Live data from Hacker News

The Folly of Scientism

thenewatlantis.com

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name one question for which a scientific answer no matter how inadequate was once the best, but for which now a philosophical or religious one is the best one?

Consciousness, experience, spontaneity, 'the present moment'.. There's a very good book on this called "The Wisdom Of Insecurity" by Alan Watts. It's very short and definitely worth a read if this question interests you.

1) I am concerned that the excellent reputation Alan Watts deserves for his work will be diminished by those who cite him. So I will just fondly remember to myself his story of trying to mail water.

2) It is my understanding that 19th Century science would have asserted authority on the subjects of things like consciousness it should not have, and which 21st Century science does not assert. On the other hand at least the Roman Catholic church has withdrawn from over exerting its authority on at least some matters addressed by biologists.

3) non science has abdicated its authority on any non scientific questions by its assertions that no means exists that can assure that anything is true, because there is nothing to any statement but its social context. The obvious consequence of that movement should have been its instantaneous invalidation by its own social construction by Marxists, or as the observer Mandy Rice-Davies might have said, They would say that, wouldn't they?

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#62

the magazine itself looks great - never seen it before. there's a nice article on ray bradbury at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-dark-and-star... and it's currently half price for subscriptions and only $10 delivery international. i just signed up for two years :o) thanks for posting this.

I wish more journals would follow this example. This is a really smart way to widen the reach of their ideas.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#64
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the strongest argument you can make, I think you've said all that needs to be said about intuition.

Hehe, I'm not trying to convince you. I suppose I shouldn't be posting, then. Really, I'm not certain you would be convinced even if I did a better job, though. All I'm really looking for is less of a skeptical "explain it to me in terms of science" viewpoint, and more of a "huh, interesting" response. I've never seen someone even try to work with me when discussing these things. It's always shut down so they can cla…

People who believe in science don't want to argue with someone who believes in something based on faith? Huh, interesting.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#65
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the strongest argument you can make, I think you've said all that needs to be said about intuition.

Hehe, I'm not trying to convince you. I suppose I shouldn't be posting, then. Really, I'm not certain you would be convinced even if I did a better job, though. All I'm really looking for is less of a skeptical "explain it to me in terms of science" viewpoint, and more of a "huh, interesting" response. I've never seen someone even try to work with me when discussing these things. It's always shut down so they can cla…

Do you really have nothing to offer about how intuition is useful or legitimate as a "way of knowing"? You want to just say the word "intuition" and have us respond, "huh, interesting"? Talk about intellectually engaging.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#66
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consciousness, experience, spontaneity, 'the present moment'.. There's a very good book on this called "The Wisdom Of Insecurity" by Alan Watts. It's very short and definitely worth a read if this question interests you.

> Consciousness, experience, spontaneity, 'the present moment'.. These are all part of science.

Are you sure? As far as I know, none of those have testable explanations.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#67
post #32

The author believes scientific inquiry should not 'overreach' into subjects that have traditionally belonged to fields like philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, and religion, because, he explains in painful detail, science can't have all the answers. Regardless of whether one agrees with him or not, his argument makes NO sense to me. The relevant question is not whether science can have all the answers, but whether…

Is it better to classify a rabbit by its meat or by its fur? It depends what you want to do with it.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#68
I was most struck by the line that "It easily becomes an interpretive blank check, permitting speculation that seems to explain any describable human trait." This has long been a criticism "real" evolutionary scientists (like geneticists) have leveled against the speculative nonsense often seen coming from sociobiology/evolutionary psychology [0].

Science works to find scientific conclusions. But the trappings of science are sometimes applied in ways that have little to do with actual science.

[0] http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/12091... -- note that sociobio/ev psych can produce real science. In my experience, though, most of what they produce is "just-so stories", as Gould's comment points out.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#69
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consciousness, experience, spontaneity, 'the present moment'.. These are all part of science.

Are you sure? As far as I know, none of those have testable explanations.

> Consciousness

Neurology has a lot of information about where consciousness comes from. It's not complete, but nothing we know is.

> experience, spontaneity

More neurology, from what I can tell that these words mean. However, they're vague, and can be defined in so many ways that I don't know precisely what you mean.

> 'the present moment'

This is amazingly vague. It could be related to time, to consciousness, or to who-knows-what.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can something that is not supported by evidence be a valid answer to any legitimate question?

How are you feeling right now?

> How are you feeling right now?

Emotions, both feeling and decoding, are smack-dab in the realm of neurology.

Post reply on HN