I'd like to apologize for being somewhat adamant and bombastic. I sometimes grow impatient with the pace of some conversations, which tends to make me somewhat ornery. Entirely my problem, which I shouldn't be sharing so generously.

So you're with the 'there is no truth' squad - that band of people who undermine any scientific claim to authority with subjectivist and metaphysical relativism? The fact you're ignoring is that science works; it establishes generalized principles that can be applied over and over, and produce reliably valid results because the principle is true of some facet of reality. From the accumulation of true principles, over the past 50 years particularly, a highly coherent picture of reality has emerged - and it's that scientific picture of reality we need to take into account where necessary and appropriate to do so.

To answer your opening question, no, I am not.

As for your other comments, they are not related to anything I said.

Ok, that's fine, no problem. I hope you understand I'm not trying to make you be a theist, but rather trying to help you be more loyal to your own chosen methodology, reason.

Religious beliefs seem absurd to you for a reason. That didn't happen magically out of nothing. You referenced your chosen authority, human reason, and discovered that many religious beliefs don't pass the tests required by human reason. And so you find those beliefs to be, in your words, absurd.

What you appear not to have done is apply the very same test to the authority of human reason that you reasonably apply to holy books, the theist's chosen authority. That's my complaint, not that you have declined theism. — Jake

I don't know how much I bothered reasoning about it, though. It was more along the lines of "You can't be serious--you believe what?!? :lol: "

I don't know how much I bothered reasoning about it, though. — Terrapin Station

Well, ok, if you prefer not to reason about your publicly stated positions, that's your choice of course, and leaves me with little left to do here. No problem, go in peace.

What comes to my mind is a godless form of life. If everyone around you thinks religion is just too silly to bother with, then that becomes a kind of automatic truth not worth questioning. And we can imagine the reverse situation, where atheism is just so obviously silly as to be not worth thinking about. This would be a 'pre-rational' stance on the issue.

A reasonable person (who embraces taking a rational stance) might try to understand what some clearly intelligent people have in mind when they say the word 'God.' Some of them are of course doing bad science. But then there are people attached to 'rationality' also with crude understandings of the rational.

Philosophy (once the dream is born!) can be understood as idealism-meets-humanism to the degree that it only admits what is rational as real. 'God' either doesn't exist or the issue is undecidable or nonsensical because rationality (thinking in words) has determined it so. This is the 'idealism.' The humanism is understanding/projecting human virtue in terms of a universal rationality. I am most human when I sacrifice my wishful thinking to the fire of universal reason, the 'god' within me that gives me as an individual a voice worth recognizing inasmuch as I 'incarnate' that god. To be clear, I embrace this idealism/humanism. But to embrace it is to obsess over what it still gets wrong.

To answer your opening question, no, I am not.
As for your other comments, they are not related to anything I said. — Mariner

Maybe I misread your post. Let's have another look.

Mariner
316 "Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards). — Mariner

If the fundamental questions epistemology seeks to answer are 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it'? science, particularly relative to religious, political and economic ideology - constitutes a conception of reality with higher epistemic standards.

Science as a practice is a human activity. Were Pasteur not such a slob he left a cheese sandwich around to go moldy; if Newton had not been goofing off in the orchard... Methodically, science is a way of thinking - demonstrated to establish reliable knowledge, leading to general understanding. The sum of scientific knowledge is a conception of reality, to compare to the conception of reality proposed by ideology.

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment. Acting from an ideological identity is inescapable - but acting upon those ideas, like some theological over extension of metaphor - has equal and opposite effects. By the same principle, acting upon (not from) a scientific conception of reality will manifest a functionality in the real world - that follows from a truthful relation between the knowledge bases of action and reality. It is a lever - a key, a means of organisation with the potential for massive benefits - and in face of dire need.

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment. — karl stone

And you would in fact argue that in almost every post in every thread.

And what is this scientific conception of reality?

As it is now, scientists are dazed and confused, and sound like theologians!!

If everyone around you thinks religion is just too silly to bother with, then that becomes a kind of automatic truth not worth questioning. And we can imagine the reverse situation, where atheism is just so obviously silly as to be not worth thinking about. — sign

What I see is that everyone around us assumes without questioning that the theist vs. atheist paradigm is the only valid way to approach such issues. Thus, it seems 95% of all commentary is focused on the us vs. them battle within that paradigm.

It seems to me a rational person might examine the evidence produced by this pattern, and see that this routine which has been going on in earnest for at least 500 years, has produced nothing much but endlessly more of the same.

Einstein said something to the effect of doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of stupidity, or perhaps insanity. I tend to agree.

You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The absence of a crew member, that is, not being present at a bank robbery, does indeed require the crew member to do some reasoning. It still doesn't mean the crew member was present at the bank rubbery if indeed he wasn't there.

I think the analogy above nicely matches your grossly invalid logic. — VoidDetector

Never mind your strange 'analogy'. Please state clearly and logically exactly how my own logic is faulty. That would be most helpful. Thanks. :smile: :up:

What I see is that everyone around us assumes without questioning that the theist vs. atheist paradigm is the only valid way to approach such issues. — Jake

Good point. I think those who can see beyond the fray mostly just avoid it. Others (like ourselves) can't resist suggesting a third position outside the framework which is taken for granted as necessary when this framework is itself a superstition (from the third position.) I think we are mostly ignored or misunderstood. The world just 'is' that framework to those within it.

It seems to me a rational person might examine the evidence produced by this pattern, and see that this routine which has been going on in earnest for at least 500 years, has produced nothing much but endlessly more of the same. — Jake

I see what you mean. I would, however, that some thinkers have long since synthesized these positions into a more sophisticated unity. The transformation of the divine is also known IMO as the history of philosophy. Of course plenty of philosophy has gotten stuck at this or that stage, but the cutting edge of philosophy has move on, one might say. Hegel would be my obvious go-to here. Here he is in one of his clearest texts: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpintroduction.htm

Einstein said something to the effect of doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of stupidity, or perhaps insanity. I tend to agree. — Jake

Indeed. And that touches on Hume's noticing that induction has no deductive justification. It's deeper than that. It's in our blood. This is another thing that makes scientism a little questionable. Induction is a 'blind faith' in terms of some explicit rationality. Of course I trust induction. I can't help it. But I also can't pretend that it's not 'faith' in some sense.

https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2016/entries/induction-problem/

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment.
— karl stone

And you would in fact argue that in almost every post in every thread. — Jake

The degree to which I've elbowed the subject in to other topics is over-estimated by those who do not appreciate the full scope of the argument. At its core is the relationship between life and causal reality, as a definition of truth, it proceeds through evolution and anthropology to history and unto politics - to explain the current state and nature of our civilizations relative to intellectual evolution. It's not even, nor merely that we now know better - that's debatable in many ways, but the emergence of a qualitatively distinct and superior form of knowledge in scientific understanding that is significant. Imagine we chose to recognize it as such. The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future; and begins with harnessing vast amounts of renewable energy. 450 solar farms, one kilometer square, floating on the surface of the oceans would double the amount of energy available every year. Used to produce fresh water and hydrogen fuel - it would allow for habitation and agricultural production in previously inhospitable areas - thereby protecting natural resources from over-exploitation. In theory, all this is possible - and quite possibly, infinitely more. It would be remiss not to point it out.

The degree to which I've elbowed the subject in to other topics is over-estimated by those who do not appreciate the full scope of the argument. — karl stone

The full scope of the argument is...

You worship science.

Beginning, middle and end.

You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that...

If everyone around you thinks religion is just too silly to bother with, then that becomes a kind of automatic truth not worth questioning. — sign

I'd love to be able to empirically test this. :wink:

I think in general, by the way, that you grossly underestimate stupidity. You often seem to think that just because someone is intelligent in some regard, they can't be quite stupid in other regards, even closely-related areas to the area in which their intelligence occurs.

https://www.ynharari.com/we-should-never-underestimate-human-stupidity-historian/

Methodically, science is a way of thinking - demonstrated to establish reliable knowledge, leading to general understanding. The sum of scientific knowledge is a conception of reality, to compare to the conception of reality proposed by ideology. — karl stone

What is a "higher" epistemic standard? How can one compare standards? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way -- it goes to the core of the problem. (And asking it does not make the asker a relativist ;)).

I'll give you my answer: a higher epistemic standard (using "higher" in this normative sense that you are apparently defending) is one that calls our attention to the fundamental link between knowledge and (individual) experience. There is no knowledge without a knower, and a higher epistemic standard is one which tests a given proposition (offered as "knowledge") against the conditions of knowledge: personal experience, logic, rational articulation (among others).

Methodically, science is a way of thinking - demonstrated to establish reliable knowledge, leading to general understanding. The sum of scientific knowledge is a conception of reality, to compare to the conception of reality proposed by ideology. — karl stone

That is more utopian than actual. But even if we restrict the discussion to the natural sciences (the paragraph above becomes strained to the point of absurdity if we include many fields which are called "science" nowadays), it must not be forgotten that science works so well by excluding information from the field of inquiry. In order to develop a law of gravitation, we had to exclude all kinds of information from the actual experience and observation of falling bodies. (Indeed, Newton excluded better than Aristotle -- no slouch scientist, he -- which is why Newtonian gravitation is better science than Aristotelian gravitation). Science works by a severe shaving off of the (literally) infinite pool of "possible data", so as to focus on "relevant data" -- and the criteria of relevance is not a given in science. It comes from the input of the scientist as a rational observer. (In other words, we cannot do science by pure algorithm -- some criteria of relevance must be added beforehand to the mix).

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment. — karl stone

This downplays the immense difficulty of developing what you call the scientific conception of reality in the first place. It is not a given. It was achieved through hard work, expanded throughout generations. And it is not accessible to anyone without a proportionate effort. In other words, it is not easy to maintain a scientific outlook; it is not natural for human beings to do it. It is feasible, of course, but it is not intuitive.

It is not necessary to downplay anything if one wants to avoid a scientific outlook; all that is required for that is the direction of one's energies to other goals than that of achieving universalizable, replicable knowledge.

(I think your argument could use more explicit definitions of science and ideology, incidentally).

By the same principle, acting upon (not from) a scientific conception of reality will manifest a functionality in the real world - that follows from a truthful relation between the knowledge bases of action and reality. It is a lever - a key, a means of organisation with the potential for massive benefits - and in face of dire need. — karl stone

Well said.

Nonetheless, there are other things between heaven and earth than science x ideology.

The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future — karl stone

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. We have consumed too much. The root of the problem revolves around capitalism and greed, I think.

You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that... — DingoJones

The distinction I make is between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions.

The distinction I make is between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions. — karl stone

If we were to give a 10 year old access to ever more power without limit catastrophe would inevitably be the result sooner or later.

Same for a 15 year old.

Same for a 20 year old.

Same for a 30 year old.

Same for a 40 year old.

Same for a 50 year old.

Same for a 60 year old.

Are you starting to get where this is going, or should I spell it out a little bit more?

Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions. — karl stone

Yes, the misapplication of science, outside of its sphere of relevance, is, er, unwise. :up:

And what is this scientific conception of reality?

As it is now, scientists are dazed and confused, and sound like theologians!! — Pussycat

The same scientists that built the computers upon which you type.

The same scientists that conceived modern medicine, modern transportation, etc.

yeah ok, they are the same. But how does this answer the question??? Of course it doesnt, because it is an answer to some other question that you had in mind, something like: "who are the modern scientists?", something irrelevant and indifferent that is.

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. — Pattern-chaser

On the contrary. Have you noticed that fertility rates globally have gone down?

This is 1970's reasoning, which has been shown to be incorrect.

If we were to give a 10 year old access to ever more power without limit catastrophe would inevitably be the result sooner or later.

Same for a 15 year old.

..

Same for a 50 year old.

Are you starting to get where this is going, or should I spell it out a little bit more? — Jake

I understand what you're saying. But my actual argument is that the human species faces an existential challenge, and recognizing that science describes an understanding of reality provides a rationale for the application of technology necessary to secure sustainability. And, it seems to me, applying technology in relation to a scientifically valid understanding of reality would address your concern about 'power without limit.'

On the contrary. Have you noticed that fertility rates globally have gone down? — ssu

They have indeed, but not enough to slow things down all that much, and it wasn't something we did, it just happened. God did it! :wink:

This is 1970's reasoning, which has been shown to be incorrect. — ssu

Interesting. I was under the impression that global warming and pollution are proceeding as they have done since the 70s and before, and (in many cases) still accelerating. It seems I'm wrong. Can you offer some justification for your happy conclusion? :chin:

The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future
— karl stone

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. We have consumed too much. The root of the problem revolves around capitalism and greed, I think. — Pattern-chaser

Actually, in terms of population and natural resources, we are rather quite well placed right now to secure a favourable outcome. We have the knowledge, technology, the design capability and the industrial capacity to set ourselves, and future generations on a solid foundation. The obstacle is us; and the irony is - that the distance it seems from plausible is a precise measure of how far off the path we've gone. For it follows naturally that an organism crafted from the DNA up, to be correct to reality or die out, would welcome the ability to establish truthful knowledge, would revere and pursue such knowledge, and act accordingly. Does it not?

I understand what you're saying. But my actual argument is that the human species faces an existential challenge, and recognizing that science describes an understanding of reality provides a rationale for the application of technology necessary to secure sustainability. And, it seems to me, applying technology in relation to a scientifically valid understanding of reality would address your concern about 'power without limit. — karl stone

Ok, but where in the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" has any working scientist argued for limiting science research? With a few exceptions isn't the science culture dogma mantra full speed ahead on almost all fronts?

Where in your writing have you argued for limits on scientific research, any limits at all?

Or is the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" a utopian vision which you wish to present? If yes, then how do you propose to sell this vision to the scientific community, those who fund them, and the culture at large?

Ok, but where in the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" has any working scientist argued for limiting science research? With a few exceptions isn't the science culture dogma mantra full speed ahead on almost all fronts? — Jake

The distinction I'm trying to make is between science for power and profit, and - to put it very crudely, science for science sake. Scientists currently operate very much in the former context precisely because we fail to recognize the significance of a scientifically valid understanding of reality. Recognizing the authority of scientific truth in very certain respects, can alter the economic rationale such as to align profit and with a common interest in sustainability.

Where in your writing have you argued for limits on scientific research, any limits at all?

Or is the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" a utopian vision which you wish to present? If yes, then how do you propose to sell this vision to the scientific community, those who fund them, and the culture at large? — Jake

Currently, science is pursued almost solely for profit. The profit motive provides the rationale to do science, and to apply technology. I'm arguing for a different rationale, in certain key areas, one that follows from a straight up, scientifically bald description of the world. I do not imagine a utopia. I'm merely describing a useful tool.

There are legitimate limitations, I have argued should apply to the authority of a scientific understanding of reality, and both the legitimate authority of science, and a legitimate limitation upon that authority follow from the idea of existential necessity.

In scientific terms there's a really quite obvious series of technologies we need to apply on a global scale, in the immediate future. I would argue we must begin with renewable energy, clean fuel and clean water - all existentially necessary and well within our grasp.

The Internet can’t give you a guide on how to live a good life by itself, nor can science for that matter, but a religious text can teach one wisdom. I’m not saying I’m wise, but I like to think I’m actively working towards it. — Noah Te Stroete

That's what philosophy is for. As you might know, the etymological meaning is literally the love of wisdom.

Sorry, but religion is redundant.

Your claim about religion is wrong. Religion should be thought of as dealing with the normative, i.e. what people ought to do or how they should behave. It should not be thought of as an explanatory framework for the cosmos. That is fundamentalism. Science does the job with that. Science, however, can say nothing about what we ought to do (the normative). — Noah Te Stroete

That's a branch of philosophy called ethics. You might have heard of it.