Science and Philosophy

[AlNg]

For one could never determine, on scientific grounds, the principle that only scientific knowledge counts as authentic

Scientists look for objective, testable evidence to support their claim. Philosophers OTOH engage in rhetorical discussions which will not convince those on the other side. Take for example the question of agnosticism. You are going to find philosophers on both sides of this issue.

 

[pocaracas]

It’s a good thing we have philosophers to admonish extremist ideas.

Now, how about we reduce “knowledge about the real world” to the scientific form of knowledge and call it “science”?

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s a good thing we have philosophers to admonish extremist ideas.

Now, how about we reduce “knowledge about the real world” to the scientific form of knowledge and call it “science”?

“Reduce,” by pure fiat, no doubt, is the key feature of your “how about we…”

Knowledge only can suffer that reduction if you assume, a priori, that the “real world” is identical to the “physical” or “observable” world, and that knowledge about the latter is all that is required to provide knowledge of all of reality.

Would you mind providing a proof for that without begging the question?

 

[HarryStotle]

edwest211:

For one could never determine, on scientific grounds, the principle that only scientific knowledge counts as authentic

Scientists look for objective, testable evidence to support their claim. Philosophers OTOH engage in rhetorical discussions which will not convince those on the other side. Take for example the question of agnosticism. You are going to find philosophers on both sides of this issue.

You aren’t claiming that all questions in science are settled, are you? That no where will you find scientists “on both [or more] sides” of many scientific issues?

Do you belong to some super advanced alien life form, or are you here on this earth where pretty much every significant scientific question remains unexplained at some level?

By the way, this is pure rhetoric and not convincing:

Philosophers OTOH engage in rhetorical discussions which will not convince those on the other side.

{face palm} Oh, now I get it, your word “philosophers” is supposed to be self-referential, as in…

[One school of] Philosophers [such as my own] OTOH engage in rhetorical discussions which will not convince those on the other side.

 

[pocaracas]

Knowledge only can suffer that reduction if you assume, a priori, that the “real world” is identical to the “physical” or “observable” world, and that knowledge about the latter is all that is required to provide knowledge of all of reality.

Indeed, you are right.

Would you mind providing a proof for that without begging the question?

I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a very good starting point.
As long as there is no evidence of anything real, beyond the physical and observable, then we can’t have any form of knowledge about it, can we?
How do you propose we find out about the potential reality that is not physical nor observable?

 

[HarryStotle]

I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a very good starting point.
As long as there is no evidence of anything real, beyond the physical and observable, then we can’t have any form of knowledge about it, can we?
How do you propose we find out about the potential reality that is not physical nor observable?

By your definition, knowledge itself is “beyond the physical and observable,” and so knowledge about things must not exist because it can’t be “anything real,” existing as it does beyond only those physical and observable things that are real.

A little ‘pickle’ you have placed yourself in, no?

Or should we engage in some special pleading for the cause of knowledge as real despite that it isn’t physical and observable?

 

[pocaracas]

That’s only because you’ve decided to define knowledge as something beyond the physical.
But is it really?

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s remind ourselves that the ‘physical’ and ‘observable’ are both mental constructs created in the minds of subjective observers to make sense of their perceptual experiences. Those experiences, themselves – from the standpoint of western thought and neuroscience for the past four or five hundred years – are mental constructs or representations of the supposed ‘outside’ or ‘physical’ world. As Kant pointed out, the ‘thing in itself’ (aka what actually exists outside of your knowledge of it) is inaccessible to you as a rational mind.

All you have are mental representations of hypothetical physical things, if you really want to separate knowledge of things from the things themselves.

So the existence of our knowledge is self-evident. What isn’t self-evident is that an actually physical world does, in fact, exist outside and beyond and separate from our mental representation of that supposed world.

It isn’t a question of whether we can know that knowledge actually exists. It does and has to because knowledge (accurate awareness) would be the only way we can have awareness, or know or discuss anything at all.

So a stronger case can be made for everything reducing to ideas or knowledge or information, as far as rational beings are concerned than for everything reducing to physical reality, in a purely materialistic understanding of that word.

You would have to completely redefine the word physical to even begin to make the case that all reality is reducible to the purely ‘physical’ under your new and attenuated definition.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Science is the how, not the why.

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s only because you’ve decided to define knowledge as something beyond the physical.
But is it really?

Ah, but you ask that because you have decided to imagine that “the physical” exists beyond your knowledge and mental imagery that defines ‘things’ to begin with.

You are in a far more tenuous and unsubstantiated place than I am, given that knowledge and imagined representations of those things are all we have as starting points. Everything else is conjecture.

Got any more leaps of faith to propose?

 

[pocaracas]

The solipsism which is at the core of both of your last posts, while being a worthwhile notion, is one that effectively shuts down any discussion.
If I came know anything that’s beyond my own mind, then why even listen to you, who might be just a construct of my potentially disembodied mind.
If nothing can be said, then there’s nothing to say.
Game over.

 

[HarryStotle]

No, actually solipsism is not implicit in my post. There is simply a recognition that knowledge is completely dependent upon the intellect, and intellect is basically an aspect of who and what we are.

The only way solipsism is implied is if the intellect cannot get us past itself, which I wouldn’t suppose to be true.

However, what is not and cannot be implied is that the intellect or mind is reducible to physical reality. It cannot be because our understanding of physical reality itself is grounded in understanding not in physical reality.

We are not merely physical or material entities, we are persons: subjective intelligent beings. That is our starting point and we cannot just kick out from underneath ourselves the very ground from which anything at all can be understood.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Can someone explain to me why scientism is wrong? Not that I ever agreed with it. But I’m intrigued as to what the explanation will be

 

[JimG]

Scientists and philosophers must both start out with several assumptions, such as:

I am.
I can know.
There is an external reality.
External reality is intelligible.

There are more, I’m sure.

 

[pocaracas]

Right, ok…let’s work with that…
Abductive reasoning on my part suggests that we are merely physical entities. Our subjectivity is an illusion brought about through high level abstractions within our brain.
A simple rough analog can be found in any computer. If you had no way to read the content of the memory but could only map out where activity happens, how do you suppose that worlds like those in Minecraft would look like? It’d wager very similar to the blobs of activity we can measure in own brains.
With computers, we have the advantage of knowing how to read them… Our brains, however, are seemingly much more complex than binary operations and probing single neurons in a human is unfeasible (at least, for now).
When writing computer code, one goes through different levels of abstraction… From the basic variable declaration and storage, to file access, to network access, to internet access… to generating classes that build upon other classes that build upon yet more classes… that can accomplish astonishing things, like a world in Minecraft, but still need the original basic variable memory storage facility.
That our awareness is shielded from the lower abstraction layers is probably a result of evolution - what advantage would an animal have of it was wasting energy with the awareness of all its internal operations?.. Even some of the most important operations in us, heartbeat, digestion, most of breathing, don’t require our awareness, for it would be too much (and too tedious) to process.
I’ve been reading some things from neurologists, like “the man who mistook his wife for a hat” and “the take of the dueling neurosurgeons”, and the hints are all there.

 

[HarryStotle]

Right, ok…let’s work with that…
Abductive reasoning on my part suggests that we are merely physical entities. Our subjectivity is an illusion brought about through high level abstractions within our brain.

Except abductive reasoning is supposed to lead to the best explanation, not merely to the one we prefer the best.

A simple rough analog can be found in any computer. If you had no way to read the content of the memory but could only map out where activity happens, how do you suppose that worlds like those in Minecraft would look like? It’d wager very similar to the blobs of activity we can measure in own brains.
With computers, we have the advantage of knowing how to read them… Our brains, however, are seemingly much more complex than binary operations and probing single neurons in a human is unfeasible (at least, for now).

Your own analogy betrays you. These “Minecraft worlds” are not created by the computer to help it sort out its location and keep itself organized. They are totally concocted for the sake of an outside entity (the player) to provide that entity with a kind of privileged access into the program on its terms – perceivable shapes and colours and other information. The fact is that the computer functions are actually enormously burdened by this “feature.” This is why most computers have an additional graphic card to offload that onerous task onto the added hardware. The computer functions would be far less encumbered if no such subjective entity existed that requires to be fed, baby-like, these “insights” into what the computer is up to.

It is clear that for sheer efficiency of survival, subjective conscious awareness is a burden that cannot be justified, in any evolutionary sense, by the physical resources allotted to it by the human organism.

Think, for example, how many elite athletes practice for hours and hours each day to mitigate their need to consciously think about what they are doing. They practice unceasingly in order to nullify thinking and make their actions “natural” to them, so that their responses are autonomic and not effected nor affected by conscious thought.

The entire system would be far more efficient if it didn’t need to concoct images for the supposed ‘ghost’ living in the machine. The problem for you is in explaining why the machine needs to devote so much energy to a function for a “ghost” that the machine, itself, “knows” in a functional sense doesn’t exist to begin with.
In short, your abductive reasoning doesn’t get you where you suppose it does.
Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

When writing computer code, one goes through different levels of abstraction… From the basic variable declaration and storage, to file access, to network access, to internet access… to generating classes that build upon other classes that build upon yet more classes… that can accomplish astonishing things, like a world in Minecraft, but still need the original basic variable memory storage facility.
That our awareness is shielded from the lower abstraction layers is probably a result of evolution - what advantage would an animal have of it was wasting energy with the awareness of all its internal operations?..

It isn’t clear to me that awareness of even higher level operations isn’t merely a waste of energy as far as the machine is concerned. It could get rid of all awareness functions and be far better off since the awareness itself doesn’t contribute an iota to the functional efficiency of the “machine” – if, that is, we are merely machines with unnecessary awareness or ‘ghostliness’ added on to them for no good reason or purpose – which is, if you are honest, basically the view of things from your materialist perspective.

Even some of the most important operations in us, heartbeat, digestion, most of breathing, don’t require our awareness, for it would be too much (and too tedious) to process.
I’ve been reading some things from neurologists, like “the man who mistook his wife for a hat” and “the take of the dueling neurosurgeons”, and the hints are all there.

Again, this is looking at things backwards. None of the “important operations” qua operations require awareness. But that view merely paints awareness as unimportant because it is only the hardware functions that are significant. What if the awareness is, itself, the most important feature and those functions are there to support awareness, not the other way around?

To be clear, I am not arguing Descartes’ position since I am not a dualist, it’s just that your case presumes dualism and then tries to dispense with one part by explaining it away (i.e., “reduce” it) using the other.

 

[pocaracas]

Except abductive reasoning is supposed to lead to the best explanation, not merely to the one we prefer the best.

Or “the simplest and most likely”…
Let me know how decreeing a disembodied entity that, through some seemingly undetectable means, interacts with the brain is the best, simplest, or more likely explanation for the mind.

A simple rough analog can be found in any computer.

Your own analogy betrays you.

I did say it was rough. Like all analogies, there are breaking points.
My point was to provide a view of how layers of abstraction can be used to create something that is practically indistinguishable from its underlying cause.

It isn’t clear to me that awareness of even higher level operations isn’t merely a waste of energy as far as the machine is concerned. It could get rid of all awareness functions and be far better off since the awareness itself doesn’t contribute an iota to the functional efficiency of the “machine”

Perhaps it’s a necessary burden for the sake of our survival as a social animal.
Sometimes, I get the impression that people forget this detail. We see all great apes as social animals. We, like them, evolved from a social animal. The neurological tools for socializing are there - burden or not, we have managed to take them to an impressive level.

What if the awareness is, itself, the most important feature and those functions are there to support awareness, not the other way around?

I’m sorry if I made it sound like our awareness is not an important function. I was merely pointing out that basic internal survival functions are mostly independent from that awareness.

To be clear, I am not arguing Descartes’ position since I am not a dualist, it’s just that your case presumes dualism and then tries to dispense with one part by explaining it away (i.e., “reduce” it) using the other.

Oh? I wasn’t aware that my case presumes such a thing… I may have used the word illusion to describe one part, at some point, remember?

 

[mkoopman]

solipsism, is the excuse of the mindless.

 

[mkoopman]

You have not spoken with enough mathematicians.
What are the proper powers of infinity and how can we assert a Hausdorf condition? Not much argument between elementary school mathematicians, perhaps. However, mathematics and philosophy cross a very gray line along many bus routes.