Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Folly of Scientism

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#91

Post by derleth »

AffableSpatula wrote: post #74
derleth wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That begs the question: if you weren't sure what was meant by the terms, why did you assert that they were "all part of science"?

As I understand them they are. I don't know what you mean by them.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#93

Post by rohern »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #27
rohern wrote: 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…

You just wrote

> Your inability to fit it into your belief system is not my problem.

and

> I'm not trying to convince you.

And now you are complaining that people fail to engage with you meaningfully. You are drowning in a pool you filled yourself.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#94

Post by rohern »

webnrrd2k wrote: post #73
inavat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That science can't yet know you're experiencing love at this moment (if indeed that's the case) isn't a reason to think it never will be able to. I know it's common to think of our internal thoughts and experiences as metaphysical things, but I know of no evidence that they're anything but chemical and physical processes. You know, science.

Oh, I'm not saying that thoughts and experiences aren't physical things -- I didn't mean to imply otherwise. The question I was responding to was: "Show me something that's not science that we know". My response is that there are lots of things that we, as people, actually know but can't study scientifically.

Love and emotions are being studied scientifically. The neurotransmitters behind love and affection are extremely well studied. One could quite easily construct experiments to see if exiting fMRI technology can determine the difference between a brain experiencing love and one not. These questions are in every way within the domain of science.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#95

Post by derleth »

dalke wrote: post #86
derleth wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We now believe the negatives of the eugenics movement, justifying the genocide done by the Nazis, outweighs any social good which might be possible from the scientific principles behind eugenics. This is science and politics, and partially based on the science of modern genetics, which shows that a number of things we thought could be stopped using sterilization really cannot be ended in that fashion. Down Syndrome…

Yes, that's my point. I'm confused. Politics is partially an applied philosophy. Many of the views of a political party are based in philosophical viewpoints. The idea that everyone has the "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a philosophical viewpoint, and not a scientific one. What is the scientific basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The planks of the Republican p…

> What is the scientific basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The observation that, in reasonably-controlled (albeit retrospective) studies, societies that hew closer to them than others tend to do better over the longer term.

> What is the scientific definition of "human"?

If philosophy isn't meant to answer questions, why do you think science is meant to provide definitions?

Science is about figuring out how things work, which informs philosophy and, therefore, politics, to the extent that even if you ignore reality, reality won't ignore you: Having a philosophy that says rattlesnake venom is healthy won't make it not kill you.

> Science is a knife. We use it poorly, and we get hurt. We use it one way and we make art, and homes. We use it another way and we kill.

I agree with all of this.

Here's my take on philosophy: In order to figure out how the world should be, you first have to have a cogent and well-informed grasp on how it is. Your philosophy must be founded on science or else you're trying to derive Is from Ought. Figure out how the world works first, and then attempt to derive Ought from Is, if that's your thing.

> If we were an absolute dictatorship, then our Glorious Leader (praise be the Leader) could require sterilization of anyone with poor genetics, and it would happen.

Which, incidentally, would likely be the result of an unscientific policy, because science says we don't know enough about genetics to do a very good job of it.

Science tells us old-fashioned eugenics is nonsense. Stop trying to use it to discredit science.

> What is your scientific explanation for that?

Cognitive biases in humans are also studied by science, and science is a prime way to overcome cognitive biases using a stringent methodology.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#96

Post by ph0rcyas »

rohern wrote: post #20
tokenadult wrote: post #5

A reply under the title of "The folly of 'The folly of scientism'" by Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, who frequently reads and comments on issues related to the philosophy of science: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-folly... ". . . . Hughes is an evolutionary biologist with wide-ranging interests, and I’ve really liked some of his papers." . . . . "The big problem with Hughe…

The Hughes article is very strange, but the theme of the sentiment is remarkably (perhaps alarmingly) common among the university students I know who are not scientists, engineers, or mathematicians. This is enormously condescending to write, but I think this is born of frustration at not being able to make progress in discovery without the tools of mathematics and science. If you have not picked up and mastered thes…

I beg to differ. What you are describing is scientific dogma, simply another kind of symbolism. Totally natural though: when confronted with too complex a situation, we seek abstractions so we are not overwhelmed with the enormity of the information.

The kind of abstraction that works is greatly influenced by its surrounding context. In more complex issues (say in law), appeal to common sense is sometimes more preferable than using the most fashionable 'scientific theory'. You don't like your spouse? How about teaching her evolutionary biology/psychology?

Dogmatism breeds the act of taking these out of context. Some parts of math works in their internal framework(i.e. math), but taking it out of context is at best, dumb, and at worst, harmful. Having theorems giving infinite-length messages yield certain events of probability one makes all 'realistic' outcomes probability zero. Same for theorems too sensitive to perturbation in axioms that removing a single point turns things upside down.

We don't need 'institutional science', or dogma, or 'mathematics strictly contained in universities', all we need is science, is mathematics, is reason, and understanding their application context.

Such debate often occurs with confusing science with 'opinions of the majority of scientists in academia of what's right'. No, science is not the latter.

[TL;DR] Science and math are useful in a very specified context, and as such is a framework of thinking. Those who take some of their context-dependent results universally and urge everyone to accept it is dogmatic, not scientific.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#97

Post by rohern »

Alkman wrote: post #87
tokenadult wrote: post #5

A reply under the title of "The folly of 'The folly of scientism'" by Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, who frequently reads and comments on issues related to the philosophy of science: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-folly... ". . . . Hughes is an evolutionary biologist with wide-ranging interests, and I’ve really liked some of his papers." . . . . "The big problem with Hughe…

As a humanities academic I find myself leaning toward Coyne's side. Yeah, he goes too far. There are areas involving qualia that could probably be handled by science eventually but the tools at our disposal are too crude for the moment so the humanities get them. There are also ought-questions in ethics and aesthetics that science isn't built to answer. They ought to stay in humanities too, chiefly because humanists…

Apologies for attacking what is your career, but I think your explanation for the tasks handled by the humanities is self-defeating.

> There are areas involving qualia that could probably be handled by science eventually but the tools at our disposal are too crude for the moment so the humanities get them.

Please give examples of these and explain a) Why, if science cannot be done with these questions, is anything else worth doing? What is the good a method you know does not achieve satisfactory results?

The example I would give here is Freud and the study of the brain. I do not see the point -- except for entertainment -- of psychoanalysis being carried out just because there were not yet good tools for doing science. The better effort would have been to develop those tools rather than talking junk for 100 years.

> There are also ought-questions in ethics and aesthetics that science isn't built to answer.

This is not true, though I agree it is commonly assumed. Other people on this thread have mentioned Sam Harris's work on morality as a counter example to this claim.

If you are going to make decisions about what you ought to do, you had better be working from an accurate model of the world, at least if you want your actions to have the desired consequences. This is a scientific project.

As for more complex subjective questions, I do not see how the humanities are better equipped to deal with these as compared to just basic good reasoning. The same goes for poking holes in arguments. Try putting forward a psychoanalytic theory (not to keep stomping on that already crushed horse) in front of chemists and physicists and see what you get. They will have no trouble at all shredding it.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#98

Post by dalke »

subsection1h wrote: post #80
dalke wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Should the US sterilize the mentally retarded? Quoting Wikipedia: "Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources. Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[8] Lat…

1) Should the US sterilize the mentally retarded? [...] 2) Should the US develop and use Orion-style nuclear propulsion? These are policy questions, not a scientific questions. Also, you seem to be confused between the differences between science and technology. Can you not differentiate between basic and applied research?

You're quibbling. I can trivially turn the first into a non-policy question by "Does directed sterilization improve the general social condition?" I didn't do that because the previous commenter's statement placed no restrictions on the types of question I could ask. But it doesn't make a difference.

The scientific answer, 100 years ago, to this reworded question was "yes." Quoting from the Wikipedia article on eugenics: "Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, enticed by its scientific trappings and its promise to cure social ills." Again I point out that there were academic posts in eugenics, conferences, and funded scientific research, and the result of this work guided government policy decisions, including government mandated sterilizations in Sweden up until 1975.

Remember, the topic I'm responding to is "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?" The premise to the topic allows inadequate science, so I'm justified in using this case even though we had a poor understanding of genetics 100 years ago.

Oh! You should read the comments to Galton's "Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims", for The American Journal of Sociology, Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1 at http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-j...

There are two dissenters, Benjamin Kidd and John M. Robertson. Kidd gives another counter-example for this thread:

> Many examples of a similar kind might be given. It may be remembered, for instance, how a generation or two ago Malthusianism was urged upon us in the name of science and almost with the zeal of a religion. We have lived to see the opposite view now beginning to be urged with much the same zeal and emphasis.

And I completely don't understand your statement about any confusion I might have in recognizing the differences between science and technology, or between basic and applied research.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#99

Post by georgeorwell »

rohern wrote: post #90
georgeorwell wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the midst of beating so mercilessly on that drum, you're missing the more interesting question being asked here: will science ever include emotions and intuition (and other neurologically explainable phenomena such as dreams) as a means to collect valid and objectively true experimental data? For the longest time we've had only our five primary senses, with an overwhelming focus on our sense of sight.

If you can give an example of how such data can be used, you could make a case for this, but putting "emotions" and "intuition" in the same sentence as "valid and objectively true...data" is, I think, all the answer you need. If you are studying emotions, then of course reports of emotional responses are useful data. If you are studying intuition (as has been done in great detail in studies of how chess players make…

The original question was, "What are some [legitimate] examples of non-science ways of understanding the world?" and the answers given were largely things that aren't very useful as validating mechanisms under the scientific method, e.g. dreams, intuition, emotion, irrational thought, consciousness, and [subjective] experience.

The point here is that just as non-science is useless for understanding the world in objective scientific terms, science is useless for understanding the world in non-scientific, subjective terms. This seems to follow from the definition. You cannot apply the scientific method to create art, but art is nevertheless created to communicate an understanding of the world.

To experience an emotion is to understand the nature of existence at a personal and subjective level. Science cannot give you this. You cannot know the 'truth' about what anger feels like by reading it in a book, you have to feel it for yourself. This kind of truth is non-scientific.

Re: The Folly of Scientism

#100

Post by Alkman »

rohern wrote: post #97
Alkman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a humanities academic I find myself leaning toward Coyne's side. Yeah, he goes too far. There are areas involving qualia that could probably be handled by science eventually but the tools at our disposal are too crude for the moment so the humanities get them. There are also ought-questions in ethics and aesthetics that science isn't built to answer. They ought to stay in humanities too, chiefly because humanists…

Apologies for attacking what is your career, but I think your explanation for the tasks handled by the humanities is self-defeating. > There are areas involving qualia that could probably be handled by science eventually but the tools at our disposal are too crude for the moment so the humanities get them. Please give examples of these and explain a) Why, if science cannot be done with these questions, is anything el…

>Please give examples of these and

Here's a Greek manuscript. There's a lacuna in the text. What is the most likely correct emendation? If you use a statistical method to answer, explain how you compiled your corpus of comparisons.

>explain a) Why, if science cannot be done with these questions, is anything else worth doing?

Oh my yes, just like football and gourmet cooking are worth doing. Besides which, your science labs are going to need industrial designers and lawyers, and at least a couple historians of science to warn you away from past methodological errors. Which means you also need at least a few scholars of rhetoric, fine arts, philology, general history and archaeology to train them.

>Try putting forward a psychoanalytic theory (not to keep stomping on that already crushed horse)

And yet you do. Why do you guys always use psychoanalysis for your examples? Why not numismatics? Why not 16th century Dutch history? Why not philosophy of mathematics, Meso-American archaeology or Song-period Chinese textual criticism?

>Try putting forward a psychoanalytic theory…in front of chemists and physicists and see what you get. They will have no trouble at all shredding it.

Or try putting it forward in front of social anthropologists. They will have even less trouble - and they were on to Freud a couple of decades before the alleged scientists in the medical profession caught on.

Post reply on HN