romansh

They think when they click on a science article it is a proven fact. They overgeneralize, mistake correllation for causation and have no way of judging qualifications and competencies.

 

It's not that different than the way people who are nominally religious get their entire spiritual content from the sporadic sermon applied to a juvenile chatechism.

We can catch scientists saying some piece of corroborating evidence is proof. For me: sad but understandable.

But we have the other side of the general public who assert some really strange things without any corroborating evidence. Then use science's missteps or the fact that it does not prove anything, to promote any old junk and then be up in arms or plead special causes when people examine the actual evidence for the claim.

If we have a claim regardless how it has come to pass: whether scientific, intuitive, Biblical analysis, throwing chicken bones, there is no better method to examine the validity of the claim than observation and analysis of the data obtained.

Nevertheless,

You are right in that I did dip into hyperbole, but when two out of the three top medical journal editors publiclty state that less than half their published studies are valid I think it's fair to say science has a problem. These editors described a pervasive, corrupt system of industry control.

 

The lead CDC researcher evaluating vaccine safety research recently confessed that his committee deliberately destroyed any data which showed vaccines caused damage. Openly admitted fraud at the top levels of scientific review.

 

I did speak too broadly, but this is a casual conversation where comments are brief. I think we will end up largely in agreement.

I agree the pharmaceutical industry has problems. Ben Goldacre's book Bad Pharma catalogues in detail the missteps. But as a whole I trust the medical industry (and note I say industry) with my health way more than I would say prayer or any god.

Regarding scientism this word is often used as a pejorative as you well know ... particularly among people of "religion" or perhaps with an anti-science bias. Now I can't tell whether you meant it this way, but I suspect you probably were well aware of its impact on the casual reader on this forum.

But before I summarize what scientism means to me, I'll give my interpretation of Joseph Campbell's purposes of myth/religion; this is in my words and goes by my acronym assp

awe - religion/myth gives humankind a sense of awe of the world/universe we live in.

science - religion/myth was the main method of divining the way the universe ticks, of course this was formalized with natural philosophy and of course science as we know it today.

society - religion/myth provided and still does to some extent guidelines as to how people within communities might go about their business.

psyche - religion/myth provides an understanding of how we as individuals flow from dust to dust and ashes to ashes. Gives us and understanding of how to transition through the various stages of life.

Note - that these days science is in a position to provide at least some input to all of these aspects.

Scientism (for me)

1. Generally does not assume things without evidence ... and if it does it is explicit in its assumptions.
2. Does use reductionism (but then we all do to some degree), It does not think everything can be explained from quantum phenomena. Scientism uses the appropriate level of reductionism for its explanations.
3. Science is a process (and so is scientism). It does understand that The Truth is evasive, and it is epitomized by George EP Box's quote, All models are wrong, but some are useful.
4. These models are tested to destruction, they are tested against the real world not some imagined one.

Just some thoughts

In the last day a post about science hit a nerve ... because it reflects a lot of nonsense that passes as erudite wisdom in some circles.

"science in the modern world has become thoroughly corrupted"

This is "thorough" nonsense. Now I am not saying there are certain aspects that cannot be criticized:

1. Way science is funded is suspect ... in that there has to be a purpose (or at least a perceived purpose) rather than just curiosity and that there has to be hope of being published. Which in of itself is not a bad thing but certainly skews direction.
2. Science medicine is particularly susceptible to a publication bias. But there is a tremendous pressure from the public at large for the applied biochemistry, biomechanics, medical instrumentation etc. It is the public themselves that are doing the corrupting however innocently.

True science (per Karl Popper, a statistical exploration not of truth but of what is the least false) is unfortunately just a remnant of the Rationalist's ideal. It has been replaced largely by Scientism, an absurd modern theology where scientists are immune from human weakness.

As much as I agree with Popper there are other aspects. Here the author the statement tries to promote a continued misconception of what science is. Now scientists may fall for believing they striving for truth or even have found The Truth^®, in practice they are striving to get closer to the truth by whittling away the false. So the author here confounds science with scientist.

The author does not appear to understand science is a process that is measured in millennia and not in a few catchy phrases. I have absolutely no problem with scientism. Also scientists as a whole (not necessarily as individuals) are receptive of criticism of the current issues facing science. I would strongly recommend Sean Carroll's The Big Picture

Science grew out of theology

Perhaps outgrew theology is more of an apt statement.

"That could very well be me." Wow, all at one time??

I can't see why not. Can you?

There are agnostics, atheists, monists, materialists, and all sorts of others here.

That could very well be me.

It would appear Hillary could turned into a divine vessel as easily as Trump.

So there we have it, it does not matter who we vote for ... god will (or not) fill that person with divinity.

But yet we seem to have to place our bets on someone now.

The flotsam of the media circus that passes politics in the US has not washed up anything about Stein and the Green Party on popular Canadian news.

If God chooses Trump as a divine vessel it will be undeniably obvious.

To whom?

Malcolm X, is not undeniably obvious to me.

But politics and religion are particularly nasty ones! They are very hard to overcome.. I'm also coming to the end of my work addiction, and wondering what I will replace it with.

 

Steve

Yeah ... I can't say I am overly infected by those addictions. It's a game and we think we freely choose to participate.

For me the topic of "free will" is a far greater addiction ... but that is OK too. Just is.

I too am wondering what to replace work with, in my retirement. Addiction to enjoying myself perhaps? :-)

Burl I like your thought, we are in the midst of the infinite so we are already there, we just aren't aware God is all around and inside us.

So is this a panentheistic or a pantheistic interpretation/like?

The only thing worse than religion is politics, and together they are a disaster! I just vote my preference, something I have been conditioned to do, just like the Trump supporters do. Our religious and political beliefs are our addictions. When someone tries to challenge them, or take them from us, we act exactly like addicts, and become irritable and discontent.

Steve ... I tend to agree with you, but it is not just politics and religion that are addictions. Going to work is one (but I am planning on giving that one up), love, thought, ideas, gardening, pride, breathing, life itself can be seen as an addiction. Some can be seen as more fun than others. And even that is in the eye of the beholder.

But we can tell a good tree by its fruit. If Trump becomes a divine vessel the character change will be undeniable proof.

So when you decree Trump (or anyone else) as divine that is undeniable proof?

"A divine vessel is a divine vessel unless it is not a divine vessel". The statement is self-referential.

 

I'm sure you had a valid point in mind but that statement does not communicate it. If you don't pull Schrodinger's cat out of that box how can anyone know it actually exists?

So how will we ever know whether Trump will ever be a divine vessel?

I suppose you will be able to tell me?

In himself, there is no real substance, or transcendent qualities.

You make him sound of the immaterial ...

And there aspects of Trump that are transcendent ... in the sense of beyond all categories of thought.

Your statement was not missed. It is illogical as it begs the question.

And what answer does it assume?

My list of unlikely vessels would include Malcom X, JFK, and Gen. Wm. Smedley Butler. I do not consider anyone on your list to be divinely inspired.

Do you mean inspired by the divine? Or they are some god's instrument?

If it is the latter ... then I would argue your any lists we make are equally arbitrary.

But then you missed the point I was trying to make .... which is summarized at the bottom of my previous post.

God

tends to pick unlikely vessels.

Some divine vessels of the twentieth century:

Enver Pasha

Kim Il Sung

Ho Chi Minh

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

Yahya Khan

Hideki Tojo

Vladimir Lenin

Hirohito

Chiang Kai-shek

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

Mao Zedong

But then it could be argued we are all divine vessels except when we are not.

I found this in my local paper today ...

What other differences are there?

I will misquote because I don't care to try looking it up, but the idea was that life can be viewed as deterministic in retrospect, but must be LIVED as though we have free will.

Martin

Thanks I thought your comments were insightful.

First on your Maugham quote, regardless of what he did write I would add something like this:

...life can be viewed as deterministic in retrospect, but must be LIVED as though we have free will; but ,it can be understood it will be deterministic.

And regarding fatalism ... while a belief in free will might drop one into the despair of fatalism, it should at 'worst' give a sense of nihilism, but with careful thought it allow you to take on a monistic view and help dispel the illusion of dualism.

And regarding the tapestry metaphor ... I think a cosmic cloth might be more accurate where all the weft and warp threads are connected.

rom

Sorry Rom,

 

I already put it to an hour from 30 minutes for members but just noticed you were a senior member . Just went in and changed seniors members to an hour also.

Thank you Joseph ... you know us seniors take longer to get our thoughts together.

I would be appreciate if we could extend the editing time back to at least an hour.

Other fora can have editing times that last days without issue.

Video seems to suggest we live our lives as if there is free will but with most probable thought process that it is an illusion.

I can to some degree sympathize with this point of view. I don't worry about whether I have free will or not when I get out of bed in the morning but it is a classic moment [William James] to throw doubt on free will in our lives. It is moments like these (in fact writing is another) that allow us moments introspection that can help guide our free will beliefs.

Sam Harris who apparently commented on this video suggested that we don't use our capabilities of introspection deeply enough to disabuse ourselves of the belief in free will. For me it is mostly a rational position.

Having lost my belief in free will, I have certain trigger words like good/bad, evil/angelic, virtue, intrinsic, independent, free etc. When I find myself or others using these words I try and understand what is causing myself or others to have these thoughts.

Sometimes these words are descriptive to the duality embedded in our [societal] mores.

John Searle of the Chinese Room thought experiment on the subject of free will:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8

Came across this recently an ancient letter to the Times (of London) regarding intercessory prayer.

Quite amusing I thought.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/07/prayers-for-rain.html

Welcome from the Kootenays

... needs a subject and verb and sometimes an object which supports duality.

I agree here whole heartedly.

But another way to look at it is: nouns are actually verbs.

Take a tree for example ... when we say a tree we are describing a myriad of processes from the quantum level to the meso, to eventually to the universal.

It is only because we draw an arbitrary stagnant line around what we call a tree do we enter into dualism. The universe has, is and will shape the tree. And it, in its way, is shaping the universe,