Haagel @ Haagel @lemmings.world

Posts

0

Comments

280

Joined

2 yr. ago

I agree with you. I think this is a result of the New Atheist preaching of guys like Dawkins and Hitchens. They're rather crude and provacative in their anti-theism and their followers subsequently have a pretty simplistic view of a complex subject.

Of course, there are even more religious fundamentalists doing exactly the same rabble-rousing. It behooves us to ignore all extremists.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it anecdotal?

There are many forces and powers that cannot be measured. They're often the most self-evidently desirable things in the world. Love, hate, determination, artistry, joy, generosity, compassion, character, wisdom, justice and beauty, etc. Hence the cute quote from sociologist William Bruce Cameron that "not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted". Most psychological and sociological phenomena are immeasurable by the strict meaning of the word.

As for physics, we can't measure the future, for example, though there are interesting equations which could possibly account for an near infinite variety of outcomes in a given system. And there are many theories that we can only measure under ideal, localized conditions. We can only hope that they are ubiquitous throughout the universe.

Then there are problems like the Duhem–Quine underdetermination thesis. This thesis says that the agreement of the empirical consequences of a theory with the available observations is not a sufficient reason for accepting the theory. In other words, logic and experience leave room for conceptually incompatible but empirically equivalent explanatory alternatives. This is especially endemic in biology.

And if you want to be more philosophical, it has been argued by guys like Hume and Locke that there is always a “veil of perception” between us and external objects: we do not have directly measurable access to the world, but instead have an access that is mediated by sensory appearances, the character of which might well depend on all kinds of factors (e.g., condition of sense organs, direct brain stimulation, etc.) besides those features of the external world that our perceptual judgments aim to capture. According to many philosophers, nothing is ever directly present to the mind in perception except perceptual appearances.

My point in all of this is that empiricism is axiomatically limited in it's scope and potential. All of our chest-thumping and shouting, "Science! Science! Science!" is a bit naive when it ignores core issues of epistemology.

My personal belief is that knowledge is, in it's first phase, abstract. Only then can it be quantifiable or measurable within a particular system.

The recent trend towards scientism shys away from abstraction, perhaps because they perceive it as a sort of dog-whistle for God.

I don't know why people are down voting you. This is exactly what Pew Research has said about religious "nones" in America. The number of dyed-in-the-wool atheists is still quite low and projected to decrease because birth rates.

Religious "Nones" in America - Pew Research

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I find it very interesting. You've given me some things to think about. 🙏🏼

Tell that to the tens of millions killed in the early twentieth century as a result of these ideologies. It wasn't just the Nazi weirdos. Lots of prominent European and American scientists and politicians were advocating Social Darwinism. Francis Crick is still pushing it, and who knows more about the science than him?

That sounds like a lot of gray area. Hitler wasn't wrong about the premises of Darwinism that still stand today. This is straight out of Mein Kampf:

"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher evolution."

You say that it's unethical to apply this reasoning to humans. Why? If the Third Reich had succeeded in conquering Europe or even the world, would we then consider this ethical?

Co-discoverer of the DNA double helix Francis Crick agrees, unfortunately:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-pioneer-james-watson-loses-honorary-titles-over-racist-comments-180971266/

What would you say about Hitler's explicit reference to Darwinism as a large part of the justification for his persecution of Jews and cripples? He based his opinions on real data.

Yeah, it's something. I've got nothing against empiricism. Obviously I love the sciences, particularly the applied sciences.

But I find it amusing that the most self-evidently desirable things in life tend to resist measurement and empirical observation. I think that we need not be so avowed to that means as the all in all.

Yes, of course, but it's not the extent of knowledge.

Nor is it universal knowledge. What burns your hand isn't going to burn other materials, or even other organisms.

There's always a limit to what can be perceived with the organic senses. That's the axiomatic flaw of empiricism.

What do you think? What is knowledge?

Well said. It takes a lot of honest introspection to determine why we believe a certain set of data instead of another set.

Avoid what? Biases?

I agree with Thomas Kuhn that the bias is intrinsic. I think that his description of paradigm shift is a positive one, borne out of an era of conflicting data and intense argumentation.

Thesis and antithesis give rise to the a synthesis which becomes the next thesis, so on and so forth until our self inflicted nuclear apocalypse.

I wish I shared your optimism, my friend. Biases are increasing in the post-truth era, even in academia. That is a measurable fact.

Yes, of course. And we all love the results of this methodology.

It's just that using the scientific method to prove the validity of the scientific method is circular reasoning. At some point, we have to think philosophically about the means of knowledge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

He who smelt it, dealt it

If you don't mind me asking: why should you have faith in what you can measure? Is there an experiment to prove that empiricism is the best means of knowledge? Such an experiment would also be circular reasoning.

Obviously we're plaqued on all sides by a deficiency of our organic senses, yet we seek to understand beyond the range of our senses. Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for a while.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

According to the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, making assumptions and dismissing contradictory data is a regrettable but very common part of the scientific process that eventually results in a shift in the paradigm of thinking. Every scientific theory that we know today has gone through these phases and will likely continue to change in the future.

Can you prove that the scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability? That sounds like circular reasoning.

He's one of the profiteers, in my opinion.

With all due respect, my friend, you're assuming a false dillema. The majority of academic scientists are religious, reflective of the general population's religious affiliation.

Of course there are a minority of highly vocal outliers on both sides of the spectrum who profit from the discord, real or imagined.

https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-do-scientists-believe-religion-among-scientists-and-implications-for-public-perceptions/