Beyond scientific method

[Bahman]

First lets see, what is scientific method and list of definitions related to it?

It is a useful method for explaining phenomena we experience outside, so called objective reality. What is phenomena? First, what is event? Event is what is experienced in consciousness, hard idealism, or what happen outside as a change and can be experienced, soft idealism. Phenomena is an accepted fact about the existence of a correlation in a set of events. Fact is an indisputable preposition. Scientific method is then a systematic method which attempts to construct knowledge of subject matter. And finally, knowledge is subjective structured awareness which differs from objective awareness, the former is related to an subjective experience (what happens inside, like invention, finding, creation), whereas the latter is related to an objective experience (what happen outside).

Shortcoming of scientific method: Why scientific method fails to answer all aspect of reality? Because it is based on consciousness yet it cannot explain consciousness and consciousness is very real.

Meta-science: Which by definition is systematic method which attempts to construct knowledge of what is beyond subject matter (what we call it common experience where happens outside), namely all experience which take places inside. This is the area that scientific method is not applicable to for a simple reason, it is completely personal hence it cannot be measured with scientific instruments.

We could have uncommon experience of what we call external reality, although there exist an external reality which we have common experience about it but that doesn’t prove that what is external to me is not wider than what is external to you. In simple word, reality has layers hence you have to turn inside to out in order to have access to what was inside you which becomes your outside. This naturally happen in the moment of death, yet we have access to it when you are alive.

 

[edwest2]

There are devices which can measure emotional states and a trained technician can make reasonably certain identifications of this internal information. Other instruments can monitor brain states. For example, using a certain device, scientists can assign colors to different brain regions and see which light up or increase in intensity based on certain (name removed by moderator)uts. It has been shown that people suffering from certain mental disorders have increased or decreased colored areas, which has shown that, at least in the examples I’m aware of, scientists have seen the same type of lit up or dimmed areas in people suffering from certain disorders.

Brain mapping is occurring. Also, brain signals can be used to control some prosthetic devices. There is no way science can confirm other states or occurrences that fall into the supernatural realm. Human beings have been interpreting reality well enough to function. Only some defect or substance will modify that. I think when you refer to consciousness, you are not talking about being awake or in a coma. Creativity has been studied a great deal. Much has been written about it. I study companies that create things. There are formulas anyone can use. A lack of creativity is not a weakness or problem. There are key things to know and do: (a) The person has to be drawn to it in some way and take the time to learn, (b) persistence is the key, and structured practice, meaning you have to draw, write, etc. often, (c) the personal satisfaction factor, (d) the willingness to not let make mistakes stop your progress, and (e) a goal or objective. The person usually wants to emulate someone or solve a particular problem.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Shortcoming of scientific method: Why scientific method fails to answer all aspect of reality? Because it is based on consciousness yet it cannot explain consciousness and consciousness is very real.

Yes, as to things outside itself consciousness can understand things because it is wired to understand them given enough effort. But consciousness is a given, and as such cannot understand itself though it can analyze its operations. We see ourselves only darkly, as in a clouded mirror. Some people’s mirrors are more clouded than others.

Introspection gets us closer to ourselves than anything else, yet we do so little introspection that we never see much of ourselves, and we certainly don’t see what others see of us unless they dare to tell us.

Subjectivity is a witch who bewitches us with her charms.

 

[PseuTonym]

Shortcoming of scientific method: Why scientific method fails to answer all aspect of reality? Because it is based on consciousness yet it cannot explain consciousness and consciousness is very real.

I’m not sure what you consider to be answering an aspect of reality, or failing to answer an aspect of reality. Let’s consider the deciphering of linear B script.

According to Google:

Michael Ventris (1922-56) was the person who eventually deciphered Linear B in 1953.

There were plenty of samples of writing in the linear B script. Weren’t those writing samples an aspect of reality?

Was Ventris using the scientific method, while all others who were working on the problem failed to use the scientific method? That does not sound very likely, and it is not even clear what is meant by the “scientific method.”

Did Ventris explain consciousness?

If Ventris did not explain consciousness, but he did explain an aspect of reality, and if he did it without science simply because science is not applicable to the kind of problem he was trying to solve, then science might continue to have shortcomings even after it explains consciousness, depending on what you mean by “shortcomings.”

Why would you expect science to explain every aspect of reality? Does science explain the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression?

 

[Latias]

First lets see, what is scientific method and list of definitions related to it?

It is a useful method for explaining phenomena we experience outside, so called objective reality. What is phenomena? First, what is event? Event is what is experienced in consciousness, hard idealism, or what happen outside as a change and can be experienced, soft idealism. Phenomena is an accepted fact about the existence of a correlation in a set of events. Fact is an indisputable preposition. Scientific method is then a systematic method which attempts to construct knowledge of subject matter. And finally, knowledge is subjective structured awareness which differs from objective awareness, the former is related to an subjective experience (what happens inside, like invention, finding, creation), whereas the latter is related to an objective experience (what happen outside).

…

Meta-science: Which by definition is systematic method which attempts to construct knowledge of what is beyond subject matter (what we call it common experience where happens outside), namely all experience which take places inside. This is the area that scientific method is not applicable to for a simple reason, it is completely personal hence it cannot be measured with scientific instruments.

We could have uncommon experience of what we call external reality, although there exist an external reality which we have common experience about it but that doesn’t prove that what is external to me is not wider than what is external to you. In simple word, reality has layers hence you have to turn inside to out in order to have access to what was inside you which becomes your outside. This naturally happen in the moment of death, yet we have access to it when you are alive.

As a nitpick, in my philosophical lexicon, I use “phenomenon” to denote what one experiences through sensory (name removed by moderator)uts or how one understands the (name removed by moderator)uts from one’s senses. It is one’s subjective experience the world.

It is possible to understand the operations of one’s mind outside of one’s understanding of other external material phenomenon. This seems to be a classic case of epistemic pluralism, where the fundamental substances of the material realm is different from the entities in one’s mind. “Substance” is not used in a metaphysical, Aristotelian sense, but to emphasize that the conceptual entities used to understand material and mental phenomenon are epistemologically different. For instance, one can say that the fundamental substance of the external, material realm are bosons and fermions, and in the mental realm, impressions, ideas, sentiments, passions (Hume uses those words in his Treatise of Human Nature), and beliefs, and will. Clearly, it does not seem that the latter cannot be reduced into the former, especially when people’s concept of the later terms and their use in vernacular language make it difficult to understand those terms in a physicalist, scientific framework.

 

[Latias]

Why would you expect science to explain every aspect of reality? Does science explain the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression?

Good question. This will be addressed later briefly.

There is a philosophical theory called eliminative materialism. Eliminativism, in the broad sense of the word, is the view that certain theoretical entities could be eliminated from one’s understanding of phenomena, such as “elan vital” for cell biology, phlogiston for chemistry, and luminferous aether for physics. These eliminated entities do not serve even an instrumental purpose for understanding a phenomena or organizing scientific knowledge, and scientific realists can confidently deny their ontological existence. In other words, eliminativism (for a specific entity) has both ontological and epistemological implications. “Folk psychology” is the pejorative term eliminativists use to deride common conceptions of human psychological phenomenon, especially those approaches that are not informed by a scientific, materialistic understanding of the human brain (and perhaps the fields of artificial intelligence that attempts to recapitulate aspects of human cognition* in silico) *. Eliminativism, specifically, denies the existence of certain postulated entities used in colloquial language to describe psychological and social phenomenon, such as beliefs. I had a brief discussion with a philosophy professor about this, and he said that eliminative materialism had risen from logical positivism’s ambition to “cash out” certain theoretical terms in terms of observation terms (or that theoretical terms should have empirical predicates).

• “Theoretical” roughly means “unobservable through ordinary sensory experience or basic scientific instruments”) entities This is a major word in the philosophy of science. I can provide no rigorous definition, but the concept would be used here, even though it is ambiguous, would suffice.

Eliminative materialism primary contentions are that (1) modern scientific theories failed to substantiate the predictions of folk psychology or folk psychology has failed to become a rigorous, systemic, and fruitful field of scientific inquiry; (2) neuroscience would provide eventually provide a complete account of human psychological phenomena that would explain human psychological phenomena without reference to the entities of folk psychology (as the entities of folk psychology would be eliminated, not merely reduced in a more fundamental framework). In other words, for (2), credible philosophy of the mind (not folk psychology even though it may be rife with some terms from folk psychology) would eventually be displaced by an empirically substantiated neuroscience, as neuroscience, not philosophical insights would actually elucidate the true operations of the human mind.

Another way of characterizing eliminative materialism is that it says that the fundamental substance and structure of the human mind is ultimately material, and it can be reduced, both ontologically and epistemologically, to it. It has ontologically implications, and not surprisingly, it is a scientific realist position that avers that all phenomenon and entities are material in nature (physicalism) ; it is not skeptical empiricism or pragmatic thesis that questions the ontological reality of scientific theoretical entities. Some eliminative materialist philosophers, particularly Alex Rosenberg, also use similar reasoning to claim that history and sociology do not provide anything substantive, since they cannot make precise and validated predictions of phenomena in the manner that the most vaunted “hard” science of physics has. Since the theoretical entities of history and sociology cannot be reduced (in principle since it is practically impossible to do so) to the entities in a more harder science (say psychology or biology), these disciplines cannot provide meaningful explanations of phenomenon nor describe aspects of ontological reality. (I perhaps need to research this, because this was my general impression, but it may be an uncharitable, and certainly inelegant, description of Rosenberg’s views).

One may find eliminative materialism to be the reductio ad absurdum of physicalism, since it denies the existence of our most intimate attitudes and beliefs that are fundamental to one’s experience as a cognizant human being. However, eliminativists would claim that most people have hubris and claim that the process of introspection would render them vulnerable to biases. This is the introspective illusion, and of course, introspection does not tell one about the neurophysical anatomy and neurochemical processes occurring in one’s brain; our hardware can perpetuate the illusion of understanding. Besides, eliminativists do not “believe” in eliminativism, because beliefs do not exist.

I asked a Catholic friend about what he considers to be a more pernicious philosophy to the faith: eliminative materialism or philosophical skepticism (at least in its weaker versions that is not hard Pyrrhonism). The latter is the general belief that one cannot truly understanding anything in the world because one cannot prove the reliability of human sensory experience or human reasoning to represent an external reality. It is the view that all one has are sensory impressions and ideas, and that the mind does not necessarily have access or is connected to an objective ontologically reality. He remarked the latter because it is not that demanding (in its belief), as the former requires one to deny the existence of them most fundamental aspects of one’s mind.

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure what you consider to be answering an aspect of reality, or failing to answer an aspect of reality. Let’s consider the deciphering of linear B script.

The reality has layers. What we see at surface and have common experience of it is considered as an aspect whether it is a simple event or a phenomena.

There were plenty of samples of writing in the linear B script. Weren’t those writing samples an aspect of reality?

Language is a mode of information and those writing of course were samples of what happened hence reflect an aspect of reality.

Was Ventris using the scientific method, while all others who were working on the problem failed to use the scientific method? That does not sound very likely, and it is not even clear what is meant by the “scientific method.”

Knowledge as it is defined is subjective structured awareness which is produced by creativity.

Did Ventris explain consciousness?

No, he was a creative person and he simply broke a code.

If Ventris did not explain consciousness, but he did explain an aspect of reality, and if he did it without science simply because science is not applicable to the kind of problem he was trying to solve, then science might continue to have shortcomings even after it explains consciousness, depending on what you mean by “shortcomings.”

He only broke a code.

Why would you expect science to explain every aspect of reality? Does science explain the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression?

I don’t expect that contemporary science can explain every aspect of reality, all phenomenas using the current framework.

 

[Bahman]

There are devices which can measure emotional states and a trained technician can make reasonably certain identifications of this internal information. Other instruments can monitor brain states. For example, using a certain device, scientists can assign colors to different brain regions and see which light up or increase in intensity based on certain (name removed by moderator)uts. It has been shown that people suffering from certain mental disorders have increased or decreased colored areas, which has shown that, at least in the examples I’m aware of, scientists have seen the same type of lit up or dimmed areas in people suffering from certain disorders.

Brain mapping is occurring. Also, brain signals can be used to control some prosthetic devices. There is no way science can confirm other states or occurrences that fall into the supernatural realm. Human beings have been interpreting reality well enough to function. Only some defect or substance will modify that. I think when you refer to consciousness, you are not talking about being awake or in a coma. Creativity has been studied a great deal. Much has been written about it. I study companies that create things. There are formulas anyone can use. A lack of creativity is not a weakness or problem. There are key things to know and do: (a) The person has to be drawn to it in some way and take the time to learn, (b) persistence is the key, and structured practice, meaning you have to draw, write, etc. often, (c) the personal satisfaction factor, (d) the willingness to not let make mistakes stop your progress, and (e) a goal or objective. The person usually wants to emulate someone or solve a particular problem.

Ed

What is the utility of brain in your opinion? Is consciousness a outcome of neural activity?

 

[Bahman]

As a nitpick, in my philosophical lexicon, I use “phenomenon” to denote what one experiences through sensory (name removed by moderator)uts or how one understands the (name removed by moderator)uts from one’s senses. It is one’s subjective experience the world.

It is possible to understand the operations of one’s mind outside of one’s understanding of other external material phenomenon. This seems to be a classic case of epistemic pluralism, where the fundamental substances of the material realm is different from the entities in one’s mind.

I believe that no entity could be fully understood hence I don’t believe in a separated material mind which could exist without any mind and vice versa.

“Substance” is not used in a metaphysical, Aristotelian sense, but to emphasize that the conceptual entities used to understand material and mental phenomenon are epistemologically different.

That I agree.

For instance, one can say that the fundamental substance of the external, material realm are bosons and fermions, and in the mental realm, impressions, ideas, sentiments, passions (Hume uses those words in his Treatise of Human Nature), and beliefs, and will. Clearly, it does not seem that the latter cannot be reduced into the former, especially when people’s concept of the later terms and their use in vernacular language make it difficult to understand those terms in a physicalist, scientific framework.

Reality has layers and physicalism is apart of it. It is false to say that physicalism is able to explain all layers of reality as it is false to say that it cannot explain anything. It is a domain of knowledge.

 

[StrawberryJam]

First lets see, what is scientific method and list of definitions related to it?

It is a useful method for explaining phenomena we experience outside, so called objective reality. What is phenomena? First, what is event? Event is what is experienced in consciousness, hard idealism, or what happen outside as a change and can be experienced, soft idealism. Phenomena is an accepted fact about the existence of a correlation in a set of events. Fact is an indisputable preposition. Scientific method is then a systematic method which attempts to construct knowledge of subject matter. And finally, knowledge is subjective structured awareness which differs from objective awareness, the former is related to an subjective experience (what happens inside, like invention, finding, creation), whereas the latter is related to an objective experience (what happen outside).

Shortcoming of scientific method: **Why scientific method fails to answer **all aspect of reality? Because it is based on consciousness yet it cannot explain consciousness and consciousness is very real.

Meta-science: Which by definition is systematic method which attempts to construct knowledge of what is beyond subject matter (what we call it common experience where happens outside), namely all experience which take places inside. This is the area that scientific method is not applicable to for a simple reason, it is completely personal hence it cannot be measured with scientific instruments.

We could have uncommon experience of what we call external reality, although there exist an external reality which we have common experience about it but that doesn’t prove that what is external to me is not wider than what is external to you. In simple word, reality has layers hence you have to turn inside to out in order to have access to what was inside you which becomes your outside. This naturally happen in the moment of death, yet we have access to it when you are alive.

Hello Bahman,

I take note of your statement: Why scientific method fails to answer
I ask you to rethink this question.
The Scientific method does not fail to answer. It does it’s job well in doing what it claims to do. It never feels any pressure to answer just to answer.

 

[Bahman]

Hello Bahman,

I take note of your statement: Why scientific method fails to answer
I ask you to rethink this question.
The Scientific method does not fail to answer. It does it’s job well in doing what it claims to do. It never feels any pressure to answer just to answer.

It fails to answer the answer all aspect of reality since physical reality is not the only reality which is or could become objective to us.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It fails to answer the answer all aspect of reality since physical reality is not the only reality which is or could become objective to us.

I disagree.

Mr. (Fill in the blank new ager)
I have not time to argue your lack of understanding of what Science answers. It is not shouting quantum to everything.

Peace

 

[tonyrey]

Hello Bahman,

I take note of your statement: Why scientific method fails to answer
I ask you to rethink this question.
The Scientific method does not fail to answer. It does it’s job well in doing what it claims to do. It never feels any pressure to answer just to answer.

It never feels any pressure nor does it make any claims…

 

[Bahman]

I disagree.

Mr. (Fill in the blank new ager)
I have not time to argue your lack of understanding of what Science answers. It is not shouting quantum to everything.

Peace

Then I rest my case. But let me to elaborate: Physical reality is not the whole reality and scientific method cannot completely answer all aspect of physical reality as well since the whole always is bigger than its constitutes and everything is connected. The body of science, scientific theories, is not static but dynamic hence it is acceptable as an approach which can explain the reality better and better but will never manage to provide the whole picture.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It never feels any pressure nor does it make any claims…

tonyrey,
We have known each other long enough by now that I will talk to you in PM about this if you wish.