I disagree. There are no facts independent of values. Values tell us how to split up the world in a way that makes sense to humans. Values are related to feelings, emotions. As has been said many times on the forum, perhaps even in this thread, humans with certain kinds of neurological damage that make it difficult to feel emotions also have trouble making decisions. — T Clark
I would like you to recognize that what you call "scientific hypotheses" do not represent some sort of special phenomena which are independent of the entity doing the hypothesizing. — T Clark
What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"? — VagabondSpectre
But what if someone is just a basic deist? They believe that there is a creator of some kind out there, but they make no necessary statements about exactly who, what, how, or why it is, beyond that it exists and does not intervene in the physical world. How can we falsify such a god? This is why I call such a proposition unscientific. — VagabondSpectre
You're missing the distinction. Science presumes an external objective universe of noumena (ostensibly), and seeks to model/approximate it. Science is a more narrow field of knowledge-making which happens to focus on extricating subjective feeling and values-bias from the way we measure and quantify phenomena.
Science doesn't "make decisions", it's purely informative in that regard. — VagabondSpectre
What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"? — VagabondSpectre
There is a good metaphysical argument to be made that the concept of "objective reality" is an illusion, a human invention. — T Clark
Hi. I hope you don't mind me jumping in. What do you make of this old problem? How is 'there is no objective reality' meant to be understood if not as a statement about objective reality? Is it a fact that there are no facts but only interpretations? I understand the appeal of the denial in terms of its openmindedness, but I'm not aware of any strong retorts to the issue above. — old
Ok, but a so-called scientific world view represents an almost endless series of decisions about what to pay attention to and what questions to ask. — T Clark
You're right. Whether or not god exists is not a question that can be answered by science. I never it was and I never said I think god exists. What I have said elsewhere is that the experience of god represents a way of experiencing the world that is more complete than the scientific view by itself. Science is incomplete and misleading in a very practical and down-to-earth way — T Clark
Science was never meant to be an existential world-view, it is strictly about the physically measurable. — VagabondSpectre
The problem you're getting at is that science has had a knack for dismantling the more spiritual frameworks that once (and still) dominate our interpretations of our existential place in the world/the value of our lives. — VagabondSpectre
For many people, prolonged exposure to science creates a god-shaped wound, and if "god" was previously held close to their heart, the damage to their happiness can be catastrophic. But we can still learn to mend it with other things, and we don't all weave our religious beliefs and experiences into and around our vital arteries to begin with. — VagabondSpectre
You're missing the distinction. Science presumes an external objective universe of noumena (ostensibly), and seeks to model/approximate it. Science is a more narrow field of knowledge-making which happens to focus on extricating subjective feeling and values-bias from the way we measure and quantify phenomena. — VagabondSpectre
I don't think that's true. I think most scientists, and many others, believe that science provides a privileged viewpoint of the true nature of reality. They believe it is not just the best, but the only valid way of understanding the world. — T Clark
The problem I'm getting at is science has a knack for ignoring its own, fundamentally human, value system. — T Clark
I'm an engineer. When I was a kid, rigid materialism seemed obvious to me. Although that's faded, I'm still comfortable with the assumptions that are built into the scientific world view, but I do recognize they are human assumptions and not universal truths.
No god-shaped wound here. — T Clark
I think your claim that science "presumes an external objective universe of noumena" is questionable. — Janus
I think "measuring and quantifying phenomena" is right, but that it has nothing to do with "subjective feeling and values-bias", so there is no need for extrication — Janus
On the other hand, hypothesizing, which involves abductive reasoning has much to do with imagination and metaphor, if not with "subjective feeling and values-bias". It is certainly possible for individual scientists to become emotionally attached to their hypotheses, though. — Janus
Ostensibly man! Ostensibly!
"Ostensibly": adverb: apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. — VagabondSpectre
There's no guide to abduction. It really doesn't matter where a hypothesis comes from, science can only harden once something is identified and put to a test. Sometimes we use whim, sometimes we take inspiration from nature, sometimes we just get lucky; but I would hardly focus on generating new hypotheses as the locus of the scientific method. — VagabondSpectre
Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. It is not Super Natural but it is Super Scientific, and I fully expect that Science will get it's thinking together and figure this out someday.What I am suggesting is that it is not an either/or issue. The choice is not between physicalism and consciousness. Physicalism is the rejection of supernatural explanations, but this leaves open questions of the effect of culture on consciousness; whether, so to speak, one can understand consciousness by looking at the hardware or if the software plays an essential part. — Fooloso4
I don't believe science even ostensibly "presumes an external objective universe of noumena". — Janus
so I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. — Janus
What about "ostensibly ostensibly presumes an external objective universe of noumena"? — VagabondSpectre
I'm saying we need to use bias-free measurement for the hardened science. I'm rebuking your assessment that subjective values and personal bias play a significant positive role in the underpinnings of "scientific facts". — VagabondSpectre
I just haven't really encountered this kind of "scientism". I'm aware there are a few zealots in every camp, but they hardly define the set. "The only way of understanding the world" is a bit strong for such a broad claim. I think on average it would go something like "the best way we have of understanding the external world". It's certainly not the only way, and "world" can be divided into many niches, some of which don't lend well to measurement and methodological inquiry. — VagabondSpectre
What human values has science founded itself upon? Induction itself somehow? — VagabondSpectre
What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"?
I can assure you there's a difference: one is actually testable, specifically measurable, and semantically consistent. The other is not falsifiable whatsoever, vague, immeasurable, and semantically incoherent (on its own). — VagabondSpectre
Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. — SteveKlinko
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.