Scientism

ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm big on applied science since I was never very good at hard science research. I can't build a computer, but I'm a helluva button pusher. LOL

That said, then what? I like to fly. There's a lot of science involved in flying. While flying jobs usually involve going from Point A to Point B, there's also the matter of "it's not the destination, it's the journey". People who are happiest flying do it because they love flying. The unhappiest are those who do it for the money. Such people are the first to quit when they get the shit scared out of them or there's a fatal crash.

If you want to believe you're just a meat robot of no more value than the sum of your components, that's your choice, but I disagree with the premise.

https://teacherscollegesj.org/what-is-the-chemical-value-of-a-human-body
What is the chemical value of a human body?
What is the chemical value of a human body?
Explanation: 99% of the mass of the human body consists of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. They are worth about $576. All the other elements taken together are worth only about $9 more.
Click to expand...
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I must admit, Frank, that's a curious use of the word "almost!"
Click to expand...

I use it advisedly in comments like that.

There certainly are motivations for "religion" that are other than superstition...so I see it reasonable to suppose there might be at least one religion not motivated by superstition.

But I agree with you. In fact, I originally wrote that comment as "All religions = superstition...read it over a few times before hitting the post button...didn't like it...and changed it adding the "almost."
 
BidenPresident said:
What did science tell you about whether to get married or not?
Click to expand...

It's a fact that kids who come from divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves, meaning that the experiences of kids is having an impact on their brain and subsequent thoughts/decisions.

There's also a genetic component to both marriage and divorce:

Marriage is considered one of the most important forms of social support for adults, and population-based studies have found that most adults will marry at some point in their lifetime (Bjorksten & Stewart, 1984). Despite the benefits of marriage, the divorce rate has been rising since the middle of the twentieth century (Coontz, 2007). One potential origin for this trend is the genetic influence on getting married and ultimately divorced. Johnson and colleagues (2004) found considerable genetic influences on the propensity to marry over the course of the lifespan. Longitudinally, the genetic influences on getting married have been found to increase at midlife and then decrease in older adulthood (Trumbetta, Markowitz, & Gottesman, 2007). Divorce, like marriage, has also been found to be highly heritable. McGue and Lykken (1992) found the proportion of genetic variance in the risk of getting a divorce was slightly greater than 50%. In addition, D’Onofrio and colleagues (2007) reported an increased risk of marital instability in offspring of divorced parents (i.e., intergenerational transmission).

Jockin and colleagues (1996) found that up to 40% of the variance in the heritability of divorce is from genetic factors that affect the personality of one spouse. Traditionalism and social potency were the most important correlates of divorce risk, as were high scores in both neuroticism and extraversion. Spotts and colleagues (2004) found that the way that spouses interact with one another stems from genetically influenced characteristics; however, they posit that the same influences do not always operate similarly in different social settings. In addition, various pathologies may have negative effects on marital quality or vice versa. For example, Dehle and Weiss (1998) found that low marital quality predicted an increase in depressed mood and at the same time initially higher scores of depression predicted greater decline in marital quality. Divorced individuals have also shown increases in various pathologies such as affective disorders, gambling and substance abuse (Jerskey et al. 2001) all of which have shown to have genetic influences (e.g., see Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923822/
 
While a simplified version of positivistic science has come to be thought of as a philosophy within our everyday understanding of knowledge, most scientists acknowledge the metaphysical nature of such a position. Thus, most scientists have come, at least implicitly, to agree with Huxley’s assertion, despite the claims of early positivists like Auguste Comte, that it “is impossible to live without metaphysic”. To say that we should “let the data speak for themselves” contains the belief that these data are important, that they have something to say, and that it is worth hearing them out.

However, most people’s understanding of science and matters of methods or metaphysics tend to be on precisely such a “bird’s eye” level, and the view of knowledge as being based on value-free, “objective” science is widespread.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7817851/
 
ZenMode said:
It's a fact that kids who come from divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves, meaning that the experiences of kids is having an impact on their brain and subsequent thoughts/decisions.

There's also a genetic component to both marriage and divorce:

Marriage is considered one of the most important forms of social support for adults, and population-based studies have found that most adults will marry at some point in their lifetime (Bjorksten & Stewart, 1984). Despite the benefits of marriage, the divorce rate has been rising since the middle of the twentieth century (Coontz, 2007). One potential origin for this trend is the genetic influence on getting married and ultimately divorced. Johnson and colleagues (2004) found considerable genetic influences on the propensity to marry over the course of the lifespan. Longitudinally, the genetic influences on getting married have been found to increase at midlife and then decrease in older adulthood (Trumbetta, Markowitz, & Gottesman, 2007). Divorce, like marriage, has also been found to be highly heritable. McGue and Lykken (1992) found the proportion of genetic variance in the risk of getting a divorce was slightly greater than 50%. In addition, D’Onofrio and colleagues (2007) reported an increased risk of marital instability in offspring of divorced parents (i.e., intergenerational transmission).

Jockin and colleagues (1996) found that up to 40% of the variance in the heritability of divorce is from genetic factors that affect the personality of one spouse. Traditionalism and social potency were the most important correlates of divorce risk, as were high scores in both neuroticism and extraversion. Spotts and colleagues (2004) found that the way that spouses interact with one another stems from genetically influenced characteristics; however, they posit that the same influences do not always operate similarly in different social settings. In addition, various pathologies may have negative effects on marital quality or vice versa. For example, Dehle and Weiss (1998) found that low marital quality predicted an increase in depressed mood and at the same time initially higher scores of depression predicted greater decline in marital quality. Divorced individuals have also shown increases in various pathologies such as affective disorders, gambling and substance abuse (Jerskey et al. 2001) all of which have shown to have genetic influences (e.g., see Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923822/
Click to expand...

Not an answer. I asked what science helped you decide whether to marry or not?

What research in physics showed you whether to marry and to whom?
 
BidenPresident said:
We have a physical need for water. Yes.
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to just the reality of needing water to survive. Our brains produce the thought of "I'm thirsty" or something similar, in our consciousness that results in subsequent thoughts of something like "Should I get up and get a drink or wait until the next commercial? I'm not that thirsty and I really want to see how this drive ends. I guess I could just pause the game on the DVR, get a drink from the kitchen and then restart it and get back to the live game during the next commercial".

But, we aren't producing the initial thought of "I'm thirsty". It just suddenly appears in our consciousness, completely outside of our control. We couldn't stop it if we wanted to. Our brain, at a neurological level, over which we have absolutely no control or visibility, just "sends" thoughts to our consciousness.

That's science.
 
BidenPresident said:
Not an answer. I asked what science helped you decide whether to marry or not?
Click to expand...

I'm not consulting a science book to decide if I should get married, but that doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation for why we ultimately decide to get married or not and none of it is within our control.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not referring to just the reality of needing water to survive. Our brains produce the thought of "I'm thirsty" or something similar, in our consciousness that results in subsequent thoughts of something like "Should I get up and get a drink or wait until the next commercial? I'm not that thirsty and I really want to see how this drive ends. I guess I could just pause the game on the DVR, get a drink from the kitchen and then restart it and get back to the live game during the next commercial".

But, we aren't producing the initial thought of "I'm thirsty". It just suddenly appears in our consciousness, completely outside of our control. We couldn't stop it if we wanted to. Our brain, at a neurological level, over which we have absolutely no control or visibility, just "sends" thoughts to our consciousness.

That's science.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you thought that proved.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not consulting a science book to decide if I should get married, but that doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation for why we ultimately decide to get married or not and none of it is within our control.
Click to expand...

So you are an absolute physical determinist.
 
BidenPresident said:
So you are an absolute physical determinist.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by physical determinist but, yes, I am definitely a determinist. We don't control the decisions we make and, if we were able to reverse time back to a point where everything in the universe is identical to how it was now, I would write this exact same sentence exactly as I am now, with no choice to do otherwise.
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...

All animals, including humans, have natural instincts of survival and altruism

To suggest squirrels have roughly comparable abstract concepts of freedom, equality, and justice to humans I don't think passes the laugh test.

If there really were a scientific law that gives us true and unambiguous knowledge of justice and freedom, the equations and experiments should be easy to find online and post here.


My two cents: we are basically chimpanzees with souped-up brains. I'm not convinced we even know how to ask all the right questions, or if we would understand all the answers if they were handed to us.

I believe it is both hubris and naivete to assume the answer to all reality and all experience is found in calculus and the induction of scientific experiment.

I think science is a wonderful tool, but I don't kid myself into believing the answers to everything is achievable through scientific experiment and human cognition.

I don't think Albert Einstein even believed that.
 
Doc Dutch said:
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/
Click to expand...

The German philosopher Schopenhauer, who was famously pessimistic, didn't think there was any real higher purpose or meaning in life, but the way to get through it is by aesthetic enjoyment and pleasures.

That mindset doesn't appeal to me, but if one is a strict materialist who believes nothing is real but quarks and electrons, that might be a way of approaching life.
 
BidenPresident said:
Whether that is true or false, it would have no effect on what decisions we make.

We do not lie in bed in the morning waiting for physical forces to lift us up and get us dressed.
Click to expand...

Some people probably decided to lay in bed in the morning. Others didn't. Either option is still a decision we make that is based on neurological events over which we have no visibility or control. If you decided to hit the snooze button one time this morning, you had no option but to hit it one time and if we could rewind time, and put the universe exactly as it was when your alarm went off this morning, you would hit the snooze button a trillion times in a row if we rewound time a trillion times.
 
BidenPresident said:
Why talk about them, then? It is all mythology. Cannot be proven true or false.
Click to expand...

It's really not mythology. Our subjective experience completely aligns with what I'm saying and, therefore, supports the reality of determinism.

Do you have any idea what you're going to think next? Can you stop your next thought from appearing in consciousness? Do you have the ability to know what you're going to think before you think it?

The answer to all of those questions is no, yet our thoughts literally determine everything about us that isn't determined by genetics. Our thoughts determine if we speak up in a meeting or don't. They determine what our goals are and when we believe we've met them. Our thoughts determine if we give the finger to the guy who cut us off. They determine every intention we have. They determine our capacity for working hard or not and overcoming obstacles or not.
 
ZenMode said:
It's really not mythology. Our subjective experience completely aligns with what I'm saying and, therefore, supports the reality of determinism.

Do you have any idea what you're going to think next? Can you stop your next thought from appearing in consciousness? Do you have the ability to know what you're going to think before you think it?

The answer to all of those questions is no, yet our thoughts literally determine everything about us that isn't determined by genetics. Our thoughts determine if we speak up in a meeting or don't. They determine what our goals are and when we believe we've met them. Our thoughts determine if we give the finger to the guy who cut us off. They determine every intention we have. They determine our capacity for working hard or not and overcoming obstacles or not.
Click to expand...

So, you feel lived by something that is not you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top