And how would it be possible by only looking at physics, the movement of particles to derive how elephants behave in groups?Sure we can't use the laws of physics to derive how elephants behave in groups or what it's like to watch a sunset, but materialists would claim that in principle, it is possible. — leo
Actually what many scientist don't believe is the existence of God and spirits. That's for sure. But that is simply is not what you make then to be: that they have to believe in the most simplistic reductionism and materialism that basically was the scientific paradigm in the era of Newton.The problem is that many believe that science shows materialism to be true, including many scientists, while this is not the case, and that's what the article in the OP is about. — leo
materialism . . . neglects lived experience, which in the words of David Bohm leads "people who want to hold onto spirituality to be incoherent in various aspects of their lives" and to a loss of meaning.
Materialism tells us we are nothing more than a bunch of particles moving according to unchanging laws, which implies that choice and will are an illusion and which leaves no place to spirituality. The problem is that many believe that science shows materialism to be true, including many scientists, while this is not the case, and that's what the article in the OP is about. — leo
I agree with Bohm on that, and note that widespread could mean as little as 10%. The gulf between a belief being widespread and being universal and a necessary part of engaging in science as claimed by the article in the OP is unfathomably wide.It is clear that he considered reductive materialism a widespread view among scientists, and that he too saw it as a problem. — leo
There is nothing wrong with complaining about reductive materialism, or about any other metaphysical belief. There is everything wrong with claiming that it is an integral part of science. That sort of nonsense leads to the cancerous anti-science mantra that has taken over politics in the USA and is gradually destroying it. — andrewk
"But these tests never give us nature as it is in itself, outside our ways of seeing and acting on things." - Aeon — Wayfarer
The article is lazy, arrogant click-bait. — andrewk
The subject is not about the usefulness of physics, it is about the belief of materialism that permeates the natural sciences, schools, and society, and how it neglects lived experience, which in the words of David Bohm leads "people who want to hold onto spirituality to be incoherent in various aspects of their lives" and to a loss of meaning. — leo
It seems to me that if the authors took this seriously they would not argue about whether there is more than physical reality because, by their own admission, we do not understand what physical reality means — Fooloso4
'On the contrary'?On the contrary, Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, Evan Thompson, and Michel Bitbol, are dedicated academics, writers, philosophers and scientists, They have many peer-reviewed articles and books to their names, and they are neither hacks nor charlatans. — Wayfarer
How I feel about this at the moment is that ideas that separate 'consciousness' or 'lived experience' from our other endeavours like this are not going to address such a question in the right way. — mcdoodle
Did you not read my response? What you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. You seem to just dodge or ignore the points made against you and then rebut some argument that nobody made.They are credible authors. They’re not hacks or charlatans turning out click bait. — Wayfarer
It is a blind spot of science in the same way that the inability to provide a good observation of Jupiter is a blind spot of a microscope. — andrewk
It seeks to imply that a metaphysical worldview of scientism - aka reductive materialism - is built into science, an integral part of it. — andrewk
Observation = measurement = interaction, where our interaction - that of a bunch of moderately clever apes on a small watery rock in the middle of nowhere - is the same as all interaction, everywhere. — StreetlightX
And these people have a powerful influence on the way society moves and changes and interpersonally are often quite harsh and dismissive. I honestly can't believe that this is being denied by people in this thread. The fact that they are like this does not mean science is bad or should be overthrown. It means what it means. There is a closemindedness and oversimplification by this culture or significant subculture - and one that is really quite philosophically illiterate despite their intelligence - and this is problematic. — Coben
Dennett! The singular representative of all known positions on ToM! — I like sushi
Sure, but then isn't this like when the hall monitor teacher in school catches a kid running and the kids says 'but I saw other kids running'? IOW why are we treating the issue as a team issue, rather than a criticism issue. If I say Trump is bad for X, the response that Obama was bad about Y, is a confused response. First there are people are critical of both. Trump's policy/statement/action is not defended by poor actions of others. I don't have to choose between people who are illiterate about science and those who are illiterate about philosophy.Exactly. And this is also the case with the scientifically illiterate who are otherwise well-versed in philosophy, they can't philosophize well about science. — leo
And how would it be possible by only looking at physics, the movement of particles to derive how elephants behave in groups? — ssu
You are simply dismissing issues like entropy, randomness and quantum mechanics or that not everything in the phenotype is explained with the genotype. And with social sciences it's totally obvious that things simply don't get explained by movements of particles. Nobody would believe such reductionist crap. — ssu
And then how powerful is this group of scientifically illiterate philosophy interested people? I do get that religious people who are skeptical about science as a whole, at least in arguments, has a decent amount of power, but these are not people who are interested xin philosophy - for the most part.
But that's a secondary issue. A very important one. My main reaction is 'so what?' if there is a problem as brought up in the OP, then the fact that there are scientifically illierate people who focus on philosophy is not relevant. If there is no problem as presented in the OP, then it is still not relevent. So the issue is: is that problem there? — Coben
can we stop saying "lived experience"? What other sort of experience is there? — Terrapin Station
There is experience in the sense having knowledge or skill about some subject. — leo
The gulf between a belief being widespread and being universal and a necessary part of engaging in science as claimed by the article in the OP is unfathomably wide. — andrewk
Many of us like to think that science can give us a complete, objective description of cosmic history, distinct from us and our perception of it. But this image of science is deeply flawed. In our urge for knowledge and control, we’ve created a vision of science as a series of discoveries about how reality is in itself, a God’s-eye view of nature.
the belief that physical reality has absolute primacy in human knowledge, a view that can be called scientific materialism. In philosophical terms, it combines scientific objectivism (science tells us about the real, mind-independent world) and physicalism (science tells us that physical reality is all there is)
Objectivism and physicalism are philosophical ideas, not scientific ones
Science has no metaphysical dogmas. Plenty of scientists do — andrewk
Strawman, strawman, strawman. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.