from an essay by Steven Pinker, who is also an advocate for neo-Darwinian materialism, as an example of the kind of tendency I'm critical of. I'm well within my rights to criticize those kinds of ideas, and I think they're fully deserving of it, hysteria notwithstanding.

What I am saying is that many people derive beliefs or ideas from evolutionary theory that are beyond the scope of the science. — Wayfarer

So correct the damn science and stop playing the 'science is bad for philosophy' card. It's a disservice to both science and philosophy, the antagonistic relation between which you've done more to foster than almost any other poster on this forum.

It’s a philosophy forum.

I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that science is the arbiter of what is meaningful and important. What those who espouse a scientific worldview are saying is that the scientific method is the only way of claiming any objective knowledge about what is meaningful or important. This is very important distinction.

If you feel like there's a god, for example, then no one of a scientific worldview is seriously claiming that you may not have that belief, but if you claim, in the public domain, that there is a God, based on the fact that you think there is, there are people who will, quite fairly, argue that this is not a useful way to further public knowledge. — Pseudonym

In light of me being accused of recklessly attacking science, I will come back to this remark, which really started the exchange leading up to that accusation.

I had been saying that I take issue with the idea of science as the ‘arbiter of what is meaningful and important’. And I do maintain that science often occupies that role in modern culture, and that a lot of it is grounded in evolutionary theory.

In respect to belief in God - there have been a large number of popular philosophy books published in the last decade, which appeal to evolutionary science, to argue on the basis of the science to ‘show there probably is no God’. And that is the kind of thinking I’m responding to.

When it’s said that ‘no-one of a scientific worldview is claiming that you may not have that belief’ - of course this is true, as it is a tenet of liberal societies that one may entertain any belief you like. But note that this then relegates beliefs to the domain of individual, the private - tantamount to, if not exactly the same as, a matter of opinion.

So we have the domain of ‘public knowledge’, which is objective, and which is normative in respect to matter of fact, and the domain of private belief. Further:

science does not have any comment on matters of quality, other than to say that no other approach can say anything meaningful on the matter either. That's what you really take issue with. — Pseudonym

And it is what I take issue with. My concern is a factual basis for values - a metaphysic of value, you might say. I did not devise the idea that scientific materialism is generally antagonistic to philosophies of those kinds, and that evolutionary theory is often used in support of that. The whole tendency of positivism, of various kinds, and various forms of economic and scientific materialism, is to undermine or attack belief in the spiritual aspect of the human being. So here I’m calling it out, and I willl continue to do so.

Perfectly true. But how to do this in respect of what is good, or whether there is anything that is truly good - as distinct from useful, or instrumentally powerful - that is NOT simply a matter of doxai or pistis. And science doesn’t offer that, because its sole concern is with ‘the measurable’. — Wayfarer

Right. To me it's just metaphysics masked as science to twist science beyond its proper realm. In free societies, individuals are more or less expected to work out their own salvation in the usual ways. Science creates tools for the pursuit of goals that are synthesized with politics, religion, art, etc.

I want science for its neutrality (as something that gives me just the facts), because I want to decide what to make of them (perhaps or rather always with help from non-scientific culture.)

Philosophy, as distinct from science, has to accomodate immeasurables, and at least recognise unknowables. — Wayfarer

I'm not against this, but can it hope to do so objectively? The excessive claims of the metaphysical animal are one of the reasons we needed science to begin with. Even a metaphysician views some other metaphysicians as peddlers of superstition and confusion. In some ways, science is the matricidal son of philosophy.

Anyway, I understand that thinking inviduals will wrestle with the meaning of life (and immeasurables). Engineers can't do everything for us yet.

For me there's a tension in your writing between the cultural critic and the metaphysician, which I may be mistakenly projecting. Do you understand yourself to be stating preferences? Doing politics at an abstract level? 'Our culture would be better if...X' Or are you ultimately saying that science is blind to an important objective truth. 'This or that non-scientific approach nevertheless offers us objective truth, not just preference or opinion.' To be clear, I'm not implying that preference is unimportant. I'm just interested in drawing the line between what we might like to be the case and what is the case.

One only has to look at standard educational curriculums to understand how the science industry (and it is a massive one) has co-opted the entire educational system and sets itself up as the sole arbiter as to how life began and evolved, and it is parroted on almost all forums. The guidance to educators specifically targets any opposition, how to respond to it, and advice on how to make sure students come out thinking "right", only they come out impoverished of life. And the thing is, the scientific explanation of life is a phoney, baloney, fabrication. One can summarize the whole ball of wax as "kids, it just happened by accident". There is no allowed room for doubt. Either give the right answer or fail. Now we get the same stuff as adults, only I didn't give a heck then about giving the right answers and kowtowing to the hatchet men and am sure ain't going to give a heck now.

Poor old SX. :yawn:

Are you saying this is theoretical or do you believe that this is what science is actually doing? — Rich

I think that's the ideal. As experiments get more complicated and technical and the entities get tiny or distant, the layman is unfortunately more and more in a position of having to trust specialists. Of course the average person these days doesn't know what a differential equation is, even if the entities were easily seen. Even smart people are often almost proud to be bad at math, but that's another issue.

On the other hand, I've have flown through the air above the clouds at hundreds of miles per hour. I ride little boxes 50 stories up in towers made of concrete and glass. I carry a little rectangle in my pocket that let's me communicate almost instantaneously at will with others who are hundreds or even thousands of miles away. I don't mean telegrams, either. I mean face to face video. This is proof in the pudding. For me it is finally about the tech. If the theorists love their absolute physical truths, fine. But would I care about science without its technical offerings? Maybe, for aesthetic reasons, but not as much.

Admittedly, religion or music or art can also provide proof in the pudding on an individual level. I like Coltrane. Others hate all jazz. But technology works whether I want it to or not, whether I believe in it or not. When an engineering student learns how to write an operating system, that doesn't strike me as particularly ideological. Does the damned thing do what we want it to do? Of course deciding what we want it to do is up to us, and I think that's where religion and philosophy especially have their say.

As far as political preferences go, I'm not particularly interested in debating those here, though I don't forbid myself an occasional indulgence. I mention this because some of your posts suggest that you view some common understanding of science to be socially detrimental. I don't think there's much payoff in that kind of thinking. We usually fail to persuade, in my view, and spend our energy more wisely in adapting to the world and its stupidities as we find and shall probably leave them. To be sure, this is a fine place to air out such things if one is so inclined.