This time, ami has a point....

[Verdad]

I certainly don't mean to pin only Lacan. My rant against those who misuse science and math singled him out because (my opinion) he is a particularly dangerous example. Others may be of no direct danger to people (as in patients) but still mislead, confuse and distort. Fashionable Nonsense targeted the social sciences but you're certainly correct in that examples are everywhere. Politics comes to mind...

Psychoanalytic approaches never were based on anything remotely resembling science. Freud started out as a medical doctor specializing in neurology. He abandoned medical approaches and instead, concentrated on free analysis and dream interpretation. A pseudo-science was born.

One thing modern psychiatry doesn't believe is that it's got it right. It's definitely a work in process. That said, it's present roots are firmly in research and controlled clinical trials.

I object to your assertion that there isn't even a consideration of whether there is anything to get right. Unlike Thomas Szasz, I firmly believe there is nothing mythical about mental illness. As a backwoods country doc, I recall far more emotional misery, fractured minds, suicides and family devastation due to mental illness than I care to remember.

As for treating mental illness being slightly totalitarian, on rare occasions, yes. In Canada a patient cannot be treated against their wishes unless they are a danger to themselves or others. It doesn't happen very often but if a patient is in a psychotic break or perhaps in a manic phase of bipolar illness, and refuses treatment, they can be committed and held until they no longer pose a danger. It can get unpleasant for all involved but compared to the havoc that can come from no treatment, it is the lesser of the two evils.

Stephen, I understand the meaning of falsifiable very well. But it’s not a demarcation line you can use to toss out charlatanism (either of supernatural or non-supernatural kind) and not toss out all sorts of meaningful activities as well. You can use it pretty successfully to toss them out of science, but not out of the realm of legitimate activity.

I hate to say it, but you keep providing a “show don’t tell” for my contention that people are brainwashed about science. And that is not an attack on science, but on propaganda that surrounds it. The propaganda that would have you believe your decisions are more rational than they can be, especially so long as you listen to correct authorities. I’m sure you do understand where science has a bearing and where not, yet you forget it every time you buy Sokal’s or Dawkins’ or whoever’s opinion on matters beyond science or beyond their area of expertise.

That hatchet job on Lacan could have been performed on anyone else. Take Heidegger as an easy example. Pick a passage from Being and Time (truth be told, most any passage would do), add the bit about friendliness to Nazism, et voila—another dangerous crook exposed! Of course, even a quickest search would return “arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century” (whereas in Lacan’s case you’d get a mixed bag) but still, if you’d first learned about him from that propagandist book, you’d have the impression you’d ascertained he’s full of shit with your own eyes.

Sokal is not an unbiased commentator or an expert reviewer; he’s directly involved precisely in the battle for public opinion and he’s got a huge axe to grind. You can still agree with him, but it at least behooves us to acknowledge that.

I don’t think mental illness is a myth. The issue as always is in what needs fixing. Historically that included lefthanders, gays, and mouthy women; today we’re more careful in devising criteria, yet judging by consumption of prescription drugs, it now includes more people than ever. We can speculate on why that is so and whether it’s a reason for alarm or not, but that speculation too is beyond science.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts; I think for now I’ve had enough.

 

[Xelebes]

Sokal demonstrated that the abuse of language, by means of putting big or obscure words together without thought as to what the words mean, is dangerous in that it can draw power to those who do not deserve it. This is key. If you're are going to describe the world around you, you're going to have to be specific and with words strung together that accurately reflect what you see. This of course is going to have to come to agreement with the audience who then asks where it does not jive. To simply say it is just above your head is also disingenuous to those who are interested and have resources invested in knowing that.

So yes, if the invested want to know what you see and are willing to verify the claims, then don't be surprised if prior knowledge and experiments that they have done places your claim at odds with their reality.

As for faith in science without prior experimental knowledge can be hazardous, just as faith in the numinous without prior experimental knowledge can be too.

 

[squarejohn]

I don't like those apples.

When you start with a few prepositions and by applying logic, arrive at an absurd conclusion...it's a good idea to go back and examine your prepositions.

Stephen55, your comment is unworthy of you. An absurd conclusion? I never counted you as one of those who mock what they do not understand, or, if they do understand, mock anyway, for the sake of being cruel.

Maybe a little more explanation on my part is in order. But let us first clear the air, so to speak, about one detail. Did you mean "proposition" instead of "preposition?" I confess you sent me to the dictionary with that. I had to make sure it was an honest mistake on your part, before I commented. I used the Webster's Collegiate dictionary as an authoritative source, and sure enough, preposition means what I thought it meant; so I infer that you really meant "proposition" when you tapped out "preposition."

With that little detail out of the way, I now proceed to explain how I came to my present understanding of the actual nature of the universe.

Like you, and many other high-minded folks, contemplation of this subject was one of my favorite pastimes. Over the years, I began to understand that what we are conscious of is not the same thing as the percepts our sensory organs feed into our consciousness. For example, my computer screen before me, as I type this out, is part of the reality of which I am conscious. It really is a computer screen. But what is it actually? In other words (for the purpose of this type of discussion), what is "real" to us, is not what is "actually" there. I understand it is an assemblage of molecules, atoms, and electromagnetic radiation, but that is not a satisfactory explanation of what I was seeking. I had hit a wall.

Years and decades of rumination on the actual nature of the universe, leading off in every direction, always wound up in hitting the same wall.
Reason, even carrying it to the level of ratiocination, is not good enough to penetrate the mystery of the true nature of the universe, at least not with the meager number of facts currently available at this stage of human knowledge. Knowing this, like a dog with a bone, I kept gnawing away at it anyway.

Then the answer came out of "nowhere," while my mind was occupied with assembling the ingredients for my next meal. Logic had nothing to do with it. In a flash--I suppose it could be called an epiphany--I knew the answer, which I posted in the post to which you responded.

I suppose my current view of the universe could be said to be the product of a diseased mind. Maybe so, but it satisfies me as to the nature of the universe. The origin of the universe--if origin is the correct word to use in the context of this discussion--is still a mystery.

 

[amicus]

Stephen:

"...Science cannot explain the great works of art, music or literature. Nor should it try. Non-overlapping magisteria, constantly on guard against transgressing the boundaries.."

~~~

I take great exception to statements like this, especially from those who claim that science is process and does not discover truths; those who claim there are no absolute truths and those who spout that everything is subjective and relative and then come up with an absolute statement, "Science cannot..." to make an invalid point that is purely subjective.

Science, non contradictory, consistent and congruent knowledge, can well and easily abe applied to art, music and literature, and has been, numerous times, with great success. The Golden Ratio, for example, an univerally shared appreciation of the human form and all forms indeed, by symmetry and mathematical ratio's.

Even the woebegotten social sciences, when done well, are the science of social interactions based on universally shared, innate, self evident and non deniable human characteristics that define our individual and collective existence.

One is to think that great art, classical art and music become such through subjective observations based only on personal, empirical data? Hogwash. Classical art and music are deemed such because they both touch upon and sometimes surpass those essential human characteristics that portray the ultimate and universal values of life, through physical art or the sounds of joy and sadness through the human voice or an instrument.

Psychiatry and Psychology might have gotten off to a bumpy start, but so did Astronomy and every other science that had to break free from faith and belief to set forth on objective experimentation. The study of the science of the human mind, the human personality and the determinations are what normative behavior is and why, is indeed a science and should be perceived as such.

Man even did his scientific best to rationalize and justify faith and religion as aspects of the human search for objective knowledge concerning our existence, our past and our future with such forays as the Watchmaker theory.

Even the subject of human emotions such as love and hate can be approached from a scientific direction as emotions are not born to us, but must be learned, as all things must, and learning, non contradictory learning, the accumulation of congruent facts, is the definition of science, reason and rationality.

Consider what you achieve when you reach a point of 'believing' that there are no absolutes, that everything is relative, subjective and transitional. You reach a point of being mentally unable to determine what is right or wrong and thus are left without a means to judge your own actions and those of others. In fact, you toss aside the ability to make any firm decisions about anything which is a certain path to mental dysfunction.

Einstein spent a portion of his life searching for a 'general' theory of relativity; read that as an universal understanding of all the forces in the Universe. Should not man embark on a similar quest for knowledge concerning the nature of our own existence and in doing so, acknowledge the interconnectivity of all realms of knowledge that meet the fundamental standards or reason and rationality but rejects assumptions and premises based on faith or belief?

This is not rocket science or brain surgery, nothing so simple as that, both of which may be compared to a modern day plumber or auto mechanic; no, this universal approach to knowledge is far more difficult, one must truly have an open and receptive mind but must also possess a learned sense of life that reflects the joy of human living in the reality we can and do perceive with absolute accuracy.

The human condition, about which most of us who write, write about, is a fantastic voyage into the possible and the effort to describe our journey to others.

One should take some pleasure in that journey...

Amicus

 

[Pure]

note to ami and stephen

Stephen said "...Science cannot explain the great works of art, music or literature. Nor should it try. Non-overlapping magisteria, constantly on guard against transgressing the boundaries.."


~~~

amicus replied: I take great exception to statements like this, especially from those who claim that science is process and does not discover truths; those who claim there are no absolute truths and those who spout that everything is subjective and relative and then come up with an absolute statement, "Science cannot..." to make an invalid point that is purely subjective.

Science, non contradictory, consistent and congruent knowledge, can well and easily abe applied to art, music and literature, and has been, numerous times, with great success. [...]

One is to think that great art, classical art and music become such through subjective observations based only on personal, empirical data? Hogwash. Classical art and music are deemed such because they both touch upon and sometimes surpass those essential human characteristics that portray the ultimate and universal values of life, through physical art or the sounds of joy and sadness through the human voice or an instrument.

===
i think you make a good point, amicus. how much it applies to Stephen (how 'subjectivist' he is) i'm not sure, but applied to Gould and others who speak of two spheres (two magisteria), it fits. the first sphere is usually said to be that of FACT. and the further claim is made that 'facts' are just those established in rigourous science, by OBJECTIVE methods, and no other facts.

the second sphere is said to be about values and related emotional expressions, and you are right that statements like "Beethoven's 3rd is a great and beautiful symphony" tend to be cashed out as meaning just "I'm wildly keen on B's 3rd."

I'm fine, however, going along with you, and saying that "The 3rd symphony is beautiful" and "murder is wrong" are objective statements, or should be, though i don't agree with Rand completely, in all related matters.

These examples, of course, depend on the following point : There are some true, OBJECTIVE statements outside of the realm of science. ** This is to say, that yes, "a father who runs away from a threat, rather than protect his children, is cowardly" can be established objectively, with great certainty, BUT, if you limit yourself to DATA gathered, in the scientific mode, you could not establish such a truth. Do you agree?

Likewise, I think it's likely objective, and objectively true that for a human to kill himself is morally irresponsible, but you can't find conclusive data supporting such, from scientists. For example, supposing i'm thinking of it, and that it's permitted [I.e. i say, "there is nothing morally problematic here; suicide is permissible when one's future is utterly bleak"]. I submit to examination, and get the psychologist's report:

"Those who try to kill themselves are generally in a transient state of extreme distress, or have some psychological disorder, e.g. depression, paranoid schizophrenia, etc. I have examined you and think your thoughts originate in depressive illness."

This, while *suggestive* (that i might be making a mistake), does not conclusively establish that I 'd be morally irresponsible, if i killed myself; that i shouldn't do it.

In conclusion, the strcit and impermeable barrier between facts and human values, proposed by Gould, is a mistaken idea. See the review of Gould, in American Scientist, by Goodenough:

http://www.americanscientist.org/bo...rmeable-membrane-between-science-and-religion

---
PS

I see you have possibly made this proposal about the nature of science: [Science], non contradictory, consistent and congruent knowledge, . that wide a definition doesn't have many followers these days. one doesn't usually say, I study the science of beauty. in German, of course, wissenschaft IS broad in the manner you appear to suggest. geisteswissenschaft is compared with naturewissenschaft.

i think it's simpler to say that NOT all objective truths, and bodies of them which are consistent, congruent, and comprehensive, are establishable with the *scientific method.* the KIND of objective, empirical data that must be collected, e.g. quantified, will not be the kind we need.

--
**Lustatopia, if i understand him correctly, has made a similar point, in certain posts, above.

 

[stephen55]

Stephen55, your comment is unworthy of you. An absurd conclusion? I never counted you as one of those who mock what they do not understand, or, if they do understand, mock anyway, for the sake of being cruel.

sj, I wasn't trying to mock, much less be cruel.

I should have used "premise" rather than "preposition".

By absurd, I meant illogical or contradictory.

"I define infinity as "no space." I define eternity as "no time.""

These are the premises I take issue with (with which I take issue...). To me, "no space" implies a single point, a zero volume, if you will. Infinity is to me, a never ending sequence, such as all of the natural integers.

To me, "no time" implies something occurring instantaneously. Eternity implies an infinite amount of time. Off hand, I can't think of an example of anything that happens in a time span of zero time. As for eternity, I'm not even sure it is a valid concept. If time and space came into being at the Big Bang, maybe time and space will cease to exist at a "Big Crunch".

That's how and why I can't accept that the universe is nothing more than a singularity. A singularity implies the breakdown of physical laws and is said to be a point of an infinite gravitational field. I don't think that describes the universe.

 

[stephen55]

Stephen said "...Science cannot explain the great works of art, music or literature. Nor should it try. Non-overlapping magisteria, constantly on guard against transgressing the boundaries.."

In conclusion, the strcit and impermeable barrier between facts and human values, proposed by Gould, is a mistaken idea. See the review of Gould, in American Scientist, by Goodenough:

http://www.americanscientist.org/bo...rmeable-membrane-between-science-and-religion

Being a fan of Gould, and having read (I think) every book he wrote, I think that Ursula Goodenough goes beyond what Gould was proposing.

The title of her essay, The Holes in Gould's Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion, get's it wrong from the start. Gould didn't propose a semipermeable membrane between science and religion. (That would allow some diffusion back and forth.) He didn't even propose an impermeable membrane. He simply said that the two fields had nothing in common. Science deals with testable ideas about the nature of our world. Religion deals with something else entirely.

She says in her essay, "In contrast, Gould fails to describe the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution in the magisterium of religion." Why should he have done so? Gould's area of expertise was science. For a scientist to lay down the rules for meaningful discourse and resolution of theology would be silly. Just as silly would be the Archbishop of Cantebury or the Pope laying down the rules for quantum physics.

Human values are very, very important and Gould accepted that. What he didn't do was confuse science (as a method of figuring out our world) with morality, much less religion.

Facts can be interesting. By themselves, they are not science. Science attempts to explain fact. A collection of facts with no underlying explanation tends to get boring. Lead has this density. Gold has that density. Titanium has another density. Boring.... An explanation of why various metals have their densities is interesting.

Human values are also interesting. Why they are what they are...has nothing to do with science.

 

[amicus]

Pure....nice to see you again...

There is a temptation, I suppose, when one acquires a little knowledge, to flaunt it, or show off a bit' a perfectly human characteristic and perhaps an essential rite of passage to wisdom.

"...S

I see you have possibly made this proposal about the nature of science: [Science], non contradictory, consistent and congruent knowledge, . that wide a definition doesn't have many followers these days. one doesn't usually say, I study the science of beauty. in German, of course, wissenschaft IS broad in the manner you appear to suggest. geisteswissenschaft is compared with naturewissenschaft.

i think it's simpler to say that NOT all objective truths, and bodies of them which are consistent, congruent, and comprehensive, are establishable with the *scientific method.* the KIND of objective, empirical data that must be collected, e.g. quantified, will not be the kind we need.

--
**Lustatopia, if i understand him correctly, has made a similar point, in certain posts, above.

Let me ask you this...why should any area of the human experience be excepted from the application of scientific method? We have but one means of comprehending reality and that is through the use of our senses, our minds, our ability to conceptualize and abstract the information our senses provide.
I have watched several 'science' programs that formally study the world of fantasy, the world of demons and dragons, angels and devils, vampires and werewolves. They study these things as dark places in the human mind being filled by imagination and fear, dread and dreams, and I suggest all should be studied with the matrix of science super-imposed...do you not agree?

ami

 

[amicus]

Stephen:

"...Human values are also interesting. Why they are what they are...has nothing to do with science."

~~~

Values have everything to do with science, both the why and the what are essential to rational, objective comprehesnion of both the substance and the form of human values.



Ayn Rand's Value Theory
by Edward W. Younkins

According to Ayn Rand, all concepts are derived from facts including the concept “value.” All concepts, including the concept of value, are aspects of reality in relationship to individual men. Rand asks what fact or facts of reality give rise to the concept of value. She reasons that there must be something in perceptual reality that results in the concept value. She argues that it is only from observing other living things (and oneself introspectively) in the pursuit of their own lives that a person can perceive the referents of the term value. For example, people act to attain various material and other goods and determine their choices by reference to various goals, ends, standards, or principles. For Rand, the concept of value depends upon and is derived from the antecedent concept of life. It is life that entails the possibility of something being good or bad for it. The normative aspect of reality arises with the appearance of life.

Ayn Rand defined value as that which one acts to gain and/or keep. A value is an object of action. In this sense we can say that everyone pursues values. This includes any goal-directed behavior. The term, value, thus can refer in a general, neutral, or descriptive sense to what is observable. We see people going after things. Initially, we do not consider whether or not people are properly employing their free will when they pursue their values. As children, we first get the idea of value implicitly from observation and introspection. We then move from an initial descriptive idea of value toward a normative definition of value that includes the notion that a legitimate value serves one’s life. Because reality is the source and standard of rational values, exposure to reality is the means by which we discover them.

The first generic and descriptive idea of value ties value to reality and is a precondition to an objective and normative perspective on value. The second, narrower way of looking at value adds the words “which furthers one’s life” and the idea of the proper and rational use of a person’s free will. The second definition or Objectivist concept of value is a derivative or inference from the first. The first view of value comes before the knowledge of life as the standard of value. The second view of value gives normative guidance and provides an objective standard to evaluate the use of one’s free will.

Each derivative value exists in a value chain or network in which every value (except for the ultimate value) leads to other values and thus serves both as an end and as a means to other values. A biological ends-means process leads to the ultimate end of the chain which, for a living entity, is its life. For a human individual, the end is survival and happiness and the means are values and virtues that serve that end. Values and virtues are common to, and necessary for, the flourishing of every human person. However, each individual will require them to a different degree. Each man employs his individual judgments to determine the amount of time and effort that should go into the pursuit of various values and virtues. Finding the proper combination and proportion is the task for each person in view of his own talents, potentialities, and circumstances. Values and virtues are necessary for a flourishing life and are objectively discernable, but the exact weighting of them for a specific person is highly individualized.

In order for a chain of values to make sense, there must be some end in itself and ultimate value for which all other values are means. An end in itself is something that we pursue for its own sake rather than pursuing it for the sake of something else. An ultimate value is sought for its own sake and for the sake of which we pursue everything else. An infinite progression or chain of ends and means toward a non-existent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. All must converge on an ultimate value.

An ultimate value is necessary if a person is to make rational choices. One ultimate value is required for a person to decide how to act. Evaluation necessitates teleological measurement in order to make our potential values commensurable. An ultimate value is needed by which a person can decide to apportion his time and effort and to judge the relevant amounts and proportions of each. Teleological measurement is required in order to establish a graded or ordinal relationship of means to ends. A person must be able to make various values, in the form of means and ends, comparable in order to decide what to do in inevitable cases of conflicts. When different values come into conflict a person refers to a higher value in order to resolve the conflict.

An individual’s task is to choose from among numerous values to find the most appropriate for himself. A person must make specific choices with respect to his career, his relationships, and so on. A hierarchy of values helps people make judgments regarding what to do or to pursue. To do this, an individual must assign a weight, either explicitly or implicitly, to his values. Values need to be weighted or ranked in terms of ordinal numbers. A man requires a prioritized enumeration of values. He must judge the ultimate contribution to the value of his life that exists at the apex of his hierarchy.

A man needs ideas regarding what to pursue in life and ideas with respect to the required means to get what he is seeking. Each person must form values, hierarchize them, and pursue them. A man must expose himself to many aspects of reality in order to discover the things that he loves (i.e., his values). After a man immerses himself in observational reality he must then choose to delimit them to those that most excite and interest him and ignite his soul. He needs to identify the crucial indispensable values to his life and distinguish them from lesser values and non-values. He requires an explicit value hierarchy and should organize his time, effort, and lifestyle around that hierarchy. A person’s top values get a disproportionate amount of his attention, the next highest level of values gets the next call, and so on down his hierarchy. By eliminating non-values, filling one’s life with things that he loves, and doing those things in the order in which he loves them, a man is on track to accomplish what he wants to do with his finite life. Of course, he should select and pursue values that are rational and metaphysically appropriate for him. Whether or not the means chosen to achieve one’s values will be sufficient is determined by objective reality.

To be a value means to be good for someone and for something. Life is one’s fundamental value because life is conditional and requires a particular course of action to maintain it. Something can be good or bad only to a living organism, such as a human being, acting to survive. Man’s life is the ultimate value and the standard of value for a human being.

A man must make value judgments in order to act. He must choose in the face of an alternative that having or not having the value makes some difference to him. The difference it makes is the alternative he faces. A value exists in a chain of values and must have some ending point. There must be some fundamental difference or fundamental alternative that marks the cessation of one’s value chain. There must be some basic alternative that makes no additional difference or, stated differently, a fundamental difference that makes all the difference. It is his life, the process of self-sustaining action, that is the fundamental alternative at the end of a man’s value chain. One’s life is the alternative that underpins all of his evaluative judgments. It is his ultimate value and the proper end of all the valuer does. One’s life is not pursued for the sake of anything beyond itself. It is gained and maintained through a constant process of self-sustaining action.

The fundamental fact of reality that gives rise to the concept of value is that living beings have to attain certain ends in order to sustain their lives. The facts regarding what enhances or hinders life are objective, founded on the facts of reality, and grounded in cognition. The act of valuation is a type of abstraction. It is a product of the process of concept-formation and use. Objective values are identified by a process of rational cognition. This should not be surprising because people do think, argue, and act as if normative issues can be decided by considering the facts of a situation.

~~~

Rather than choose just a juicy, choice and terse explanation of values, which I could have done, I choose a long version to emphasize your error in such an easy and abrupt dismissal of the subject, as you are wont to do and often in 'absolute' terms, as did you this one. "...has nothing to do with science".

In the event you don't get it, that is an absolute statement, those things you deny exist.

Rather than hand down thundering imperatives from your mountain-top, open your mind and join the human race.

Amicus Veritas

 

[Pure]

note to stephen

Facts can be interesting. By themselves, they are not science. Science attempts to explain fact. A collection of facts with no underlying explanation tends to get boring. Lead has this density. Gold has that density. Titanium has another density. Boring.... An explanation of why various metals have their densities is interesting.

Human values are also interesting. Why they are what they are...has nothing to do with science.

hi stephen.
i broke my rule: never summarize a post in a sentence at the end. for some lazy dude is going to ignore the post, copy and paste the sentence, then write after that. "Not true."

You give no reasons for your dogmatic assertions, though you did read one critique of Gould i mentioned. A more thorough one, by a Thomist, is at:

http://thomisttacos.com/2009/04/30/e...ria-principle/

What you say above is simply NOT plausible, on its face; that is, if one takes as a premise, the following (which i think you might): Human morality has an intimate connection with human flourishing; humans living well, as individuals within a social matrix.

That human values--connected with flourishing-- have NOTHING to do with the facts about humans, including the facts established by science about humans, makes no sense whatsoever. Indeed a LONG philosophical tradition going back to Plato and Aristotle, and affirmed recently by, for example, Phillippa Foot takes the opposite position.

If i may use an analogy, you're saying something analogous to
"A good diet for humans has NOTHING to do with what biological science says about them." So if biology says, "eggs are nourishing for humans and grass is not", to you this says nothing as regards a good diet. You're saying, "Oh, but of course we can eat grass; indeed it might be a good idea for one's diet."

As I've already given an example, in the realm of morality, which you ignored, i won't go into detail, again. But I will say that if what's moral, regarding parents' conduct has anything to do with their kids' needs, then your position that the FACTS about kids have NOTHING to do with morality [as regards the parents] is clearly mistaken. for it's a fact that a mother or father who deserts their kids in the face of a lethal threat, is a coward.

 

[Pure]

note to ami

Let me ask you this...why should any area of the human experience be excepted from the application of scientific method? We have but one means of comprehending reality and that is through the use of our senses, our minds, our ability to conceptualize and abstract the information our senses provide.

I have no problem with your last statement. We use our senses and our mental faculties to grasp reality. We use both to determine what is *objectively* the case.

I did not exactly say that some area--e.g. morality-- "should be excepted from the application of scientific method." The findings of psychology and the social sciences, the true and best stuff, not the fads and fluff, are certainly relevant to morality. If i may pursue a point from my preceding post: Kids need security, and it's up to the parents to provide it; that's the parents' (moral) duty.

I said, there are some facts which cannot be conclusively established with ordinary scientific method, which insists on a particular kind of data, replicability, 'blind' experiments and so on. I will put to you that you can't establish with these kinds of data, a point like, "Hitler was failed in his life duties to his mate and to the German people; for example, there was failure to protect." This is NOT to say that Hitler's life is immune from profitable scientific investigation. His medical history, for example is certainly worthy of such.

If you want to call the reasons for morality, the rational basis, 'science', as i said, the Germans do it, fine. Notice, ami, i'm NOT denying that INQUIRY using one's senses and mind--careful, rational, empathetic, systematic inquiry is relevant to establishing the facts at the core of human morality. I have no problem with saying that the facts at the basis of morality are objective, that is, can be objectively determined. While your above post refers one to Ms. Rand, the stronger point can be made that what i've just said is vintage Aristotle, her acknowledged source. (virtually the only philosopher she ever acknowledges as a source!)

As i've argued above, that you should protect your kids is a duty with an objective basis. But I was saying that this duty of protection could not be established with the sort of data, 'hard' replicable data, that one finds in the more rigorous, empirically based articles in the American Sociological Review.

 

[stephen55]

Things are getting testy which is good. Perhaps we should remember the academic rallying cry of the University of Chicago...

Define your terms!!

I define science as the natural sciences, the study of the real and natural world. Thus, chemistry, biology geology and physics. I exclude pure mathematics as it deals with abstract concepts found nowhere in nature.

I do not define science in the classic Aristotelian term as a body of knowledge that can be explained logically and rationally. While the natural sciences fall under Aristotle's definition, so do many other fields such as philosophy and pure mathematics.

In my view the social sciences such as sociology, psychology, economics and political science also are separate from the natural sciences.

Lest someone believe that I only respect and value natural science, I hasten to add that all of the above fields and others, all have value and are important. There is no hierarchy here, merely separation to avoid confusion.

Human values such as morality, ethics, opportunity, education, justice and equality are of supreme importance. They form a basis for how we live together, care for one another and guide us through life in the sense of a moral compass. Good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable...these are all values we apply to our day to day life decisions.

"Human values are also interesting. Why they are what they are...has nothing to do with science."

When I wrote that, I should have used the term "with the natural sciences".

Pure, of course good nutrition has a basis in biology and physiology. Good nutrition is biology and physiology writ large. But good nutrition is a biological necessity, a human necessity. But feeding oneself is not a human value, at least in the same sense as liberty and justice. Ensuring liberty, justice and food for all certainly are human values.

And as a gentle poke at ami, adequate and accessible health care is also a human value.

http://thomisttacos.com/2009/04/30/...d’s-noma-nonoverlapping-magisteria-principle/

Thomist Tacos for the Soul...

Pure, I did read your post. Being an atheist, I have no belief in a supernatural higher power. So I take an essay about science principles, written in a Catholic forum (I believe) with a few grains of salt.



"Conclusion

Let me briefly end with a question from philosopher William Lane Craig that allows me to entertain the idea that religion and science can have a dialogue.

Why can’t the scientist postulate a Godlike being as a theoretical entity in order to explain certain observable data, just as high-level physicists postulate strings, hyperspaces, parallel universes, and sundry unobservable theoretical entities in order to explain observable data? This need not represent a blending of religion and science, since the postulated deity would serve merely an explanatory function, not a cultic one. In Aristotle’s physics his Unmoved Mover; which he called God, was not an object of religious devotion but served merely as the engine that turned the crank to set in motion the system of spheres."

To answer philosopher William Lane Craig's question, the reason a scientist cannot postulate a Godlike being as a theoretical entity in order to explain certain observable data is because science doesn't deal with, or accept, Godlike entities. Period. Paragraph.

For science to do so most certainly would represent a blending of science and religion. Science does not accept divine intervention, whether explanatory or cultic. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover was his explanation of how the heavens got going (planets and the sun, on celestial spheres, rotating around the earth). Aristotle got it wrong. Science doesn't accept Aristotle's cosmology or his Unmoved Mover.

Religion can (and must) claim that there is a false dichotomy between science and religion. Religion posits a supreme, supernatural being(s) as the explanation of everything. Science looks for other explanations.

 

[stephen55]

Stephen: Values have everything to do with science, both the why and the what are essential to rational, objective comprehesnion of both the substance and the form of human values.

Ayn Rand's Value Theory
by Edward W. Younkins

Rather than choose just a juicy, choice and terse explanation of values, which I could have done, I choose a long version to emphasize your error in such an easy and abrupt dismissal of the subject, as you are wont to do and often in 'absolute' terms, as did you this one. "...has nothing to do with science".

In the event you don't get it, that is an absolute statement, those things you deny exist.

Rather than hand down thundering imperatives from your mountain-top, open your mind and join the human race.

Amicus Veritas

Absolute statements exist. However, absolute statements don't necessarily contain absolute truths. Think about it.

What I have said and still say, is that the natural sciences do not deal in absolutes. I have posted many examples of how the natural sciences are a progression from one explanatory theory to another explanatory theory. What is accepted today as a good explanation of something, say gravity, is different from what was accepted a while ago and will definitely be different in the future. So where is the absolute truth about gravity?

Aristoltle---> Newton---> Einstein---> quantum gravity---> who knows?

Aristotle got it wrong.
Newton did better but knew he wasn't completely right.
Einstein did even better but knew general relativity wasn't the last word.
Quantum gravity hasn't even been figured out yet.
And so on...


I'm not going to comment on Edward W. Younkins take on Ayn Rand. Anyone who can start a comment with...

"According to Ayn Rand, all concepts are derived from facts including the concept “value.” "

...is best ignored. If all concepts are derived from fact...explain Scientology.

My mind is open to all manner of ideas. Scientology and Ayn Rand's puffed wallpaper paste are not included.

 

[stephen55]

Stephen, I understand the meaning of falsifiable very well. But it’s not a demarcation line you can use to toss out charlatanism (either of supernatural or non-supernatural kind) and not toss out all sorts of meaningful activities as well. You can use it pretty successfully to toss them out of science, but not out of the realm of legitimate activity.

I hate to say it, but you keep providing a “show don’t tell” for my contention that people are brainwashed about science. And that is not an attack on science, but on propaganda that surrounds it. The propaganda that would have you believe your decisions are more rational than they can be, especially so long as you listen to correct authorities. I’m sure you do understand where science has a bearing and where not, yet you forget it every time you buy Sokal’s or Dawkins’ or whoever’s opinion on matters beyond science or beyond their area of expertise.

That hatchet job on Lacan could have been performed on anyone else. Take Heidegger as an easy example. Pick a passage from Being and Time (truth be told, most any passage would do), add the bit about friendliness to Nazism, et voila—another dangerous crook exposed! Of course, even a quickest search would return “arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century” (whereas in Lacan’s case you’d get a mixed bag) but still, if you’d first learned about him from that propagandist book, you’d have the impression you’d ascertained he’s full of shit with your own eyes.

Sokal is not an unbiased commentator or an expert reviewer; he’s directly involved precisely in the battle for public opinion and he’s got a huge axe to grind. You can still agree with him, but it at least behooves us to acknowledge that.

I don’t think mental illness is a myth. The issue as always is in what needs fixing. Historically that included lefthanders, gays, and mouthy women; today we’re more careful in devising criteria, yet judging by consumption of prescription drugs, it now includes more people than ever. We can speculate on why that is so and whether it’s a reason for alarm or not, but that speculation too is beyond science.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts; I think for now I’ve had enough.

I'm a retired backwoods country doc. I'm not a psychoanalyst, like Lacan. Having spent more hours listening to patient's neurotic complaints than I care to remember, all I'm saying is that said neurotic complaints have as much to do with a cut through a torus as screen doors have to do with submarine design.

Are people brainwashed about science? Perhaps...but then if Ami's views about what science is and isn't are representative of the general public's views...it's not brainwashing, it's simply wrong. I'm beginning to think that the general public's view on science and what it deals with is somewhat different than the views of your everyday working scientist.

Sokal is a theoretical physicist. All he did was point out the misuse of science and mathematics by some in the social sciences. He never claimed expertise in the social sciences. What he did do was question why the Jacques Lacans of the social science world are misusing terms and concepts that have zero place in the social sciences.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He is also an avoided atheist. Outside of evolutionary biology, what he's doing is telling the religious types to get out of his life, particularly his sex life. Dawkins doesn't claim expertise in religion. What he does do is tell the religious types to get out of science.

The hatchet job on Lacan...he had it coming and then some. As I've written before, there are all manner of social science types who misuse mathematics and the natural sciences to bolster their pet theories that have nothing to do with mathematics and the natural sciences. If their pet theories can't be defended within their rightful field, they try pseudo-scientific and pseudo-mathematical nonsense. I don't care how many progressive thinkers idolize Lacan; his attempt to explain neurosis as represented by a cut torus is bullshit.

Psychoanalysis is psychoanalysis. Mathematical topology is mathematical topology. Jacques Lacan can try to mix the two all he wants. I've yet to hear of a mathematician explain topology in terms of psychoanalysis. My guess as to the reason is that mathematicians know better.

 

[Verdad]

We don’t disagree that much, Stephen (although I won't go around in circles as to where we do.) In a different context, it could be me (and it has been me) to make fun of pomo intellectuals. It’s your reasoning I was debating rather than your mistrust of convoluted writings.

You kept insisting on a few far out analogies Lacan had made even though I told you (and you could easily check) they’re not an encapsulation of his thought. God knows you’d find enough to annoy you in his system; it hurt yours criticism to go after some lateral remark and insist that no way, no how, is one ever to compare mathematical or natural science concepts to psychological phenomena by way of illustration. That smacks of refusal to understand figurative language—which is an issue pertinent to discussion of religion, too.

I actually liked how you compared Lacan’s metaphors to paintings of his contemporaries. To my mind, that kind of insight is far more interesting than a simple thumbs up/thumbs down judgment.

I feel you’ve been way too kind to Pure, though. The quote from that Craig dude is not my idea of rapprochement of science and religion.

 

[Pure]

note to Stephen

Stephen earlier: "Human values are also interesting. Why they are what they are...has nothing to do with science."

Stephen later, explaining: When I wrote that, I should have used the term "with the natural sciences".

Pure, of course good nutrition has a basis in biology and physiology. Good nutrition is biology and physiology writ large. But good nutrition is a biological necessity, a human necessity. But feeding oneself is not a human value, at least in the same sense as liberty and justice. Ensuring liberty, justice and food for all certainly are human values.
==
I do not define science in the classic Aristotelian term as a body of knowledge that can be explained logically and rationally. While the natural sciences fall under Aristotle's definition, so do many other fields such as philosophy and pure mathematics.

In my view the social sciences such as sociology, psychology, economics and political science also are separate from the natural sciences.
----

Most of this won't wash, stephen, neither your amended statement 1)that human values have nothing to do with natural sciences, 2)that there is some relevant strong distinction between natural and social sciences.

Taking the latter point first. You agree biology is a natural science; well how about ethology, as practiced by Konrad Lorenz, and which won him a prize in "behavioral physiology"? He was by the way, an MD and PhD and quite familiar with 'natural sciences,' was recognized as a zoologist as well as psychologist.

His statement at the end of the quote [below] is very relevant: He recognized that the "descriptive sciences" are at no disadvantage, as regards genuine knowledge, despite the elevation of natural science, with a kind of quasi religious fervor. This is evident in your thinking, Stephen.

And let's look at an example. You say, "Feeding oneself is not a human value," and then immediately qualify "at least not in the same sense as liberty...." Well, then is it, or isn't it? I'd say it's a human value.

Roosevelt's famous speech, motivating the US in its fight against the Nazis, referred to Four Freedoms:


In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms:

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want -- [...]to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear ....

To be free of want, if you're an adult, is to be able to feed yourself adequately. These 'freedoms' are intertwined human values, and if there's any social democrat in you, you'd recognize it.

Here we come to your alleged distinction and its relevance: the infant needs food, AND it needs warmth and caring from its mom. (Harlow's monkey experiments of the 50s.) There is no reason to put 'food' in a special category, apart from 'security/nurturance,' except that the latter, as Lorenz states, is to be investigated *descriptively*, based on human perceptions and insights (e.g. about an infant's psyche).

Because there's no relevant difference, the ethical imperative, esp on mom, "You are to nurture and provide warmth and security for your child" is almost as crucial as "You are to feed your child."

Admittedly a failure in the latter causes death, quickly, [something observable in your 'natural sciences']but a failure in the former at least moves an infant in that direction (and sometimes even kills), and prevents his normal development. (Note the weird but typical behaviors of a monkey raised with a 'wire mother'.) Its emotional and social being is drastically stunted; to the detriment of the species. That's a biological, natural scientific fact.

Human morality, thus, has a basis in "behavioral physiology" if you prefer, but generally we might say, 'scientific psychology': Harlow was a psychologist.

Lastly, on conceptual grounds, there is no reason to separate or fault the knowledge of the 'behavioral sciences' because of their 'descriptive' and often non quantitative data. There is no reason to say, if human perception and thinking are involved, the data are less objective.

I agree that psychology and sociology have often gotten fanciful, weird and trashy. The field of 'science' is the phenomena of nature; animals and humans, as part of nature, have a social being. it's ALL, so to say, NATURE-al science.

---
Notes on Lorenz. Wiki.

At the request of his father, Adolf Lorenz, he [Konrad] began a premedical curriculum in 1922 at Columbia University, but he returned to Vienna in 1923 to continue his studies at the University of Vienna. He graduated as Doctor of Medicine (MD) in 1928 and became an assistant professor at the Institute of Anatomy until 1935. He finished his zoological studies in 1933 and received his second doctorate (PhD).

In 1940 he became a professor of psychology at the University of Königsberg. [...]

In 1958, Lorenz transferred to the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology in Seewiesen. He shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for discoveries in individual and social behavior patterns" with two other important early ethologists, Nikolaas Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch.

Lorenz claimed that there was widespread contempt for the descriptive sciences. He attributed this to the denial of perception as the source of all scientific knowledge: "a denial that has been evaluated to the status of religion."[2] He wrote that in comparative behavioral research, "it is necessary to describe various patterns of movement, record them, and above all, render them unmistakably recognizable."

===

 

[Stella_Omega]

oh, for crissake.

 

[hottchic]

And I thought I made long posts occaisonally LOL

 

[stephen55]

And I thought I made long posts occaisonally LOL

I often make up long posts because I don't have the time or the patience to make up a short post.

If I was a true wordsmith I could distill a large amount of meaning into a few short sentences. I'm not, so I can't.

Roosevelt's famous speech, motivating the US in its fight against the Nazis, referred to Four Freedoms:

Pure, human values have been around as long as humans; call it fifty thousand years for modern humans. That's fifty thousand years longer than modern science.

Human values do not rely on modern science for their justification; nor should they. They stand or fall on their own merits.

My guess is that religion has also been around, in one form or another, for those same fifty thousand years. Religious values should also stand or fall on their own merits. As for Gods; of the umpteen thousand ( especially if you are Hindu) that have been called upon over those fifty thousand years, I count Christians as being about as atheist as they come. They reject all umpteen thousand Gods except one (one in three parts...or so I'm told). I simply take my atheism one God further.

My Christian (theist) friends tend to get a tad testy when I tell them that...

 

[Stella_Omega]

...
My Christian (theist) friends tend to get a tad testy when I tell them that...

Yes, it's a little bit like telling a lesbian that you're a lesbian in a man's body. You're not, and you never will be, and its insulting to be that assumptive.

Christians are not atheists, and it's reductive to say that.

Of course there are times when I don't really care and I want to hand Xtians some of their own reductive bullshit-- so I might say something like that-- but I don't pretend I don't know what pissed them off.

 

[stephen55]

My Christian friends put up with me because while being reductive, I always smile.

One of my very best, and now late friends, was as fundamentalist as they come. When he came to visit from out of town, he always wanted to attend church service on Sunday. So I introduced him to a good local friend, who was a Baptist. I (mistakenly) thought the Baptist Church would be fundamentalist enough to satisfy my out of town friend.

Well...according to my local friend, during the service, my out of town friend was getting more and more fidgety and right after it ended, he went straight up to the Baptist Pastor and in front of the congregation, started reaming him out for his "false doctrine"!

Over the following years I always managed to keep my two friends separated during visits from my out of town friend.

Stella, I guess my point is that there is reductive and then there is "reductive"...

Something tells me that as my out of town friend was making a reductive ass of himself, he wasn't smiling!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, I guess my point is that there is reductive and then there is "reductive"...

That's the truth, and I apologise.

 

[stephen55]

That's the truth, and I apologise.

I accept but truth be told, it wasn't necessary. In which case, I'd rather have a doughnut.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I accept but truth be told, it wasn't necessary. In which case, I'd rather have a doughnut.

It would be awfully stale by the time it got to you via US and Canadian post...

 

[Xelebes]

It would be awfully stale by the time it got to you via US and Canadian post...

Does a Krispy Kreme doughnut ever get stale?

*shudders*