What's so bad about Scientism?
Locked
 
|
by Moti Mizrahi
https://philpapers.org/archive/MIZWSB.pdf Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results and me, therefore, accusing them of "scientism", I found this article helpful. In this forum, we talk a lot about how science journalism reports results (hyped or not even wrong). But even *if* a "Science News fanboi" does a good job parsing the difference between the journalism and the actual content of a journal article, there are still plenty of caveats to any lab, research project, or entire domain that can color its produce. So, I tend toward cynicism when reading any science whatsoever. That said, I think I *am* guilty of something like this _Weak Scientism_, for better or worse. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
Glen writes: “Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results [..]” I am imagining it went down something like
this. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yes, exactly! Those damn scientismists are *exactly* like Trumpians. 8^) You have to throw your drink in their face to get their attention.
On 07/06/2018 01:30 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > “Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results [..]” > > I am imagining it went down something like this <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395581-viral-video-shows-throwing-drink-at-teen-wearing-make-american>. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen, There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace scientism but broaden the definition of science. This, I think, is CSPeirce's way. We define good thought as any thought that will, in the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed upon. Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt. By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt. Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the very long run to produce good thinking. Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value lies at the bottom of scientismicists’ affection for science ... the assuaging of REAL doubt. Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of life is NOT going to be happy with this solution. Nick PS to Glen: The seas seem to have stopped pitching for a bit. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- by Moti Mizrahi https://philpapers.org/archive/MIZWSB.pdf Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results and me, therefore, accusing them of "scientism", I found this article helpful. In this forum, we talk a lot about how science journalism reports results (hyped or not even wrong). But even *if* a "Science News fanboi" does a good job parsing the difference between the journalism and the actual content of a journal article, there are still plenty of caveats to any lab, research project, or entire domain that can color its produce. So, I tend toward cynicism when reading any science whatsoever. That said, I think I *am* guilty of something like this _Weak Scientism_, for better or worse. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.” That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that.
Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of methods by which we doubt/question various assertions. On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace >scientism but broaden the definition of science. This, I think, is >CSPeirce's way. We define good thought as any thought that will, in >the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed >upon. Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt. >By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt >sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any >course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt. > >Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the >very long run to produce good thinking. > >Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value >lies at the bottom of scientismicists’ affection for science ... the >assuaging of REAL doubt. > >Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of >life is NOT going to be happy with this solution. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
OCD is another condition that might explain a fixation on doubt. Perhaps individuals in very narrow specialties are especially concerned with reputation
and will go to great lengths to minimize regret or embarrassment, but I don’t think even careful people act like theorem provers. The world keeps turning and there is no time for that. On 7/7/18, 4:06 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that. Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of methods
by which we doubt/question various assertions. On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace >scientism but broaden the definition of science. This, I think, is >CSPeirce's way. We define good thought as any thought that will, in >the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed >upon. Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt.
>By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt >sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any >course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt. > >Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the >very long run to produce good thinking. > >Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value >lies at the bottom of scientismicists’ affection for science ... the >assuaging of REAL doubt. > >Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of >life is NOT going to be happy with this solution. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
Glen, We are a having a definitional problem. To a pragmatist (which I seem to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief in its absence). So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to me that you do nothing. So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the door the bathroom that the bathroom is there? You can entertain doubts on such matters, and such entertainment is fun and sometimes instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do not doubt them. So. How are we to adjust terminology. Here’s an example. Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of doubting that the world around is stable. Under those conditions, I cannot walk. REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:[hidden email]] OCD is another condition that might explain a fixation on doubt. Perhaps individuals in very narrow specialties are especially concerned with reputation and will go to great lengths to minimize regret or embarrassment, but I don’t think even careful people act like theorem provers. The world keeps turning and there is no time for that. On 7/7/18, 4:06 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that. Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of methods by which we doubt/question various assertions. On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace >scientism but broaden the definition of science. This, I think, is >CSPeirce's way. We define good thought as any thought that will, in >the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed >upon. Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt. >By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt >sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any >course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt. > >Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the >very long run to produce good thinking. > >Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value >lies at the bottom of scientismicists’ affection for science ... the >assuaging of REAL doubt. > >Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of >life is NOT going to be happy with this solution. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
<So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to me that you do nothing.> It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic.
So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you doubt that the floor is there? I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of the time. If there was a huge thunderstorm and
hours of rain before I went to sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor. If I recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on
the bedpost. (I’ve done this.) <
Here’s an example. Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of doubting that the world around is stable. Under those conditions, I cannot walk. REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business.
> I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time. I may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out. The first time that happened it was a surprise,
but now I start getting my head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do not. At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel
my stomach drop. If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, one can adapt to be more model-based. Not because the models are true, but just because the alternative is worse. If you are
saying that in the situation that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, it is madness.
Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
Marcus, The doubts you cite are REAL because we will see you act upon them. We will see you test the floor for something furry. Lorenzo allows you to deny him your bed during a thunderstorm! You are a stern master. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:[hidden email]] <So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to me that you do nothing.> It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic. So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you doubt that the floor is there? I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of the time. If there was a huge thunderstorm and hours of rain before I went to sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor. If I recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on the bedpost. (I’ve done this.) < Here’s an example. Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of doubting that the world around is stable. Under those conditions, I cannot walk. REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. > I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time. I may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out. The first time that happened it was a surprise, but now I start getting my head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do not. At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel my stomach drop. If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, one can adapt to be more model-based. Not because the models are true, but just because the alternative is worse. If you are saying that in the situation that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, it is madness. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
In the thunderstorm scenario, he’d likely take his 100 lbs to the high ground in his own bedroom. He wouldn’t want to have his sister, who insists on sleeping on me, thunderstorm or not, raining down on
him in some hysterical frenzy. From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> Marcus,
The doubts you cite are REAL because we will see you act upon them. We will see you test the floor for something furry. Lorenzo allows you to deny him your bed during a thunderstorm! You are
a stern master. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:[hidden email]]
<So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to me that you do nothing.> It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic.
So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you doubt that the floor is there? I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of the time. If there was a huge thunderstorm and
hours of rain before I went to sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor. If I recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on
the bedpost. (I’ve done this.) <
Here’s an example. Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of doubting that the world around is stable. Under those conditions, I cannot walk. REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business.
> I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time. I may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out. The first time that happened it was a surprise,
but now I start getting my head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do not. At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel
my stomach drop. If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, one can adapt to be more model-based. Not because the models are true, but just because the alternative is worse. If you are
saying that in the situation that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, it is madness.
Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
Very funny image. ---- Frank Wimberly www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sat, Jul 7, 2018, 7:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
And I thought the life in MY house was complicated. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Very funny image. ---- On Sat, Jul 7, 2018, 7:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I've answered your question so manu times, it doesn't seem worth it to answer again. But such is life, eh? Doubt is uncertainty. Our bodies (including our minds) deal with uncertainty by maintaining feedback with the environment. Such doubting feedback is present even during actions of which you are as confident as you can be (e.g. stirring coffee or breathing). For actions of which you are minimally confident, such feedback will be largely conscious.
Mindfulness is an attempt to keep some of your feedback conscious even if it's a deeply ingrained habit. To be mindful is to doubt everything. When you experience vertigo, it's because your feedback mechanism is biased or different. As Marcus points out, you then intervene consciously to modify or retrain yourself to use the new mechanism. The uncertainty never completely disappears, just increases and decreases as you and your environment change. In cases where you have zero feedback, you won't even be aware of any uncertainty because YOU HAVE NO FEEDBACK. Now, I will concede that cases exist where you may have enough feedback to estimate the uncertainty, but not enough feedback for a confident prediction of the outcome of an action. In such cases, I posit the TWITCH ... a (quite ordinary) sampling process of tiny actions that serve to establish more feedback. An actual example I've cited before is the saccade in vision. Even actual paralytics like suxamethonium chloride don't halt ALL feedback loops. Feedback stops only when you die. And I suspect some feedback persists for a short time after you die. So I have to reject your metaphorical 'paralyzing doubt' on all fronts. And if "I doubt everything" means to you that I do nothing, then you are obviously not reading any of my answers to your questions ... which is OK of course. 8^) On July 7, 2018 5:35:56 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >We are a having a definitional problem. To a pragmatist (which I seem >to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief >in its absence). So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to >me that you do nothing. > >So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, >do you doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the >door the bathroom that the bathroom is there? You can entertain doubts >on such matters, and such entertainment is fun and sometimes >instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do not doubt them. > >So. How are we to adjust terminology. > >Here’s an example. Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have >moments of doubting that the world around is stable. Under those >conditions, I cannot walk. REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty >business. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
About 18 months ago I had an experience which is perhaps not relevant but it came to mind as I read what you wrote, Glen. As a result of a dream I was in a state of anxiety which persisted for days. One of the symptoms was an irrational fear that I would stop breathing if I didn't consciously supervise the process. My PCP prescribed a tiny dose of Citalopram (10 mg/day). That cured the anxiety and it has not returned. ---- Frank Wimberly www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 4:09 AM glen <[hidden email]> wrote: I've answered your question so manu times, it doesn't seem worth it to answer again. But such is life, eh? Doubt is uncertainty. Our bodies (including our minds) deal with uncertainty by maintaining feedback with the environment. Such doubting feedback is present even during actions of which you are as confident as you can be (e.g. stirring coffee or breathing). For actions of which you are minimally confident, such feedback will be largely conscious. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Very interesting! My neighbor had a similar problem after having his hip replaced. Neither he nor his Dr understand the relationship between getting used to his new hip and breathing anxiety. But he has been a Tae Kwon Do master for decades. So it would make some sense to hypothesize an increase in self-doubt was to blame.
All the popular psychedelics also operate on the 5-HT pathways, with large doses throwing them out of whack, seemingly encouraging their users to retrain themselves on how they interact with the world. But the trend these days is microdosing just enough to enhance one's performance at everyday tasks. But I think the more interesting, so-called, nootropics aren't psych drugs at all and focus on metabolic functions. I think the (mild) euphoria experienced through a 3 or more day fast would provide a great platform for testing competing propositions about doubt and certainty of beliefs. On July 8, 2018 6:21:30 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: >About 18 months ago I had an experience which is perhaps not relevant >but >it came to mind as I read what you wrote, Glen. As a result of a dream >I >was in a state of anxiety which persisted for days. One of the >symptoms >was an irrational fear that I would stop breathing if I didn't >consciously >supervise the process. My PCP prescribed a tiny dose of Citalopram (10 >mg/day). That cured the anxiety and it has not returned. glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Hi, Glen, I think you are being a little unfair: I merely laid out the understandings that lead ME to think that one cannot doubt and act at the same time: ie, it is entailed by my definition of belief. >We are a having a definitional problem. To a pragmatist (which I seem >to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief >in its absence). So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to >me that you do nothing. If you have a different understanding of belief, that conclusion would not follow, presumably. How would you decide whether I truly believed something. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- I've answered your question so manu times, it doesn't seem worth it to answer again. But such is life, eh? Doubt is uncertainty. Our bodies (including our minds) deal with uncertainty by maintaining feedback with the environment. Such doubting feedback is present even during actions of which you are as confident as you can be (e.g. stirring coffee or breathing). For actions of which you are minimally confident, such feedback will be largely conscious. Mindfulness is an attempt to keep some of your feedback conscious even if it's a deeply ingrained habit. To be mindful is to doubt everything. When you experience vertigo, it's because your feedback mechanism is biased or different. As Marcus points out, you then intervene consciously to modify or retrain yourself to use the new mechanism. The uncertainty never completely disappears, just increases and decreases as you and your environment change. In cases where you have zero feedback, you won't even be aware of any uncertainty because YOU HAVE NO FEEDBACK. Now, I will concede that cases exist where you may have enough feedback to estimate the uncertainty, but not enough feedback for a confident prediction of the outcome of an action. In such cases, I posit the TWITCH ... a (quite ordinary) sampling process of tiny actions that serve to establish more feedback. An actual example I've cited before is the saccade in vision. Even actual paralytics like suxamethonium chloride don't halt ALL feedback loops. Feedback stops only when you die. And I suspect some feedback persists for a short time after you die. So I have to reject your metaphorical 'paralyzing doubt' on all fronts. And if "I doubt everything" means to you that I do nothing, then you are obviously not reading any of my answers to your questions ... which is OK of course. 8^) On July 7, 2018 5:35:56 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >We are a having a definitional problem. To a pragmatist (which I seem >to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief >in its absence). So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to >me that you do nothing. > >So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, >do you doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the >door the bathroom that the bathroom is there? You can entertain doubts >on such matters, and such entertainment is fun and sometimes >instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do not doubt them. > >So. How are we to adjust terminology. > >Here’s an example. Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have >moments of doubting that the world around is stable. Under those >conditions, I cannot walk. REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty >business. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Heh. No, I've been more than fair, explaining my "different understanding of belief" over and over again. 8^) You simply ignore what I write.
I'll try once more, I suppose. Belief is a thresholded amount of confidence in one's ability to control an interaction with the environment. Doubt is a thresholded amount of *lack* of confidence in one's ability to control an interaction with the environment. Because these are differences in *degree* not *kind*, it is completely reasonable to say you doubt everything and/or you believe everything, merely to greater or smaller extents. Some people have very high/low thresholds (for belief/doubt, respectively). Others, like me, have a very high threshold for belief and also a very *high* threshold for doubt. E.g. let's say both you and I are ~90% confident the floor is there in the morning. You draw your threshold for belief at 80%. The you believe the floor is there. I, however, draw my threshold for belief above 99%. Hence, I do not believe the floor is there. Similarly, let's say you and I both have ~25% confidence in the existence of unicorns, let's say you draw your doubt threshold near 10%. Then you do not doubt the existence of unicorns. If I draw my threshold near 30%, then I do doubt the existence of unicorns. (It should be clear that I draw my doubt threshold much higher than 30%, though. I not only doubt the existence of unicorns, but horses and rhinos, too. To be clear, I think confidence is *more* ontological than the doubt/belief thresholding. In "hands-on" people, confidence will be correlated with the variation in the particular system. And the extent to which the thresholds differ from one person to the next, or from one moment to the next, is questionable. And both probably vary between people, cultures, etc. Many men tend to feel the need to *pretend* to believe things they don't actually believe. I'm sure the same is true for many women. Teenagers seem to believe more things, like their ability to drive and text at the same time, than octogenarians. Etc.) In other words, for me, if there's any conscious effort AT ALL involved in some control process, e.g. sprinting 100 meters or arguing about cosmology, then I *doubt* my handle on that process. And that means I doubt everything I'm *aware* of. Granted, there are some things I could be said to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, during my chemo, I forgot my master password for one of my databases. Prior to that episode, I'd never forgotten such things. In fact, the way I "remembered" it, finally, was that I simply kept trying to type it. I probably tried 100 times or more, hoping the finger movement would remind my mind of what it was. It eventually worked. So, prior to the episode, I *believed* that password and believed in my ability to type it. I now doubt it ... one more thing to doubt along with everything else. My test for whether *you* believe something would depend fundamentally on where you've drawn those thresholds. If you're like my neighbor, who is a Christian, and claim to believe outlandish things, I'd have no choice but to analyze and (Socratically) question you to see if I could locate your thresholds on the real spectrum we all face: uncertainty/variation in our control systems. I know people who seem to take for granted their ability to, say, flip a coin over their fingers or stand up without sharp pains searing through their lower back. My guess would be they believe in their dexterity and properly fused sacral vertebrae. I do not. [sigh] I look forward to a response in which you actually discuss some of the ideas I've written, rather than simply restating your position yet again. On 07/08/2018 09:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I think you are being a little unfair: > > > > I merely laid out the understandings that lead ME to think that one cannot doubt and act at the same time: ie, it is entailed by my definition of belief. > > > >> We are a having a definitional problem. To a pragmatist (which I seem > >> to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief > >> in its absence). So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to > >> me that you do nothing. > > > > If you have a different understanding of belief, that conclusion would not follow, presumably. How would you decide whether I truly believed something. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: What's so bad about Scientism?
|
|
Hi Glen,
I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.? My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique. dave west On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, at 9:32 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote: > Heh. No, I've been more than fair, explaining my "different > understanding of belief" over and over again. 8^) You simply ignore > what I write. > > I'll try once more, I suppose. Belief is a thresholded amount of > confidence in one's ability to control an interaction with the > environment. Doubt is a thresholded amount of *lack* of confidence in > one's ability to control an interaction with the environment. Because > these are differences in *degree* not *kind*, it is completely > reasonable to say you doubt everything and/or you believe everything, > merely to greater or smaller extents. > > Some people have very high/low thresholds (for belief/doubt, > respectively). Others, like me, have a very high threshold for belief > and also a very *high* threshold for doubt. E.g. let's say both you and > I are ~90% confident the floor is there in the morning. You draw your > threshold for belief at 80%. The you believe the floor is there. I, > however, draw my threshold for belief above 99%. Hence, I do not > believe the floor is there. Similarly, let's say you and I both have > ~25% confidence in the existence of unicorns, let's say you draw your > doubt threshold near 10%. Then you do not doubt the existence of > unicorns. If I draw my threshold near 30%, then I do doubt the > existence of unicorns. (It should be clear that I draw my doubt > threshold much higher than 30%, though. I not only doubt the existence > of unicorns, but horses and rhinos, too. To be clear, I think > confidence is *more* ontological than the doubt/belief thresholding. In > "hands-on" people, confidence will be correlated with the variation in > the particular system. And the extent to which the thresholds differ > from one person to the next, or from one moment to the next, is > questionable. And both probably vary between people, cultures, etc. > Many men tend to feel the need to *pretend* to believe things they don't > actually believe. I'm sure the same is true for many women. Teenagers > seem to believe more things, like their ability to drive and text at the > same time, than octogenarians. Etc.) > > In other words, for me, if there's any conscious effort AT ALL involved > in some control process, e.g. sprinting 100 meters or arguing about > cosmology, then I *doubt* my handle on that process. And that means I > doubt everything I'm *aware* of. Granted, there are some things I could > be said to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, during my > chemo, I forgot my master password for one of my databases. Prior to > that episode, I'd never forgotten such things. In fact, the way I > "remembered" it, finally, was that I simply kept trying to type it. I > probably tried 100 times or more, hoping the finger movement would > remind my mind of what it was. It eventually worked. So, prior to the > episode, I *believed* that password and believed in my ability to type > it. I now doubt it ... one more thing to doubt along with everything > else. > > My test for whether *you* believe something would depend fundamentally > on where you've drawn those thresholds. If you're like my neighbor, who > is a Christian, and claim to believe outlandish things, I'd have no > choice but to analyze and (Socratically) question you to see if I could > locate your thresholds on the real spectrum we all face: uncertainty/ > variation in our control systems. I know people who seem to take for > granted their ability to, say, flip a coin over their fingers or stand > up without sharp pains searing through their lower back. My guess would > be they believe in their dexterity and properly fused sacral vertebrae. > I do not. > > [sigh] I look forward to a response in which you actually discuss some > of the ideas I've written, rather than simply restating your position > yet again. > > On 07/08/2018 09:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > I think you are being a little unfair: > > > > > > > > I merely laid out the understandings that lead ME to think that one cannot doubt and act at the same time: ie, it is entailed by my definition of belief. > > > > > > > >> We are a having a definitional problem. To a pragmatist (which I seem > > > >> to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief > > > >> in its absence). So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to > > > >> me that you do nothing. > > > > > > > > If you have a different understanding of belief, that conclusion would not follow, presumably. How would you decide whether I truly believed something. > > -- > ∄ uǝʃƃ > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.
But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.) After such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and what impact any particular part may have had. For example, perhaps heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and reinstall the new program. Hence, she might doubt the utility of heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation. Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold. I can imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on". And I can imagine yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it. I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of course. On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: > I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.? > > My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |