Scientism

ZenMode said:
Spirituality, while it is generally associated with religion, isn't only a religious concept. You can be spiritual without believing in irrational religious claims that conflict with science.
Click to expand...

What amuses me is how the left in particular presents science as an appeal to authority. Take your above statement, it clearly shows that you don't actually know what "science" is.

Science is a methodology. It isn't a religion, it isn't an authority. It has no opinions. It is defined and organized method of discovery, nothing more.

Following the scientific method is the most effective means humans have yet devised to derive answers to questions about the physical world. There is no god named "science" that gives answers, it is just a means of methodically organizing research in a rational way.
 
BidenPresident said:
Your view of science makes life seem pointless. Just physical laws. No one really believes that. But sounds sophisticated to say.
Click to expand...

An atheist, who believes that their current life is all we have, is already 90% of the way to what religious people would view as a pointless life. The rest, as far as why we do what we do, think how we think, respond how we respond, etc is just a scientific reality of how our brains function.

I assure you that I absolute believe what I'm saying.
 
ZenMode said:
An atheist, who believes that their current life is all we have, is already 90% of the way to what religious people would view as a pointless life. The rest, as far as why we do what we do, think how we think, respond how we respond, etc is just a scientific reality of how our brains function.

I assure you that I absolute believe what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Science only explains physical operations. It cannot say anything about non-physical events. Nor can science even state what is outside their own physical explanation.
 
BidenPresident said:
Science only explains physical operations. It cannot say anything about non-physical events. Nor can science even state what is outside their own physical explanation.
Click to expand...

What is an example of non-physical events that exist outside of the realm of the sciences?
 
People who are not scientists are more likely to treat it as an ideology. "Science says..." is something only a nonscientist would say.

Maybe not always true, but worth considering.
 
ZenMode said:
You're trying to pigeon hold "science" as only experiments and equations. An understanding of justice and fairness isn't even limited to humans. Chimpanzees have been shown to enact justice and express unhappiness at things that are unfair. Those are all concepts that come as a result of brain functionality at a neurological level.

Everything you're talking about, even Einstein's beliefs, are all explainable scientifically. Why have humans created thousands of gods throughout history? There's a scientific explanation for it, even if we don't have an complete understanding at this point. The moral ideas that the religious, especially Christians, like to take credit for are scientifically explainable at least partially as a result of evolution.

As humans, we have been programmed to prefer agreement vs disagreement when in a group setting. When you express agreement in a group, it produces dopamine in the brain, which feels good, while disagreeing with a group does not. It's believed that this is the result of evolution and is meant to mitigate conflict and encourage cooperation.
Click to expand...

While there's a lot of truth in there, there's also some flawed perceptions. For one thing, I doubt we'll ever see a group of chimps, dolphins or whales holding court. As you pointed out with humans, there's some social evolution going on there. Tribes of Humans or troops of chimps full of homicidal maniacs don't survive. Those that survive best are cooperative and work together as a group.

While it's true certain behaviors produce specific reactions in the brain, such as dopamine levels, it doesn't explain the point made by René Descartes's: "I think, therefore I am". Chimp's can be trained in certain behaviors, but they don't sit around contemplating the mysteries of the Universe much less discussing philosophy while sharing a bunch of bananas.

Just like life is very rare in the Universe, the same goes for intelligence on the level of humans on Earth. Of course, part of that is because our species killed off most of the competition. LOL

To be clear, while I believe there is a force behind the creation of the Universe, there is no evidence of constant interaction. The laws of the Universe play out as set. IMO, the laws of the Universe are geared to produce both life and intelligence regardless of how rare they occur. To what purpose is unknown and left to each of us to figure out.


https://www.nature.com/subjects/social-evolution
Social evolution is the area of evolutionary biology that studies how social interactions, especially between individuals of the same species, arise, change and are maintained. A particular focus is on how cooperative behaviour can be beneficial despite the intuitive advantages of being selfish.
Click to expand...
 
ZenMode said:
What is an example of non-physical events that exist outside of the realm of the sciences?
Click to expand...

Science is a method, not a means to an end. Quantum Physics gets into some weird shit well beyond our own senses. It's where theories about everything we know and see could be a hologram.

Here's something else; even if we are all in a super-sized version of "The Sims", is it better to "play the game" or just bitch and quit?
 
ZenMode said:
A very simplistic explanation is that some outside influences have structured my brain in such a way that I find these forums appealing, so I seek them out.
Click to expand...

What are these "outside influences?" Seriously, you need a scientist to tell you why you came to this forum?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Science is a method, not a means to an end. Quantum Physics gets into some weird shit well beyond our own senses. It's where theories about everything we know and see could be a hologram.

Here's something else; even if we are all in a super-sized version of "The Sims", is it better to "play the game" or just bitch and quit?
Click to expand...

One aspect of science is a method. I guess that is the "verb" of science... kind of. It's a method that is often meant to prove/disprove claims or assumptions.

Science, as a noun, is much more than a method. It's applying what we know or have learned as a result of the verb of science.
 
ZenMode said:
A very simplistic explanation is that some outside influences have structured my brain in such a way that I find these forums appealing, so I seek them out.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe you are only an ambulatory meat computer? A flesh-and-blood robot responding to biochemical programming with no original thoughts, ideas or abilities? If so, then why go through the pain of living? Life is pain and suffering. If there's no purpose, no upside, then why not accept Albert Camus' philosophy and take the exit ramp?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/
Albert Camus (1913–1960) was a journalist, editor and editorialist, playwright and director, novelist and author of short stories, political essayist and activist—and, although he more than once denied it, a philosopher. He ignored or opposed systematic philosophy, had little faith in rationalism, asserted rather than argued many of his main ideas, presented others in metaphors, was preoccupied with immediate and personal experience, and brooded over such questions as the meaning of life in the face of death. Although he forcefully separated himself from existentialism, Camus posed one of the twentieth century’s best-known existentialist questions, which launches The Myth of Sisyphus: “There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide”
Click to expand...
 
ZenMode said:
You're trying to pigeon hold "science" as only experiments and equations. An understanding of justice and fairness isn't even limited to humans. Chimpanzees have been shown to enact justice and express unhappiness at things that are unfair. Those are all concepts that come as a result of brain functionality at a neurological level.

Everything you're talking about, even Einstein's beliefs, are all explainable scientifically. Why have humans created thousands of gods throughout history? There's a scientific explanation for it, even if we don't have an complete understanding at this point. The moral ideas that the religious, especially Christians, like to take credit for are scientifically explainable at least partially as a result of evolution.

As humans, we have been programmed to prefer agreement vs disagreement when in a group setting. When you express agreement in a group, it produces dopamine in the brain, which feels good, while disagreeing with a group does not. It's believed that this is the result of evolution and is meant to mitigate conflict and encourage cooperation.
Click to expand...

If it can't be measured or quantified, it's not science.

We are not talking about the basic survival and altruistic insticts of animals; taking care of you siblings and offspring, cooperating with the pack for hunting and mutual protection.

We are talking about advanced and abstract concepts of truth, freedom, and justice.

Confucious, Ghandi, Plato, and MLK junior have different metaphysical visions of what justice, freedom, and equality mean.

That's why there is no equation or scientific theory which gives us true knowledge of these types of concepts.


Wrapping up, there is no wolfpack, no flock of crows, no colony of squirrels who have thought this abstractly about ethics. And that's why you will never find math equations or scientific laws which provide true knowledge of them:

Bhagavad-Gita, chapter 16
Fearlessness, purity of being, knowledge, generosity, discipline, sacrifice, sacred study, austerity, honesty, non-harm, truth, non-anger, letting go, peace, non-slander, kindness to living things, non-greed, gentleness, modesty, non-caprice, energy, forgiveness, resolve, cleanliness, non-aggression, non-arrogance -- those exist in one born to godly assets.

Zhuangzi:
Humans who have freed themselves from the slavery of conventional standards of judgement and desire can no longer be made to suffer. So the Daoist remains within society but refrains from acting out of motives that lead conventional humans to struggle for wealth, fame, reputation, success, security. He maintains a course of action that is not purposefully motivated by any gain or reward. In such a state human action becomes spontaneous and effortless. Humans become one with heaven, and merge with the Dao.

Jesus, Sermon on the Plain:
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God. Love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't judge and you won't be judged, don't condemn and you won't be condemned, forgive and you will be forgiven, give and you will receive. Remove the log from your own eye before attending to the splinter in your friend's. A good tree does not produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, each tree is known by its fruit.

The Mozi, Book XII:
Mozi said: The six peculiarities must be removed. When silent one should be deliberating; when talking one should instruct; when acting one should achieve something. When one employs these three alternatively he will be a sage. Pleasure, anger, joy, sorrow, love and hate are to be removed and magnanimity and righteousness are to replace them. When hands, feet, mouth, nose, ears and eyes are employed for righteousness, then one will surely be a sage.

The Tao de Jing, Chapter 67:
Laozi said: I have three treasures
I hold onto them and protect them
The first is called compassion
The second is called conservation
The third is called not daring to be ahead in the world
Compassionate, thus able to have courage
Conserving, thus able to reach widely
Not daring to be ahead in the world, thus able to assume leadership
Now if one has courage but discards compassion
Reaches widely but discards conservation
Goes ahead but discards being behind
Then death!
If one fights with compassion, then victory
With defense, then security
Heaven shall save them
And with compassion, guard them

Analects of Confucius, Chapter XVI-10:
Confucius said, “There are nine things upon which a gentleman focuses his attention: in regard to using his eyes, he is anxious to see clearly; when listening, he focuses on being discerning; in his countenance, he is anxious to be amiable; in his demeanor, he focuses on being reverent; in his speech, he focuses on being dutiful; in his actions, he focuses on being respectful; when in doubt, he focuses on asking questions; when angry, he focuses on thinking about the the difficulties he may cause others ; and when he sees gain to be had, he focuses upon righteousness
Click to expand...
 
BidenPresident said:
What are these "outside influences?" Seriously, you need a scientist to tell you why you came to this forum?
Click to expand...

Clearly I don't NEED a scientist to tell me why I came to this forum. However, even though I don't NEED a scientific explanation, a scientific explanation still exists for every decision we make. If you're sitting on your front porch and suddenly think "I'm thirsty", you didn't create that thought - it just happened. There's certainly a evolutionary explanation for that, because if we didn't have an awareness of thirst/hunger, we would die very early in life.
 
ZenMode said:
Clearly I don't NEED a scientist to tell me why I came to this forum. However, even though I don't NEED a scientific explanation, a scientific explanation still exists for every decision we make. If you're sitting on your front porch and suddenly think "I'm thirsty", you didn't create that thought - it just happened. There's certainly a evolutionary explanation for that, because if we didn't have an awareness of thirst/hunger, we would die very early in life.
Click to expand...

What did science tell you about whether to get married or not?
 
ZenMode said:
If you're sitting on your front porch and suddenly think "I'm thirsty", you didn't create that thought - it just happened. There's certainly a evolutionary explanation for that, because if we didn't have an awareness of thirst/hunger, we would die very early in life.
Click to expand...

We have a physical need for water. Yes.
 
"Do you really believe you are only an ambulatory meat computer? A flesh-and-blood robot responding to biochemical programming with no original thoughts, ideas or abilities? If so, then why go through the pain of living? Life is pain and suffering. If there's no purpose, no upside, then why not accept Albert Camus' philosophy and take the exit ramp?"


I had to actually go looking for this because I knew instinctively it would be there.

If free will doesn't actually exist, how is one suppose to choose the exit ramp?
Absent free will, one doesn't choose anything.

Logic is not Oom's strong point.
This is what makes cogent discourse with him impossible.


 
Cypress said:
If it can't be measured or quantified, it's not science.

We are not talking about the basic survival and altruistic insticts of animals; taking care of you siblings and offspring, cooperating with the pack for hunting and mutual protection.

We are talking about advanced and abstract concepts of truth, freedom, and justice.

Confucious, Ghandi, Plato, and MLK junior have different metaphysical visions of what justice, freedom, and equality mean.

That's why there is no equation or scientific theory which gives us true knowledge of these types of concepts.


Wrapping up, there is no wolfpack, no flock of crows, no colony of squirrels who have thought this abstractly about ethics. And that's why you will never find math equations or scientific laws which provide true knowledge of them:
Click to expand...

Like I said, animals have an understanding of justice and equality. There may be an understanding of what we call freedom but, due to a lack of complex language, they can't express it. For all I know, there has been evidence of animals showing an understanding of freedom, just as they have shown an understanding of fairness or lack of fairness. There was an experiment where two chimpanzees, I believe, were given two different size piles of food and the chimp that received that smaller amount showed obvious unhappiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top