QM and understanding od wave/particle duality have nothing to do wioht tthis discussion.
But it's exactly becasue I share your view that my thoughts are really just teh bubbling of a biochemical stew, that I don't trust my perception. Without being psychotic, I have experienced incorrect perceptiona number of times, ususalyy when sleep deprived. It is also why I don't accept that just becasuse someone is convinced of something, that is has to be true.[/quote]
I'm not sure I know the question. The cliche is open to interpretation and may not apply to every situation.
Your original question at the start of the thread was, why do people despise scientism, or at least, that is my loose interpretation.
I put up a post talking about how people don't always like the answers that scince gives them, and becasue they often can't direct anger at what scince is explaining, they direct anger at science, or scientist.
Alerternatively, people can also see it as undermining their religious beliefs. Because religions are inherently competitive institutions, ie my God is right, yours is wrong, they see science as an enemy that needs to be torn down.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
this thread was pretty good until page 9... then it started getting waaaay beyond me and out of control...
while I can't completely understand everything everyone is saying, I can understand most of what people are trying to say and I feel I can just throw my opinion out there.
I'm mostly with Ahnimus. I'm a science person. I believe "God" and religion etc. were created by humans for our own benefit... by this I mean, way back when we couldn't explain things it scared us... lightening, thunder etc. etc. I mean, our brains were advancing almost too much for our own good. So to try to "calm" ourselves or try to understand things we created God etc. to explain it. Old guy from hundreds of years ago says: "whoa man, you see that? the sky just threw a big loud bright line at a tree and it caught fire.. i'm FREAKED OUT... am i gonna die...I'M FREAKING...." meanwhile.. dude #2 says: "calm down man, that was a supreme being who is mad and threw that down here to warn us..." or something like that...
Eventually science caught up and could explain the event and we aren't "scared" of it anymore. I think thats how it is mostly now... while events happen that we can't explain it doesn't mean it was a spirit or god or whomever... just like it has hundreds of times throughout history, science will catch up and eventually have an explanation.
While I don't agree with religion I can see why many people have "faith" in it...
it makes them feel good, it makes a bad situation seem like it will all be all right. it is even a principle to try to get people to be nice to one another and help one another... (which is one thing about MOST religions that I applaud) back on track though.. like when a loved one is injured, people pray... just for comfort so they won't be as scared. I do not have a problem with people who have religion like that... but when religious people try to explain everything with "God did it" or "I experienced it and only people who are on my level can see what I mean" is when I think its a load of bologna.
I started rambling and would have liked to edit this to make it more clear but I have places to be. I'd like to check back later and see how all this is going. I apologize for posting and running, I'll reply later if I'm able.
scw I agree with you! But I would like to add that I now feel that people are in danger of doing exactly the same thing with science that they did with religion. so I really can't see how we are any better off following that blindly either.
scw I agree with you! But I would like to add that I now feel that people are in danger of doing exactly the same thing with science that they did with religion. so I really can't see how we are any better off following that blindly either.
Can I interpret this as a way of saying that reductionist theories are not always useful or appropriate ?? For example, if you had a big enough computer, you could describe a man going into a shop to buy a banana as a set of quantum mechanics equations. However, that would not tell you anything about the man going a shop to buy a banana. When I treat people for depression, they are often focussed on teh concept of biochemical changes in their brain, but that tells me nothing about why they are depressed, or how to fix them ( or help tehm fix themselves)
So, while science tells us a lot about our physical world, it is not the only guide we should have in this life.
I was wondering this very same thing. It looks like metsy has an interest in scientism...or science....or something. Either way, he appeared on cue, as though somehow connected to Ahnimus............
:rolleyes:
perhaps mets was reading the thread just like the rest of us. sheesh people.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I just glad the vagina thread is sinking so I don't have to keep reading the word vagina over and over and over again
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Can I interpret this as a way of saying that reductionist theories are not always useful or appropriate ?? For example, if you had a big enough computer, you could describe a man going into a shop to buy a banana as a set of quantum mechanics equations. However, that would not tell you anything about the man going a shop to buy a banana. When I treat people for depression, they are often focussed on teh concept of biochemical changes in their brain, but that tells me nothing about why they are depressed, or how to fix them ( or help tehm fix themselves)
So, while science tells us a lot about our physical world, it is not the only guide we should have in this life.
wonderfully said. can i interpret that as meaning that science can only take us so far? that when it comes to the human mind; there's a point where science ends and something else begins?
True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.
Thanks luce! We're glad to have you here. Your such good value!
As to science being right whether or not people like the outcome, I agree with this. BUT I also know that science is changing all the time, and accepted practice and fact today may not be the same tomorrow. AND as most lay people's experience with science is through medicine, then the delivery of information is often interpreted and passed on by people who are as you previously mentioned, overworked, stressed and not paying attention. THIS is when the lay person needs to know themselves and to weigh up what they are being told before proceeding. ALL humans being fallible.
wonderfully said. can i interpret that as meaning that science can only take us so far? that when it comes to the human mind; there's a point where science ends and something else begins?
i don't think there's anything scientific about the human mind other than the physicality of the brain that holds it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i don't think there's anything scientific about the human mind other than the physicality of the brain that holds it.
It's very predictable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yeah right. It can't even get the weather forecast right. Science is good at what they can do, but their weak point is admitting that they don't know something.
Agree with this. What's wrong with not knowing something exists or doesn't exist because of what science says about it? What's wrong with a little mystery in the world?
IMO our constant search for explaining things through science leads some of us further away from our "natural" reactions and behavior to a place of more analyzation and scrutiny. Not always a bad thing but does it drive us further from our natural place in the world or is it just evolution baby?
"She knows there is no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
Isn't that what separates us from most other creatures is because of our unpredictabilty??
There are many things that set us apart. We have complex behavior, but it's still predictable. There is an entire arm of science that is charged with predicting human behavior. It's called behaviorism.
Behaviorism is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things organisms do, including acting, thinking and feeling can and should be regarded as behaviors, and as such can be studied and explained scientifically without recourse to internal physiological states. Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories should have observational correlates but that there is no philosophical differences between publicly observable processes (such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as thinking and feeling).
The behaviorist school of thought ran concurrent with the psychoanalytic and Gestalt movements in psychology in the 20th century. Its main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated classical conditioning, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology to experimental methods, and B.F. Skinner who conducted research on operant conditioning.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
science can't measure or explain imagination. it's either real or it isn't. if you can't see or measure or hold it; it doesn't exist.
but then; sometimes thinking is the best way to travel.
Imagination is the greatest tool we have to advance I think.
EVEN scientist need a good imagination.
And I don't need science to explain it to me or god for that matter. If I feel that it exists, then it exists. Nothing metaphysical in that. Same as everybody else!
I love travelling in my mind. And it is a good way to travel, and has many benefits. BUT nothing beats actually, physically travelling to a place or a person.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There are many things that set us apart. We have complex behavior, but it's still predictable. There is an entire arm of science that is charged with predicting human behavior. It's called behaviorism.
And while behaviourism had hegemony in the early parts of the 1900s with BF Skinner and the gang, it has long since ceased to be the end-all explanation of human behaviour. Mostly because of the reasons people point out in the thread. Behaviourism works fine within it's own limited scope. But it is far from providing anything close to a full explanation on the subject.
Which is why in Psychology 101 we learn about Skinner, behaviourism and conditioning, but we move on to other theories and fields within psychology which is more "up to date". Behaviourism is to psychology what Newtonian physics are to physics. You get great results and clear rules given certain conditions, but a whole new world opens up the moment it is clear that the conditions may be insufficient to explain the world at large.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
There are many things that set us apart. We have complex behavior, but it's still predictable. There is an entire arm of science that is charged with predicting human behavior. It's called behaviorism.
I got you on behaviorism but to me there is no way you can predict how most people will act outside of a controlled environment. Skinner did the things with shocks, right, and soon the picking of the less painful item became predictable. But that's a controlled experiment. There may be a science devoted to it but how a person will act is influenced by so many other factors that we will not know about, their past experiences, their current mood, their perception of the event at hand.
"She knows there is no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
Weather systems are subjct to chaos theory, which is why prediction is hard. As I mentioned previously, once the rules governing a system become sufficiently complex, teh system becomes"emergent", ie you can't tell precisely what will happen, you have to wait to see what emerges.
I can't agree that the human mind is in any way predictable.
As to science explaining how it works. Well, I am one scintist who freely concedes that we aren't even cole to working that one out. I read of an experiment once that offers an idea in a way.
Some guy ran a cumputer based experiment where he designed a circuit starting wiht 100 switches and an input and out put currenet. A programme mosified the circuit in an attempt to simulate evolution, using increased output current as a measure of success. Eventually, he reaches an optimum output current, with only 24 switches remaining. Four of those weren't connected to anything. If he took them out , the circuit stopped working, if her replaced them, it worked again.
Somehow, those switches were interacting wioth teh circiut without being part of it, part of a network if you like.
Well, maybe our brain works like that a bit. Neurones interact, but not in a defined way like a curent travelling through a circuit as we understand it.
Comments
Ditto girl!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
hahahahahaha!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
QM and understanding od wave/particle duality have nothing to do wioht tthis discussion.
But it's exactly becasue I share your view that my thoughts are really just teh bubbling of a biochemical stew, that I don't trust my perception. Without being psychotic, I have experienced incorrect perceptiona number of times, ususalyy when sleep deprived. It is also why I don't accept that just becasuse someone is convinced of something, that is has to be true.[/quote]
Thank you lucy!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Your original question at the start of the thread was, why do people despise scientism, or at least, that is my loose interpretation.
I put up a post talking about how people don't always like the answers that scince gives them, and becasue they often can't direct anger at what scince is explaining, they direct anger at science, or scientist.
Alerternatively, people can also see it as undermining their religious beliefs. Because religions are inherently competitive institutions, ie my God is right, yours is wrong, they see science as an enemy that needs to be torn down.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Now I know what ahnimus means by "inappropriate".
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Uh.. no.
Nah, lesbians have outercourse, not intercourse !! LOL !!!!!!!
Unless I can't tell gender either, which is entirely possible !!
scw I agree with you! But I would like to add that I now feel that people are in danger of doing exactly the same thing with science that they did with religion. so I really can't see how we are any better off following that blindly either.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Can I interpret this as a way of saying that reductionist theories are not always useful or appropriate ?? For example, if you had a big enough computer, you could describe a man going into a shop to buy a banana as a set of quantum mechanics equations. However, that would not tell you anything about the man going a shop to buy a banana. When I treat people for depression, they are often focussed on teh concept of biochemical changes in their brain, but that tells me nothing about why they are depressed, or how to fix them ( or help tehm fix themselves)
So, while science tells us a lot about our physical world, it is not the only guide we should have in this life.
:rolleyes:
perhaps mets was reading the thread just like the rest of us. sheesh people.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
obviously you can be bothered mets, otherwise what're you doing here replying then?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
wonderfully said. can i interpret that as meaning that science can only take us so far? that when it comes to the human mind; there's a point where science ends and something else begins?
Thanks luce!
As to science being right whether or not people like the outcome, I agree with this. BUT I also know that science is changing all the time, and accepted practice and fact today may not be the same tomorrow. AND as most lay people's experience with science is through medicine, then the delivery of information is often interpreted and passed on by people who are as you previously mentioned, overworked, stressed and not paying attention. THIS is when the lay person needs to know themselves and to weigh up what they are being told before proceeding. ALL humans being fallible.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i don't think there's anything scientific about the human mind other than the physicality of the brain that holds it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's very predictable.
Agree with this. What's wrong with not knowing something exists or doesn't exist because of what science says about it? What's wrong with a little mystery in the world?
IMO our constant search for explaining things through science leads some of us further away from our "natural" reactions and behavior to a place of more analyzation and scrutiny. Not always a bad thing but does it drive us further from our natural place in the world or is it just evolution baby?
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
Isn't that what separates us from most other creatures is because of our unpredictabilty??
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
There are many things that set us apart. We have complex behavior, but it's still predictable. There is an entire arm of science that is charged with predicting human behavior. It's called behaviorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
what's predictable?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i can agree with that.
EVEN scientist need a good imagination.
And I don't need science to explain it to me or god for that matter. If I feel that it exists, then it exists. Nothing metaphysical in that. Same as everybody else!
I love travelling in my mind. And it is a good way to travel, and has many benefits. BUT nothing beats actually, physically travelling to a place or a person.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Thought, behavior, people.
And while behaviourism had hegemony in the early parts of the 1900s with BF Skinner and the gang, it has long since ceased to be the end-all explanation of human behaviour. Mostly because of the reasons people point out in the thread. Behaviourism works fine within it's own limited scope. But it is far from providing anything close to a full explanation on the subject.
Which is why in Psychology 101 we learn about Skinner, behaviourism and conditioning, but we move on to other theories and fields within psychology which is more "up to date". Behaviourism is to psychology what Newtonian physics are to physics. You get great results and clear rules given certain conditions, but a whole new world opens up the moment it is clear that the conditions may be insufficient to explain the world at large.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I got you on behaviorism but to me there is no way you can predict how most people will act outside of a controlled environment. Skinner did the things with shocks, right, and soon the picking of the less painful item became predictable. But that's a controlled experiment. There may be a science devoted to it but how a person will act is influenced by so many other factors that we will not know about, their past experiences, their current mood, their perception of the event at hand.
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
I can't agree that the human mind is in any way predictable.
As to science explaining how it works. Well, I am one scintist who freely concedes that we aren't even cole to working that one out. I read of an experiment once that offers an idea in a way.
Some guy ran a cumputer based experiment where he designed a circuit starting wiht 100 switches and an input and out put currenet. A programme mosified the circuit in an attempt to simulate evolution, using increased output current as a measure of success. Eventually, he reaches an optimum output current, with only 24 switches remaining. Four of those weren't connected to anything. If he took them out , the circuit stopped working, if her replaced them, it worked again.
Somehow, those switches were interacting wioth teh circiut without being part of it, part of a network if you like.
Well, maybe our brain works like that a bit. Neurones interact, but not in a defined way like a curent travelling through a circuit as we understand it.