Or maybe it's you and not all them/us. I understand you just fine. You simply won't because you can't. Again. It's okay, even when I address someone directly, most of my posts are donations to the whole thread. Others may (and often do) or may not pick up the ball you've dropped, Wayf.

I’ve made a clear point with respect to your sweeping statement:

At worst string theory is a physics-based mathematical metaphysics, so clearly within the remit of science (e.g. Galilean Relativity, Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell's Demon, Schödinger's Cat, The Copenhagen Interpretation, etc). — 180 Proof

There are some scientists who say ‘string theory’ is not science, will never be validated or falsified by experiment. That’s why Woit called his book on it ‘Not even Wrong’. There are others who say that it science. So you have no scientific consensus that string theory is in fact what you say it its. At worst, it’s not ‘physics based mathematical metaphysics’, but mathematical woo - just the kind of thing you claim to abjure.

↪180 Proof here's two: When scientists claim there is no god. When scientists claim they are understanding the nature of reality.

It would only be right to make assertions like this if reality was merely physical — emancipate

:up:

Yes, science is a method and a body of incomplete and approximate facts. It isn't meant to be an ultimate truth, just one of many tools we should employ in the search for ultimate truths.

So your appeal to authority says it isn't science. My own understanding of fundamental physics plus corroboration of many eminent string theorist – advocates & critics – say it is science. More than that, I argue further down in that post that it attempts, maybe unsuccessfully, to extend physics but not to "go beyond physics". It may even be bad physics but it is still physics. If all you're relying on is the say-so of a science writer or old school emeritus physicists or acolytes from rival paradigms on YouTube, then you've no comprehensible basis I have heard here to claim string theory is not physics. So we differ on that point. My previous post will have to suffice until some other member more conversant in contemporary physics than either of us comes along and disabuses me of my position (to wit: that, whatever else string theory may be, it ain't the sort of woo you usually hang your pointy wizard's hat on)

It may even be bad physics but it is still physics. — 180 Proof

Or it may be Hempel's Dilemma. But, never mind, you can put the 'science NOT religion' stamp on it, and that will do, right?

There’s the biological theory of the evolution of species. Then there’s Darwinism as a philosophy. Sometimes, there’s a connection. — Wayfarer

That a connection exists maybe true but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and the theory of evolution is, as creationists insist, "just another theory" among many others I suppose. Scientists. fortunately or not, are sending out mixed signals on this score - some like Richard Dawkins vehemently maintain that Darwin's theory is a "truth" and others like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss admit that a scientific "theory" is only a tentative explanatory framework, liable to revision or even, sometimes, to expunction.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that scientisim's bedrock foundation is a firm conviction that science is a, the sole dealer/purveyor/agent of "truth" which is clearly not true.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that scientisim's bedrock foundation is a firm conviction that science is a, the sole dealer/purveyor/agent of "truth" which is clearly not tru — TheMadFool

Some would say the sole article of faith required is absolute commitement to the non-existence of God.

Some would say the sole article of faith required is absolute commitement to the non-existence of God. — Wayfarer

That's a fine point. I suppose scientism is just a wolf (atheism) in sheep's (science's) clothing.

On a different note, your little exchange with @180 Proof reminded me of a video interview of actual string theorists and though they spoke of string theory in glowing terms they did make it a point to mention its fatal flaw viz. it makes no verifiable/falsifiable claims that could be lab-tested. In a Popperian sense, this definitely is a serious setback for string theory for it relegates what to me is a very promising mathematical model to pseudoscience (woo-woo). The only thing that keeps physicists from abandoning string theory is its similarity to a really powerful idea in science - Einstein's theory of relativity. I can see string theorists telling themselves, "we're on the right track!" and their detractors going, "maybe they're on to something". Einstein was no ordinary person.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that scientisim's bedrock foundation is a firm conviction that science is a, the sole dealer/purveyor/agent of "truth" which is clearly not true. — TheMadFool

Don't know about scientism as opposed to privileging science. But there are many secular humanists - advocates of science who would argue that science provides the best models of reality based on the evidence available and makes no proclamations about truth. It is a tool, no more. To say there is no God or to say that there are no other truth sources does not fit with many secular humanist science geeks I know.

Don't know about scientism as opposed to science. But there are many secular humanists - advocates of science who would argue that science provides the best models of reality based on the evidence available and makes no proclamations about truth. It is a tool, no more. To say there is no God or to say that there are no other truth sources does not fit with many secular humanist science geeks I know — Tom Storm

Google definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true.

I guess to err is human...

By the way, I consider Richard Dawkins to be one of the greatest living luminaries of our times.

there are many secular humanists - advocates of science — Tom Storm

If you're dispassionate about it, though, 'science' provides no particular ground for 'humanism'.

You know the Italian Renaissance is said to be the seeding ground for humanism, right? That magnificent heretic, Pico Della Mirandola, and his Oration on the Dignity of Man? That Marcello Ficino produced the first complete Latin translation of Plato? Both were deeply steeped in the classical tradition, and in both, humanity was seen as a microcosm, an image of the Universe - their humanist counterpoint to the Church's 'imago dei'. Both skirted heresy - they questioned ecclesiastical dogma, but they were still firmly humanistic in their philosophy, because humanity retained a role in the cosmic drama.

There's nothing like that in post-Enlightenment humanism. From Russell's 'accidental collocation of atoms', to Hawkings' 'chemical scum', to Daniel Dennett's 'moist robot', we are just the byproduct of a process that had no prevision of any end. There couldn't be an end, because the process is purposeless. So don't believe that modern 'secular humanism' is actually humanistic - whatever humanism it retains, is from the dying embers of the Christian culture that gave rise to it.

definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool

Like a ship in a bottle, constructed so as to look as if it had been built there.

Google definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool

I think evolution is a fact too but I don't consider it capital T truth.

In a Popperian sense, this definitely is a serious setback for string theory for it relegates what to me is a very promising mathematical model to pseudoscience (woo-woo). — TheMadFool

Gravity waves were unfalsifiable for a century or more yet not "woo woo", you know why? Because in principle they were always testable, but the technological means to do so were lacking until recently. Same with string theory: the energy required to test it are far beyond even foreseeable technological capabilities at the moment but it is in principle testable nonetheless. Neither "pseudo-science" (falsified and not the best explanation available e.g. "Lamarckism") nor "woo woo" (unfalsifiable in principle and doesn't explain anything that it purports to explain e.g. "Jungian Synchronicity"). Though I'm not persuaded of its approach compared to, say, Rovelli's RQM, I hold that string theory purports to explain a great deal (re: quantum gravity) but that so far there aren't any technically feasible ways to falsify its explanatory model (i.e. science).

Why would you bother with that challenge? — Isaac

Because the project of life is to live well, and what that means exactly is a mystery that can only be discovered through living. And there are not enough moments in a single life to do it justice. So we need to develop a lexicon for sharing the complex understandings that each of us uniquely develops. That's why mythologies exist.

Everyone has a perspective, and there is a reason for that perspective. So even if the perspective itself isn't objective, for example, it can still be meaningful and valuable.

So don't believe that modern 'secular humanism' is actually humanistic - whatever humanism it retains, is from the dying embers of the Christian culture that gave rise to it. Look to the CCP for the future of 'secular humanism'. — Wayfarer

Those arguments are regularly made but I think it would be a mistake to adopt such a reductive view of today's secular humanism. It's a well established tradition (really just progressive politics without God) with some diversity of views. And no doubt every cause has its dogmatic dick heads.

You know the Italian Renaissance is said to be the seeding ground for humanism, right? — Wayfarer

Sure. I studied Pico's Oration and that fecund period 30 years ago. But everything comes from somewhere else, just as Zoroastrian ideas influenced Judaism. Satan came to us from there too, but it didn't stop Christian theology and literature manufacturing new ideas for Old Nick. Values of empathy, justice and human dignity are as old as humanity and so 'secular' humanism is not such a big leap.. or fall.

From what you write it sometimes seems your chief gripe with scientifically derived secularism is its ugly aesthetics and sometimes brutal language. Are we just jumped up pond scum? What is fascinating to me is that people like Dawkins love their architecture, classical music and poetry and great literary works. They spend a lot of time immersed in the numinous. I don't think their scientism (which I don't and can't share) is as limited as is sometimes insinuated. I believe Dennett and Dawkins probably have significantly rich inner and cultural lives of no less a kind than say, one of the better Archbishops of Canterbury or my local Rabbi.

You point to the CCP as the future of secular humanism? Why is it not the future of capitalism? Or the future of politics? Or the future of the Democrat party? That's no more serious an insight than the future of religion being Islamic State. Actually... I think this last one may be right. :razz:

Google definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool

Ok. So if you repeatedly mistreat people in the pursuit of success, will you ultimately reap some kind of negative reward? Is that a fact? It's at least as important as an anomalous muon precession frequency in the human world. Probably much more so.

Maybe such 'human' facts are only statistically true, true in some cases. That's the case in objective science too.

I am heading into late middle age. I don't think I have learned anything much from the passing of time or experience. I'm not sure how I would test this — Tom Storm

This is kind of the whole point. How exactly do you quantify knowledge? Is it measured by the salary that it facilitates? Or is it in the types of things that you do with that salary? Or the way you use your free time?

How exactly do you quantify knowledge? — Pantagruel

I don't really.

All I am doing is reporting what my memory and impressions tell me. It may well be wrong but it is all we can do.

How exactly do you quantify knowledge? Is it measured by the salary that it facilitates? Or is it in the types of things that you do with that salary? Or the way you use your free time? — Pantagruel

Maybe speaking in terms of "knowledge" is problematic, in terms of trying to find criteria that fall under this term. In English, this word is a bit different it's not the same to say "I know how to walk" or "I know my self" as opposed to something like "I know the history of neoliberalism" or "I know Schopenhauer", etc.

How do we apply this term to actual people? I've met people who "know" a lot about manual stuff: plumbing, fixing broken machines but who aren't familiar with astronomy nor 20th century history. Yet the certainly have something I lack.

And the other way around too, some people "know" astronomy very well, but can't fix a broken desk.

I think we'd need to use a series of words that try to capture what it is you're trying to quantify. Because one problem would be to ask, then what does not count as knowledge?

I don't really.

All I am doing is reporting what my memory and impressions tell me. It may well be wrong but it is all we can do. — Tom Storm

Well, somewhere between "all we can do" and all we do do lies knowledge.

And the other way around too, some people "know" astronomy very well, but can't fix a broken desk. — Manuel

Yes, one wonders where philosophers would be without farmers. And yet there is little philosophy of farming.

This was something I always liked about monastic orders. Historically they have been, to the extent possible, self-sufficient communities, with each individual participating very broadly in all duties, regardless of specialization. Specialization is like a...reward.

Specialization is like a...reward. — Pantagruel

It can be. But life is multi-specialized, so we have to branch out.

But your question is a good one, it's just really hard to answer in quantifiable terms.

Your issue is, I hope you don't mind me saying, you're still completely wedged in the Science V Religion dichotomy — Wayfarer

Btw, a fellow working-class, Catholic-raised Bronx, wiseass who called common sense "bullshit" on the religious outlook (not a word about "science"):

https://youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuE :halo: :naughty:

Gravity waves were unfalsifiable for a century or more yet not "woo woo", you know why? Because in principle they were always testable, but the technological means to do so were lacking until recently. Same with string theory: the energy required to test it are far beyond even foreseeable technological capabilities at the moment but it is in principle testable nonetheless. Neither "pseudo-science" (falsified and not the best explanation available e.g. "Lamarckism") nor "woo woo" (unfalsifiable in principle and doesn't explain anything that it purports to explain e.g. "Jungian Synchronicity"). Though I'm not persuaded of its approach compared to, say, Rovelli's LQG, I hold that string theory purports to explain a great deal (re: quantum gravity) but that so far there aren't any technically feasible ways to falsify its explanatory model (i.e. science). — 180 Proof

I'm not as informed as I'd like to be on string theory. What exactly is string theory? I only recall that it, employing higher dimensions, succeeds in unifying gravity with quantum mechanics. I also remember a video featuring American theoretical physicist Brian Greene making statements that string theory weaves a coherent story around the four forces (fundamental interactions) which to physicists is a big deal I suppose.

Thanks for clarifying why string theory isn't falsifiable. It looks like that it can be disproved even if, for the moment, only in principle. What's missing is the technology to make the string theory experiments a reality. I wonder what the level of urgency is though. Given string theory is one that's widely publicized as a candidate conceptual framework for The Theory Of Everything (TOE), shouldn't scientists be racing full-throttle towards developing the technology to test string theory? The fact this isn't the case is puzzling and also amusing too: we know what the holy grail of physics is (TOE), we've found an object that could very well be it (string theory) but we need some kind of foolproof method of authentication and that's where this exciting story of discovery is left unfinished. What's up with that? On second thought, don't answer.

So we might as well try to learn all of the lessons that life teaches us. — Pantagruel

Life doesn't teach lessons. It's up to us to learn them.

So it becomes a challenge of vocabulary and semantics to translate between the meanings of different perspectives of deeper wisdom.
— Pantagruel

Why would you bother with that challenge? — Isaac

Some people are naturally inclined to mediation and translation.

Given string theory is one that's widely publicized as a candidate conceptual framework for The Theory Of Everything (TOE), shouldn't scientists be racing full-throttle towards developing the technology to test string theory? — TheMadFool

Giordano Bruno's speculation of "thousands of other suns with other earths" (which got him burned at the stake in 1600 CE), it took nearly four centuries before humans walked on the moon and the Hubble telescope, etc had found apparently Earth-like exoplanets around distant stars; likewise, the problem of testing "string theory" is currently intractable, and besides there are other candidates such as "LQG" / "RQM" being worked on toward prospective experimental testing. (NB: Carlo Rovelli, Sean Caroll, Kip Thorne, David Deutsch, Frank Wilczek, Max Tegmark, et al are among the current popularizers of fundamental physics that I've found most informative.)

My understanding is that the energies involved to show that 'spacetime is quantized" with these models, or that it is not, are still orders of magnitude higher than can be produced. i suspect scientists are looking for extremely high-energy naturally occurring events out somewhere in the universe to be used as "living laboratories" just as they'd found and used colliding neutron stars & black holes which generated gravity waves they could then detect as GR predicts. And nagging problems like "inflation" (re: Einstein's fudge factor aka "my greatest mistake" the cosmological constant), "dark energy" & "dark matter" also need to be solved too in order to complete a ToE, so "string theory", though popularized for almost the last two decades by Brian Green et al isn't the only, or even most, promising game in town. Anyway, that's my oversimplistic layperson's understanding of the situation at the moment.

What is fascinating to me is that people like Dawkins love their architecture, classical music and poetry and great literary works. — Tom Storm

Sure. But it has no warrant in their philosophy. Whatever love they have for it is purely personal. That’s one of the glaring internal contradictions in their writing. I’ve heard Dawkins argue that language is like an elaborate form of the peacock’s tail, it’s main purpose is successful procreation. I've seen Dawkins acknowledge that darwinism is a terrible social philosophy. He doesn't seem to understand that philosophy itself is one of the things that is dissolved in 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. He's too philosophically naive to understand the philosophical implications of his own writing.

You point to the CCP as the future of secular humanism? — Tom Storm

After I wrote that post, I deleted that sentence, as I thought it a bit rash. But the rhetorical point is, in the CCP you’re looking at a culture that has no constitutional recognition of the notion of human rights. Citizens are thoroughly subordinated to the state. And I’m of the view that the origin of human rights in Western culture was with Christian social philosophy. Where did the idea that 'every individual has innate worth' originate? Certainly not from science.

Btw, a fellow working-class, Catholic-raised Bronx, wiseass who called common sense "bullshit" on the religious outlook (not a word about "science"): — 180 Proof

I think Thomas Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion is germane in the context.

He doesn't seem to understand that philosophy itself is one of the things that is dissolved in 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. He's too philosophically naive to understand the philosophical implications of his own writing. — Wayfarer

In fairness to Dawkins I suspect he is more sophisticated than this. But he has become immersed and besmirched in an anti fundamentalist warrior groove which is, by definition, brutal and unnuanced work and limits his oeuvre. I think fighting this form of harmful religion remains pretty important work and needs to be picked up by someone. Philosophy will continue regardless.

Humanism can stand apart from religions without problems. It does so without issue all over the world. Not having 'a warrant' is an old fashioned frame for this. Humans are hard wired for empathy and system building. Without empathy we couldn't raise children. From this we build social conventions and codes of conduct. Or secular humanism.

And what exactly is the Christian world view? Is it burning witches, or stoning to death gay people? Is it pogroms against Jews? Pedophilia in the Catholic church? Is it the KKK - a strong and pious Christian organization? Not sure that the 'humanism' inherent in the Gospels can be relied upon to cut though. Secularism has often saved Christianity from barbarism and prejudice.

If you argue the point that the impulse to care for our fellow creatures can only come from a place of higher consciousness, you need to demonstrate this other than by inference. The evidence suggests that people care for their fellow creatures without requiring a transcendent foundation and people who do have such a bedrock, do not seem to object to hatred, murder and genocide.

And yes, the real question - the fundamental nature of reality and consciousness - remains unanswered. If this happens during my lifetime and the results require a shift in my thinking, I will make adjustments. In the meantime I am more concerned by how people behave rather than the origins of their beliefs.

think Thomas Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion is germane in the context. — Wayfarer

I think a concomitant fear of evolutionary naturalism and atheism propels Nagel and many others. Aesthetically and emotionally the notion of there not being a god, or some kind of higher consciousness is an anxiety and preoccupation I hear expressed more often than I can count.