I am sure that science will win on this thread, but it doesn't mean it has won completely in the world. I am not against science, but I see it as mixture of potential for benefit or harm, with a lot of unanswered questions about the future. — Jack Cummins

While I'm not going to disagree with you since you're right of course (double-edged swords are the norm), the fact that everything (actions, thoughts, words, etc.) is like that - comes with both pros and cons - kinda makes it meaningless to say that science has a "...potential for benefit or harm..."

Do you think Banno, the OP, doesn't know that? The OP in my humble opinion is highlighting the fact that unlike the others, science has an inbuilt course-correction mechanism i.e. it detects its own flaws and autocorrects them. This particular highly-desirable feature seems unique to science, its self-improvement at its finest. That is, in my humbld opinion, Banno's message.

I don't speak teenage girl. Could you explain what's amusing you?

Is it that Jack hasn't heard of the Amish?

Because that's no cause for mockery, is it?

You should not seek to make it embarrassing to learn things! — counterpunch

Sorry Jack Cummins. No offense intended.

It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game. — frank


Would really like to believe that but...did you ever win a prize, a medal, a certificate, or the like for "...how you play the game..."? — TheMadFool

It's what Odin learned when he drank from the well of wisdom. The medal was the hole in his face where he pulled out his right eye to pay the well keeper.

Which just goes to show, it's all fun and games until somebody...

Why would we assume a limit for human experience? — frank

Because we are forced to admit the impossible. In the human cognitive system, for every conception, the negation of it is given immediately. It follows that because some experiences are possible, there are necessarily some experiences that are impossible. Given a speculative theory in which the possibility of experience of objects is predicated on space and time, that which is not so predicated, or not known to be so predicated in accordance with that same theory, will be impossible as an experience.

“....It is a matter of indifference, whether I say, "I may in the progress of experience discover stars, at a hundred times greater distance than the most distant of those now visible," or, "Stars at this distance may be met in space, although no one has, or ever will discover them."....”

That there is no limit to human thought a priori is not to be aligned with the limit for experience, which is itself never merely a priori, but only conditioned by it.
————-

Do you know much about the IIT theory of consciousness? — frank

No, can’t say I do. From my well-worn armchair, consciousness doesn’t warrant a theory of its own, it being already a constituent of pure reason, which has an established theory. I’d be interested in having a nutshell thrown my way, if you’re so inclined.

Cool. That's really two separate threads, though.

1) what Kant was doing with the apriori
2) IIT theory

later.

it's all fun and games until somebody... — frank

loses an eye :rofl:

:wink: <look, he only has one eye

I got a bit confused — Jack Cummins

Who isn't?

No, he is not, — Mww

"Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant's doctrine is found throughout his Critique of Pure Reason (1781). Kant argues that the conscious subject cognizes the objects of experience not as they are in themselves, but only the way they appear to us under the conditions of our sensibility. Thus Kant's doctrine restricts the scope of our cognition to appearances given to our sensibility and denies that we can possess cognition of things as they are in themselves, i.e. things as they are independently of how we experience them through our cognitive faculties."

Yes, he is!

we don’t care about what we see, as much we wish to be certain about our knowledge of what we see. It makes no difference to us what’s out there, we care only about how it relates to us. — Mww

Spoken like a true subjectivist!

I admit to confusion, but I think that many try to form definitive answers, and, really, I feel that their approach is more of a philosophical danger, as I have named it.

'Science should be at the centre of all policy making'
By Prof Ruth Morgan
University College London

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56994449

Spoken like a true subjectivist! — counterpunch

Well, we are human beings. Not Gods.

What other realistic scenario exists?

Well, we are human beings. Not Gods. What other realistic scenario exists? — Manuel

You could be a Dog!

Pretty sure politically correct subjectivists would support your assertion of canine identity!

Let's hope that the scientists address the problems before it is too late. But, I don't think that we should sing any hymns of praise for them until there is a certain amount of evidence that the ideas are being put into practice with substantive effects.

Ok?

If I were a dog, I wouldn't be able to write dogs don't have language.

They seem to lack a science forming faculty as well. But maybe they're hiding the secrets to a unified ToE.

Let's hope that the scientists address the problems before it is too late. But, I don't think that we should sing any hymns of praise for them until there is a certain amount of evidence that the ideas are being put into practice with substantive effects. — Jack Cummins

...in this day and age. It's downright surreal; surrounded by technological miracles, standing on the edge of extinction from climate change, and an academic has to write to the BBC to point out that science is important. And you still begrudge science the least little credit, until its solves all the problems anti science religious philosophers have caused by shitting on science for the past 400 years. Unbelievable! Do you not understand this is your fault?

I have already said that I am not against science and really I am not sure of the point the thread is even trying to make, because it is not as if it is being opposed by loads of evangelists who are trying to argue that evolution is false.

On this site, there seems to be a big divide between those who believe in God and those who are atheists. However, I don't think that this would simply be about those who believe in God being against science and atheists favouring science. The relationship between science and religion is complex. Of course, some religious believers were opposed to science. Also, religious ideas have often contributed to political ideologies, but these probably incorporated science. We all use science everyday in most aspects of life, in ways we take for granted.

But science is such an umbrella term, and I don't really feel that we need to praise science because it does not require us to do so, like we were taught to revere and worship God. But, I appreciate medical science and a lot of comforts connected to technological progress.

I say that the problem with science is when its methodological attitude is generalised to describe the universe in general. — Wayfarer

The problem with science is that it is done with the purpose of solving the problem of suffering -- and then it doesn't deliver, it just makes people oblivious to suffering, or implies or even declares people to be the actual problem (the good old "no man, no problem").

Science is, basically, putting lipstick on a pig.

Knowing stuff is good. — Banno

There is a lot of knowledge that is completely useless, depending on one's time and circumstance.
Does knowing what the halflife of plutonium is in any way help a person to make wise career choices, for example?

You caught a boot.
— Wayfarer

Quiet a few, as was expected. — Banno

You look like a true believer, so that nothing could convince you otherwise.

denies that we can possess cognition of things as they are in themselves, i.e. things as they are independently of how we experience them through our cognitive faculties."

Yes, he is! — counterpunch

So that’s your notion of what constitutes subjectivism, such that Kant is a proponent of it? Are we then to say any rational being is a subjectivist? Apparently, then, any being in possession of cognitive faculties is subjectivist? Much to broad a brush, to apply a lumpy paint, methinks.

This is actually what he said, as opposed to what somebody else said he said:

“....It would be unjust to accuse us of holding the long-decried theory of empirical idealism **, which, while admitting the reality of space, denies, or at least doubts, the existence of bodies extended in it, and thus leaves us without a sufficient criterion of reality and illusion. (...)

Transcendental idealism allows that the objects of external intuition—as intuited in space, and all changes in time—as represented by the internal sense, are real. For, as space is the form of that intuition which we call external, and, without objects in space, no empirical representation could be given us, we can and ought to regard extended bodies in it as real. The case is the same with representations in time. But time and space, with all phenomena therein, are not in themselves things. They are nothing but representations and cannot exist out of and apart from the mind. Nay, the sensuous internal intuition of the mind (as the object of consciousness), the determination of which is represented by the succession of different states in time, is not the real, proper self, as it exists in itself—not the transcendental subject—but only a phenomenon, which is presented to the sensibility of this, to us, unknown being. This internal phenomenon cannot be admitted to be a self-subsisting thing; for its condition is time, and time cannot be the condition of a thing in itself. But the empirical truth of phenomena in space and time is guaranteed beyond the possibility of doubt, and sufficiently distinguished from the illusion of dreams or fancy—although both have a proper and thorough connection in an experience according to empirical laws....”
(** re: Berkeley and his dogmatic subjectivism)

Will a subjectivist, as you mean it, grant “the objects of external intuition (....) are real”? And that we “ought to regard extended bodies...as real”?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if subjectivism absolutely requires a phenomenal subject, and such phenomenal subject “cannot be admitted to be a self-subsisting thing”, then what is it that makes Kant a subjectivist?

If you must attribute to Kant some -ist that he does not himself endorse, perhaps “cognitive representationalist” might better suit the need.

(Insert thanks, appreciate it thingy here)

Sure!

I like Kant. But compared to you, I wouldn't dare provide even a bare bones description of what I think he's articulating. I'd be massively embarrassed in mere seconds. So I'll stick to Schopenhauer, Chomsky and what I believe to be true based on things I've read and thought about myself, which can be called roughly "Kantian".

So yes, I think you are correct in this topic. And I think such a philosophy shouldn't even be controversial in general, it should be obvious. But, if it were, we wouldn't be arguing philosophy. And that's not realistic. :wink:

philosophical danger — Jack Cummins

You have my attention! What exactly do you mean by "philosophical dangers"?

Well, ya know.....as with any theory, it all depends on one’s initial position. Used to be, pre-Enlightenment, either top-down, in that the external holds sway, or bottom-up, in that the internal holds sway, and one’s personal philosophy was taken from which was favored.

The Kantian paradigm shift occurred when the two were, not so much combined, as taken as equally necessary in their own right, which served to, for all practical purposes, dismiss both Hume-ian top-down empiricism (all are things in themselves) and Berkeley-ian bottom-up subjectivism (none are things in themselves).

The missing ground for the possibility of that equality, was the theoretical/logical proof for the validity of pure a priori cognitions, as the only means for humans to bridge the gap between what is known, and what is merely thought, for both are inarguably resident in the human rational system.
————-

what I believe to be true based on things I've read and thought about myself — Manuel

All well and good; it is the way of the common understanding, which is just about everybody. Metaphysical reductionism asks, nonetheless.....if a thing is true why merely believe it, and, if a mere belief, on what ground can it be true, this first brought to light, of course, by the Socratic dialogues and dialectical arguments in general. Usually partaken by those with nothing better to do. (Grin)

Metaphysical reductionism asks, nonetheless.....if a thing is true why merely believe it, and, if a mere belief, on what ground can it be true, this first brought to light, of course, by the Socratic dialogues and dialectical arguments in general. Usually partaken by those with nothing better to do. (Grin) — Mww

Sure. But that path of reductionism just leads to ever smaller relations of units of stuff. If that provides a satisfactory answer to those that use such methods, well good for them. It doesn't seem like a very coherent idea to doubt the given in such a manner that it is eventually denied. But what's the basis for the denial if not the given itself? But then there's no reason to trust anything, it seems to me. That's problematic.

As Galen Strawson points out, by quoting Democritus:

"The Intellect speaks first: There seems to be colour, there seems to be sweetness, there seems to be bitterness. But really there are only atoms and the void. But then The Senses reply: Poor Intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat."

Having nothing better to do can be entertaining, at the very least. :grimace:

Having nothing better to do can be entertaining, at the very least. — Manuel

HA!!! True dat, amigo.

Yeah...the bane of idealism, even Kant’s: seemings. Can’t empirically prove ‘em, can’t rationally get rid of ‘em. Nature of the beast.

Just because we can’t prove doesn’t mean we can’t trust, and then have to doubt. Both radical skepticism and metaphysical reductionism have logical boundaries, after all.

that path of reductionism just leads to ever smaller relations of units of stuff. — Manuel

Smaller units of stuff implies empirical reductionism, right? For that reason, I stipulated metaphysical reductionism, which pertains to ever smaller units of conception. Prime example......A = A. The logical laws. In Aristotle and Kant, among others perhaps, there are also the categories. Gotta start somewhere and the irreducible offers the least possibility for contradiction.

It doesn't seem like a very coherent idea to doubt the given in such a manner that it is eventually denied. — Manuel

Absolutely. Pretty silly, ain’t it?

Galen looks too much like Art Garfunkel. Makes me think he’s going to sing. He also rejects free will, so there’s two strikes. Good quote, though. Quite apropos.

I began using the term philosophical danger during discussion with you on one of your threads and I think that you saw it like a movie, often with a girl going somewhere she should not go. You also spoke of cats' 9 lives and wondering if you had used yours. I wonder how many lives we have on the forum and whether there are threads where we should not go. I also see dangers as being related to untying philosophical knots, and like being in a Celtic maze or labyrinth.

even Kant’s: seemings. — Mww

What is the problem with seemings in Kant? I've read some of him, but I don't recall thinking to myself that this was a problem for his philosophy, unless his thought is confused with Berkeley's

Aren't seemings simultaneously given and (partially or in some important aspects) a priori? I have to continue reading C.I. Lewis on this topic, it's interesting...

Smaller units of stuff implies empirical reductionism, right? For that reason, I stipulated metaphysical reductionism, which pertains to ever smaller units of conception. Prime example......A = A. The logical laws. In Aristotle and Kant, among others perhaps, there are also the categories. Gotta start somewhere and the irreducible offers the least possibility for contradiction. — Mww

Yes. That's the kind that is fashionable nowadays, the empirical one: Dennett, Churchland(s) and (heaven forbid this lunacy) Rosenberg. The latter literally believes "there is nothing but fermions and bosons"... :roll:

He also rejects free will, so there’s two strikes. — Mww

He does. But it's one of those debates that don't seem fruitful to me. I mean, I think it exists but if others deny it, whatever.

But I understand others who find it interesting. That's the nature of philosophy.

What is the problem with seemings in Kant? — Manuel

The problem of seemings is in people generally, not Kant specifically. For Kantian idealism to deal with seemings, or, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing, feelings, takes a different approach than epistemology. That’s all I’m saying.

I have already said that I am not against science and really I am not sure of the point the thread is even trying to make, because it is not as if it is being opposed by loads of evangelists who are trying to argue that evolution is false. — Jack Cummins

Banno invited people to disagree with the proposition that science is good - and here you are, saying science is the cause of climate change and nuclear weapons. I explain to you that this is a science as an ideological whore; stripped of moral authority as truth, initially by the Church, and then subjectivist philosophy - starting with Descartes, while Galileo was on trial for heresy, he withdrew publication of 'The World' on physics, and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy. He then got a cushy job in the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden.

(It didn't go at all well, but still - title bump for towing the Church's anti science line, while Galileo narrowly escaped being executed and excommunicated, and merely suffered threats of torture, denunciation of his works, and ten years house arrest.)

You're very polite. I think you've got it, and then, two pages later it's the same again.

On this site, there seems to be a big divide between those who believe in God and those who are atheists. However, I don't think that this would simply be about those who believe in God being against science and atheists favouring science. — Jack Cummins

The left are notoriously atheistic; but the left are subjectivist, and refuse to notice that subjectivism is a synonym for the spiritual, conceived of in defence of the Church's anti science position. (I'm not atheist BTW - I'm agnostic. Unlike Dawkins, I don't conflate religion and God. I think there's a prima facie case for the existence of God - no proof either way, but it remains a valid question.)

The relationship between science and religion is complex. Of course, some religious believers were opposed to science. Also, religious ideas have often contributed to political ideologies, but these probably incorporated science. We all use science everyday in most aspects of life, in ways we take for granted. — Jack Cummins

Safe bet, softly spoken. How reasonable you appear - until one considers the excluded middle; here, that political authority is justified with reference to religious authority. The Divine Right of Kings remained in force as Galileo languished in purgatory; and science used for political ends slowly turned the world to Hell. We're not quite there yet, but it's coming Jack - will you not, now in all reasonableness accept that science has not been afforded its due?

But science is such an umbrella term, and I don't really feel that we need to praise science because it does not require us to do so, like we were taught to revere and worship God. But, I appreciate medical science and a lot of comforts connected to technological progress. — Jack Cummins

This faint praise you offer from illegitimately occupied high ground is no praise at all. Science is not just a tool to use at your convenience. It's also an authoritative understanding of reality, that religious subjectivists have decried as heresy, and undermined and downplayed for 400 years, and used as a tool to achieve their own ends, until the human species is threatened with extinction. So here, where you say:

Let's hope that the scientists address the problems before it is too late. But, I don't think that we should sing any hymns of praise for them until there is a certain amount of evidence that the ideas are being put into practice with substantive effects. — Jack Cummins

Why turn to science to save you if it's not true? Have you tried praying for a solution to climate change? Surely, God will save you. Or, better yet, because reality is subjectively constructed, if we all just ignore climate change, subjectively, it won't exist!

If you turn to science to save you because, actually, you know it is true - why not accept that? I'm not asking for hymns of praise. Just stop victim blaming science for the injury religious subjectivists have inflicted upon it, and thereby, the world.

But time and space, with all phenomena therein, are not in themselves things. They are nothing but representations and cannot exist out of and apart from the mind. — Mww

This alone ought be enough for any scientifically literate person to reject Kant.