I'd rather you explained what is problematic in the article cited. — Banno

I'm not up for that right now, but maybe tomorrow. Good night all.

I think that it is a very blurry line. Initially, I began reading Plotinus today with a view to discussion with Apollodorus in relation to a thread which I began a few days ago. However, the more I I think about it, the whole question of thinking about the divine becomes more blurry. However, my own foreclosure on such matters remains because both the language of those who speak of the divine and those who speak of neuroscience seem caught up in knots. @Madfoolhas already created a thread based on my own thoughts about philosophical knots and philosophical dangers, but, from my own perspective, philosophy, especially in connection between the areas arising in the area between science and religion is like being completely entangled in knots, and my own quest is about trying to see ways of disentangling these knots. — Jack Cummins

I'm trying to survive.

Did I miss anything? — Wayfarer

You haven't shared with us what exactly you think is problematic with point six. — Banno

May I direct your attention to this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541344

I think it describes the piece of the puzzle you're missing, and will either confuse you utterly, or give you an indication where I'm coming from.

I am sure that there have been great mistakes in the way the Church has interpreted science. My own perspective is really to try to go beyond mistakes and rifts in understanding, with a view to working towards ways of understanding, especially in relation to the development of strategies which focus on addressing the issues of our time, especially ecology and think about the wellbeing of future generations. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure. Maybe it was necessary to science to make that absolute distinction between divine and rational knowledge. It's very difficult to walk the path not taken. I'm not a theologist, I'm a philosopher. I say "I think it was open to the Church..." But maybe this is how its meant to be. What is the WORD anyway?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Notice that counterpunch did not actually point out specifics as to what was amiss in the article? — Banno

Is that a question? You can talk to me directly!

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/131210177.pdf

I could go through each of the six signs in turn, but number six, I think - is the one upon which the others hinge - and after all, brevity is the soul of wit!

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry
besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as
poetry or art.

Or religion! And the fact is, it's religion that has denigrated science for 400 years.

I think it was open to the Church, in 1635, to accept science as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation - on the basis of St Augustine's, (or was it St Thomas Aquinas') assertion that divine truth and rational truth cannot be in conflict. If you believe reality is Created, and science is valid knowledge, then scientific knowledge is God's word - decoded by man, and religion would be an ongoing revelation. Technology would have been developed and applied in relation to this emerging understanding - as morally authoritative knowledge, and occurred as confirmation of God's blessings. Instead, Galileo's hypothetico-deductive methodology was decried as suspect of heresy, and science was rendered amoral - and abused by government and industry. Huge mistake that brings us to the brink of extinction.

You'd have made a good German. — fishfry

You'd have made a good racist! I think perhaps you mean Nazi.

And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? Or is your violent authoritarianism one-sided? I see that you saw the same video I did. I can't fathom the kind of human being that would see that video and say "she deserved what she got." People like you frighten me. — fishfry

George Floyd's choices created the situation. If he'd complied he wouldn't have died. The jury decided the police officers actions were disproportionate - and I accept that, but it remains, he could have got in the car, and he'd still be alive.

Theoretically compatible.

I ran across a video of a woman being tased for refusing to put on a mask. — fishfry

Untrue. She was asked put on mask and refused, then she was asked to leave, and refused. She was arrested for criminal trespass; she resisted arrest, fought the police officer, and was tased. She created the situation, and deserved everything she got.

What you describe sounds like a relatively simple solution because it fails to recognise the ideological bases of analysis that convert what we know, think and feel into what we do. — Possibility

Ideally, the Church would have embraced Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so imbued science with divine authority, such that science would have been developed and integrated into theology, philosophy, politics, economics and culture over the past 400 years. That's not what happened.

Instead, science was decried as heresy, developed only slowly, and so was deprived of implication beyond that which was useful to ideology. Government and industry applied technology for power and profit, without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. i.e. Trump digs coal. Natural enough for a vote grubbing politician I suppose, but philosophically incorrect - as demonstrated by the climate and ecological crisis threatening extinction.

Clearly, science is the injured party. Clearly, science has the answers. The fact the ideologue cannot see the answers from where they are is not the fault of science. It's a failure on the part of ideologues to evolve in relation to the progress of knowledge - from 'less and worse' knowledge, toward 'more and better' over time. Religious faith is written in stone, and that stone is dumped into the river of knowledge to dam the flow.

Now, this is where it gets complicated, because we cannot rewrite the past 400 years of history. We cannot tear it all down and start again. If we want a sustainable future, we have to get there from here. The ideal is off the table. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from what should have happened, but didn't. We can "look beyond the ideological battlements" - to the ideal, and on that basis do that which is scientifically necessary to a sustainable future.

We can do this precisely because the implications of science can legitimately be limited to that which is necessary to survival, staring with magma energy - which is the only source of energy large, constant and concentrated enough to meet our needs. If we don't harness magma energy, we cannot survive; and so it is the existential necessity to which we can agree, not science as an ideology per se.

Limitless clean energy from magma will allow us to account for the externalities of capitalism, without internalising those externalities to the economy. This means we don't need to pay more and have less, stop this and tax that to gain environmental benefits. We can encompass the externalities of capitalism within a magma energy bubble - internalising them, without contradicting our ideological motives - by using that energy for carbon capture and sequestration, desalination and irrigation, total recycling, hydrogen fuel production and so forth.

I've been thinking about this for years, and it is very complex. You are at the right observatory, but looking down the wrong end of the telescope. While on the one hand, philosophically, science is true - and religious political and economic ideology is merely conventional; politically, the implications of science are limited to that which is necessary to survival, starting with magma energy; because if we don't apply magma energy, all further implication is moot anyhow. We will inevitably become extinct. Once we have applied magma energy technology, and have limitless clean energy at our disposal - the equation is changed, and any further implications of science need then be viewed from that perspective.

Well i’m that case I agree with you. — Wayfarer

Not so fast. On your front page, you have a list of essays that suggest we do not agree:

"Essays of interest

The Cultural Impact of Empiricism Jacques Maritain

Science, Materialism and False Consciousness Bas van Fraasen.

The Blind Spot of Science is the Neglect of Lived Experience

Does Reason Know what it is Missing? Stanley Fish

Anything but Human Richard Polt

It Ain't Necessarily So, Antony Gottlieb"

The reason we can and should look beyond ideology to science is because it is "necessarily so" - the same for you as for me. That's what makes science trustworthy and authoritative; a level playing field upon which all can meet, and it is the reason for solving the climate problem in the particular way described, rather than (failing to solve it) any other. Philosophically, we absolutely do not agree.

I agree, that after 400 years of anti-science abuse that brings us to the brink of extinction, adopting science as an ideology would be damaging. But rightfully, science should have been recognised as the means to establish truth, and scientific knowledge incorporated into politics, economics and culture over the past 400 years. Technology should have been developed and applied in accord with a scientific understanding of reality - and the fact that it wasn't is why we are faced with threats to our very existence.

If we want a sustainable future, however, we have to get there from here - from where we are now, with the minimal disruption possible. It's science that condescends to agree.

When you say 'science as an understanding of reality', you're proposing it as an alternative to 'partisan ideological interests', and thereby presenting science itself as a kind of ideology. — Wayfarer

I'm not suggesting science as an ideology per se, not least because global (scientific) government would not be politically legitimate. It would be too distant from local interests to command trust. People wouldn't identify with it. It would be alien to all. Rather, I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve.

You may not agree with this sentence but there’s nothing the matter with the syntax. FrancisRay seems to be able to interpret it. — Wayfarer

I don't understand your sentence. 'Proponents of scientism' is ambiguous.

Do you mean those committing the sin of scientism?

Or those who believe scientism is a valid critique of science in society?

Secondly, "such a thing" - as what?

You could have been far more clear. Instead extra effort all round because you're too lazy to write proper sentences.

Proponents of scientism will never acknowledge there could be such a thing, in my experience. — Wayfarer

Could you write this same sentence again, a different way, as it's impossible to parse.

Ha. I'd say it's likely to go down big time and soon leaving few survivors, and all due to science engineering. — FrancisRay

I'd say, that we face a climate and ecological crisis as a consequence of the misuse of science and engineering by a culture that deprived science of any moral worth, and turned it out barefoot, onto the streets - to hawk its wares to government and industry.

It's the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but stuck with the same old ideological understanding of reality. Consequently, we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.

Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple.

Magma heat energy used to produce electrical power, can meet and exceed current global energy demand, and be be used to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, recycle all our waste - which is not possible, either with fossil fuels or renewables like wind and solar.

Rehabilitating the unconscionable? — Tom Storm

Piling on!

Modern science, based on the hypothetico-deductive methodology described by Galileo in 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' - has been under constant attack for 400 years.

This essay begins, "science is a good thing" - but then the six criteria of scientism make it quite clear this faint praise holds, only insofar as we allow. And science shouldn't criticise, less yet exclude "other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific."

So, tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination - these are all equal methods of enquiry to scientific method, are they?

If you say, no - they're not, you've committed the grave sin of scientism. I do not accept that kind of cultural/epistemic relativism is valid.

It's a well written essay. It adequately expresses a view. But I don't agree with that view, no!

I think our relationship to science is mistaken, and that accusations of 'scientism' justify that mistaken relationship.

Did you like the essay? — Tom Storm

It's a perfectly decent essay. But I didn't like it - because in my view, accusations of scientism are an attempt to put science back in a box that it shouldn't be in, in the first place.

It's a wonderful piece. Succinct and lucid. — Tom Storm

Oddly anachronistic example toward the end.

"Sometimes, the resistance is foolish. I read, for
example, that some prominent Indian social scientists favor the traditional custom
of variolation – inoculation with human smallpox matter, accompanied by prayers
to the goddess smallpox – over the modern scientific practice of vaccination using
cowpox vaccine, which is much less likely to cause smallpox in the patient. This,
in my view, is worse than silly."

Smallpox was eradicated by 1978. This essay was published 2009.

Is anyone on this plane a poet?

I'm a doctor!

I need a poet, dammit!

"6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art."

Poetry denial is a huge problem in science!

It might sound presumptuous to say this; but, are people becoming less emotionally intelligent? — Shawn

I think they are.

I mean, when you start reading online responses like, LOL, ROFL, or OMG, then is that indicative of a low EQ? — Shawn

In what sense? Do you mean such responses are rude to others - and so unempathetic? Or is it that they express the emotional state of those who use them, and that's indicative of low EQ?

I hesitate to say this; but, it seems to me that having a developed EQ is becoming harder and harder nowadays in real life. — Shawn

What do you put this down to? Too much screen time not enough social interaction maybe?

You take care too Shawn, and I'm sorry, for trying (unsuccessfully) to make you express any emotion at all. I can only apologise for my conduct, and assure you I had the best of intentions - initially, to understand what you mean by emotional intelligence, but later I became concerned by your apparent absence of emotion. A healthy individual would be calling me names by now.

Don't worry. Be happy. I already read Silent Spring. — Shawn

Are you calling me a pest? Then tell me so, you coward.

I know more about men (being a man) — Bitter Crank

Yeah, that's how!

But, we don't extract precocious minerals from sea-water. We don't have geothermal utilized as much as it should be, and we definitely don't have enough nuclear power plants from cheap Ur232 from seawater extracted. We haven't made efforts to extract tritium from sea-water or Lithium-7 and Lithium-6 from seawater. Why is this all happening, when these are very rational and cheap things for the economy.

Doesn't this make you angry or at least frustrated? — Shawn

Yes, I'm absolutely furious about it. That's what makes me fine. You, I'm worried about. What makes you angry?

Well, what about you? Do you struggle with depression or other malady of the mind, emotional or otherwise? I'm just wallowsome, as I've said. — Shawn

No, I'm fine. What does wallowsome mean?

I didn't expect it to be about me. How about you? — Shawn

So you're surprised? Is it a good surprise?

Well, you must have researched me. — Shawn

I imagine you've been advised to adopt a sleep routine, eat healthily, exercise and drink water to combat the depression. Hey, I bet you didn't think this was how your thread was going to go? Are you pleased it took this turn?

Not really. I think impulsiveness is though... — Shawn

Okay then. I have enough to form a hypothesis. Given that your OP is not based in research, but is your own opinion, and taking into account your responses, I think you define emotional intelligence in a positive sense as not having emotions at all - and I get the impression you consider any expression of emotion a loss of control, and a vulnerability. Assuming so, your question is actually about yourself:

I mean, when you start reading online responses like, LOL, ROFL, or OMG, then is that indicative of a low EQ? — Shawn

What you're saying here, is why would someone tell me they're laughing, or astonished, as communicating emotion signals weakness? You are fearful of evoking emotion in others - as indicated by three self qualifications in the OP:

It might sound presumptuous — Shawn

I hesitate to say this; — Shawn

before I start blabbering — Shawn

And would injure yourself, lest others do so, and cause you to feel. I may be overstating the case. Take from this what you will, but I'm not at all sure wearing so much emotional armour is psychologically healthy.

I know it is because I'm nervous person. I get angry often but I don't want it. — SpaceDweller

Do you mean in social situations, you're nervous. Or just nervous generally?

And what about that makes you angry? Are you angry at yourself?

Fine, I wasn't even angry. Yet, I do consider myself a stoic-wannabe. Stoics are emotionally developed no, CP? — Shawn

You weren't angry? It took you 14 minuets to respond to a post that required no response. You were plenty angry. So, again, do you think that expressing anger is indicative of low EQ?

Shawn had every reason to be angry with my post, yet chose not to express it. I wonder whether he thinks that is emotionally intelligent or not.

Isn't being angry is indicative of nervousness more than low EQ? — SpaceDweller

I don't know. Do you think it is?

Do you think being angry is indicative of low EQ?

I don't like being angry. Do you? Isn't anger like one of the most self-satisfying emotions? — Shawn

Then why don't you like being angry? Do you not deserve to be satisfied?

Sorry Shawn, I was joking, and giving you a dig to test your emotional intelligence.

Well, what do you think about emotional intelligence and empathy? — Shawn

You must be quite angry and yet have contained yourself. I think it's okay to tell an asshole like me to go fuck myself. Why didn't you?

Then, yes. It was presumptuous!

lol.

Why are lol, rofl etc, indicative of low EQ?

I hate emojis. What are they indicative of?

I imagine you've done extensive research on semiotics, and are going to reference Jung or Nabakov. Perhaps throw in some Sassure. This should be interesting.

But, my intuition is that there was probably something really wrong in the marriage to lead him to make that decision. — Jack Cummins

My knowledge is fairly scant but I understand he attacked the beliefs of his wife's family. Probably religious beliefs. I don't know anymore than that. 'Monster' was maybe a bit much; but still, they had five children - and his wife was supporting him, until he ran off to the south pacific.

I think that's important context, that illustrates the meaning of the work. He paints this unspoilt paradise, and titles it to cast aspersions on the life he left behind. Then, it's not very good. The blues and browns are indicative of depression - and it's as if he's poised to learn the lesson that wherever you go, you take yourself with you. But he hasn't learnt it yet, or perhaps ever. He's turned paradise into hell - and perhaps, thus we see the central figure reminiscent of the damned in Botechelli's painting based on Dante's Inferno.

I've looked at some of his other works, and they're better than this, but still, the compositions are unwieldy, and I see the same weird disjointedness between figures or objects in his paintings over and again. He maybe enjoyed painting, but I don't think he's very good at it. It would have been a good hobby for him, but if there were ever a case of "don't give up the day job" - this is that.

So you are not impressed by Gaugin's painting or his title? — Jack Cummins

I took the title as a whole, in relation to the painting - as a critique of industrial society, by a man who ran away - leaving behind a wife and five children, to the South Pacific to paint. The guy is a monster and, based on this painting - he's not very good, really. He's a depressive in paradise, making self justifying statements of his art.

Contrast this with Henri Rosseau's painting, similar subject - much cleaner lines, more vivid colours, wit and humour with the animals in the undergrowth. I see none of that in Gaugin's painting. It doesn't pull the eye anywhere in particular - as if to tell the story. It's daubed across the canvas in a haphazard manner. The figures stand in disproportion to each other, in a barely discernible landscape. No, the best I can say for it is that it would complement the colours in my bathroom.

I don't get it.

Having looked at the painting, one can tell why he was in debt and suicidal. I've seen better art on the side of van. He's no Henri Rousseau that's for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionism#/media/File:Henri_Rousseau_-_Le_R%C3%AAve_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

As for the questions:

' Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going ' — Jack Cummins

I don't think they are:

a unique statement of questions about the human condition. — Jack Cummins

...rather like the painting, they could have been formulated by a 10 year old.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

It would go quite well in my bathroom!