Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[Jester]

No, it is not the basis for science. From what I read on it, the principle is 'controversial

If you wish to argue against it, you are free to do so. I will be careful to address each of your points there.

However, it is a foundational principle of science. This much is obvious. And, in general, the case in favor of sufficient reason is far stronger.

Now, in QM, we can't show that is true. We can't show it's false. There is a strong possibility it might not be true though.

Here, I'd say that you've misunderstood quantum mechanics.

What is unknown in this field is whether or not causes are deterministic. But an indeterminate cause is a very different thing than a lack of a cause.

Funny thing. Are you calling Hume to be 'anti-intellectual'?? While he didn't reject causticity, he reject alot about the way 'The principle of sufficient reason was forumat4ed.

No, he didn't reject causation. Therefore my statement said nothing about him.

Whether or not I accept Hume's formations (as a side point, I don't), he made no argument against the idea that things have causes. As this is the only thing I've claimed along these lines, it seems a pointless complication to bring Hume into this.

I think it is vastly over thinking and complicating things.. It takes somethiing, and drives it into the ground to make it totally meaningless.

This does not follow.

Essentially, I've said "events have causes". You've responded with "what about quantum indeterminacy and Hume's argument about the epistomological status of causation", then accused me of complicating things.

My statement was simple, and in line with common sense. Forays into advanced science and Humean critiques of inductive reasoning are the complications (and irrelevant to my claim, in any case).

We have physical tests for consciousness.

No, we don't, as explained previously.

Anyone who doesn't trust her direct experience of consciousness isn't going to be convinced by a brain scan or a behavior pattern. Consciousness does nothing to explain either of those things.

If one accepts Ockham's Razor, one needs non-physical evidence to believe in consciousness.

As for free will. .you again misrepresent it. I deny that validity of the concept. You presented one concept, very incompletely, and yet there are at least 5 or 6 different concepts of free wiill that are mutually exclusive with yours. I am 'Ignostic' about free will.. because there are too many mutually exclusive concepts about what it is out there.

There are definitely different understandings.

How this means that we can't look at each of them is beyond me.

Ignosticism has always struck me as an excuse to be lazy about looking at the different versions, and deciding about them.

FREE WILL is just a set of meaningless words that get trotted out to excuse why man makes so much evil in the world.

This is more of missing the simple for the sake of an overly complex (and irrelevant) speculation.

You don't suspect that, maybe, the fact that its just common sense that we choose to do the things we do might be part of the reason why free will was proposed?

I do. We all experience free will directly. And I never reject something so obviously common sense as that without a reason to do so.

But none of this counters my argument that determinism is a denial of one's own rationality. The argument holds whether or not you claim ignorance of the terms.

Oh, I also would like to see the CAUSE of the timing of when a specific radioactive atom decays, and the CAUSE of virtual particles.

The cause of the timing is hotly debated among experts. Some say that the causal principles are indeterminate, some say they aren't.

Either way, the cause of virtual particles is the quantum vacuum.

If this is the best counter example you have, it hardly refutes the idea that events have causes. It is another attempt to refer to dubious speculation about very complex issues, rather than deal with the simple facts. Quantum mechanics doesn't speak to my statement, and should be set aside as yet another red herring.

beleive I figured out why I don't like the 'principle of sufficent reason'. It has terminology that has some vague defintions, and is too broadly defined.

The way it is formulated has too much wiggle room so that woo peddlers can add fluff to make it meaningless.

Alright, what don't you like about the formation "events have causes"?
What would you propose as a better formation–more in line with reality as we experience it?

And, of course, what examples of "fluff to make it meaningless" can you give?

[ndf8th]

I trust you guys have linked to this interview with Alex Rosenberg
and his view and defense of Scientism?

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209

Here is Q and A on Scientism

Q: What is your conception of ‘scientism’ and why have you ‘reclaimed’ the term?

A: My conception of scientism is almost the same as that of those
who use it as a term of abuse. They use the term to name
the exaggerated and unwarranted confidence that science
and its methods can answer all meaningful questions.
I agree with that definition except for the ‘exaggerated’ and ‘unwarranted’ part.

I am skeptical to if if is at all possible to reclaim such a word.
It is too contaminated with dirt from those that hate it?

[Goat]

I trust you guys have linked to this interview with Alex Rosenberg
and his view and defense of Scientism?

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209

Here is Q and A on Scientism

Q: What is your conception of ‘scientism’ and why have you ‘reclaimed’ the term?

A: My conception of scientism is almost the same as that of those
who use it as a term of abuse. They use the term to name
the exaggerated and unwarranted confidence that science
and its methods can answer all meaningful questions.
I agree with that definition except for the ‘exaggerated’ and ‘unwarranted’ part.

I am skeptical to if if is at all possible to reclaim such a word.
It is too contaminated with dirt from those that hate it?

I think it is too contaminated... it triggers off too many illogical emotional reactions. There are things that science does not address what should be the goals of morals and ethics. it can explain WHY, but,,.. choosing the goal is not it's problem. It might explain WHY certain people chose certain goals, but now what those goals 'ought' to be.

[ndf8th]

Seems reasonable to me.
What about this attempt then?

Jonathan Haidt and his friends at University
set up this site about Moral intuitive foundations
http://www.moralfoundations.org/

these only describe how humans cross culture and cross
different times have intuitively chosen to react around moral issues.

So none of it prescribe or tell what is the right way to act.

But if one follow the thinking of Alex Rosenberg then
one could take these descriptions and make up one's own mix
weighting how important each of them are to us personally
or to the group one belongs to. That would allow a kind of
science based "foundation" that one could start from to make a life philosophy.