No, not going home, kmich, just going back to the shop . . the water here is way too deep for me . . best wishes . .kmich wrote:. . As I state above the definition, at least in modern science, requires a kind of operational and quantifiable clarity that is anything but evident. If, in response to that, you desire to take your ball and bat and go home, that is your choice.
The Folly of Scientism
Re: The Folly of Scientism
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Enjoy the shop, Marcus.
One of the major epistemological, not scientific, challenges is defining what we mean by “all that exists.”
Is creation, all that there is, natural laws, etc. simply a given from the instant of the Big Bang or Genesis just waiting out there for us to discover? Why should creation or even the laws of nature be fixed? What if creation is not a given, but an ongoing process that includes our participation in its ongoing character and outcomes? What if we are active agents in the unfolding of God’s being?
Our spiritual and ethical demands would change from simple discovery and worship of what is given by God to a living sense of enormous responsibility with our participation in God’s revealing glory. Our thoughts, actions, words, could all have implications throughout the cosmos in ways we cannot comprehend but with which we are forever accountable for. The boundaries of knowledge would constantly change as creation unfolds and there would be no such thing as “all that exists,” but instead and living process in which we are a part of.
Something to consider.
(I am indebted to A. N. Whitehead to helping me to form some of the questions and thoughts above)
One of the major epistemological, not scientific, challenges is defining what we mean by “all that exists.”
Is creation, all that there is, natural laws, etc. simply a given from the instant of the Big Bang or Genesis just waiting out there for us to discover? Why should creation or even the laws of nature be fixed? What if creation is not a given, but an ongoing process that includes our participation in its ongoing character and outcomes? What if we are active agents in the unfolding of God’s being?
Our spiritual and ethical demands would change from simple discovery and worship of what is given by God to a living sense of enormous responsibility with our participation in God’s revealing glory. Our thoughts, actions, words, could all have implications throughout the cosmos in ways we cannot comprehend but with which we are forever accountable for. The boundaries of knowledge would constantly change as creation unfolds and there would be no such thing as “all that exists,” but instead and living process in which we are a part of.
Something to consider.
(I am indebted to A. N. Whitehead to helping me to form some of the questions and thoughts above)
Re: The Folly of Scientism
I do, kmich, enjoy the shop, that is. And I have considered the sort of thing you describe above.kmich wrote:Enjoy the shop, Marcus.
1) . . What if creation is not a given, but an ongoing process that includes our participation in its ongoing character and outcomes? 2) What if we are active agents in the unfolding of God’s being?
3) Our spiritual and ethical demands would change from simple discovery and worship of what is given by God to a living sense of enormous responsibility with our participation in God’s revealing glory. Our thoughts, actions, words, could all have implications throughout the cosmos in ways we cannot comprehend but with which we are forever accountable for. . .
Something to consider. . .
1) Creation is a settled fact, redemption is an ongoing process in which we are participants for better or for worse.
2) We are, I believe, active agents in the unfolding of God's purposes . . not his being. There can be no hidden potentiality in God.
3) This is not some future scenario . . this is what obtains right now and always has . . as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be.
Back to the shop . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6232
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: The Folly of Scientism
An early 20th century physician insisted that he had proven the material existence of the soul. He weighed elderly people at the moment of death and found every one lost weight at death. A control group of animals showed no such weight loss at death.
The good doctor's conclusion was that the average soul weighs about 3/4 of an ounce. Yea science!
The good doctor's conclusion was that the average soul weighs about 3/4 of an ounce. Yea science!
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: The Folly of Scientism
As for the material versus the immaterial. This does not seem to me very complicated issue. Whatever it is you are able to observe, are aware of.. is in principle available to do science on and hunt for the "how it works".
Some observables are of course very complex mechanisms where you are quickly left with statistical tools and will struggle with the issue of causation versus correlation as in the social/soft sciences. Other observables concern the experience of the individual like emotion, thinking, mood and any other state of mind that some would identify as spiritual/religious experience. You can also observe questions that arise for which you don't have an answer, feelings of awe and wonder, sensations of physical pain, emotional distress, any or all forms of suffering.
All those observables arise as a dynamic in ever-changing configuration in the colored experiential bubble that I posted earlier:
All the observables in the "in-here" and in the "out-there" are mapped within the colored bubble and as such available to scientific inquiry.
Of course the scientific method of investigating observables like stars in the sky goes with a different cook book than doing science on emotions or the religious experience. Indeed there are loads of specialized and calibrated methods; but they all start with and build on any of the colored observables.
Of course one can feel a bit uncomfy with the idea of science being done on the observables that occur in the privacy of our "in-here": it is even worse than endoscopy but that is merely a natural reaction to the idea of being invaded by the teeth of a predator.
But remember... it is always you doing the science... so no real worries.
Some observables are of course very complex mechanisms where you are quickly left with statistical tools and will struggle with the issue of causation versus correlation as in the social/soft sciences. Other observables concern the experience of the individual like emotion, thinking, mood and any other state of mind that some would identify as spiritual/religious experience. You can also observe questions that arise for which you don't have an answer, feelings of awe and wonder, sensations of physical pain, emotional distress, any or all forms of suffering.
All those observables arise as a dynamic in ever-changing configuration in the colored experiential bubble that I posted earlier:
All the observables in the "in-here" and in the "out-there" are mapped within the colored bubble and as such available to scientific inquiry.
Of course the scientific method of investigating observables like stars in the sky goes with a different cook book than doing science on emotions or the religious experience. Indeed there are loads of specialized and calibrated methods; but they all start with and build on any of the colored observables.
Of course one can feel a bit uncomfy with the idea of science being done on the observables that occur in the privacy of our "in-here": it is even worse than endoscopy but that is merely a natural reaction to the idea of being invaded by the teeth of a predator.
But remember... it is always you doing the science... so no real worries.
Deep down I'm very superficial
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: The Folly of Scientism
The list of these types of things is very, very, very long.Typhoon wrote: I recall Jacob Bronowski's story about how Hegel, using his "pure reason", proved that there can only be five planets.
As JB tells it, the ink was not yet dry on Hegel's paper when the minor sixth planet, Ceres, was discovered followed by other planets.
Yeah. Another way of looking at it is man's thinking vs reality, I bet on reality every time.Of course, this was experimental observation, astronomy using telescopes, rather than an experiment in a lab. Part of the scientific method and science.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Our senses and attached brain do empirical science all the time.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Folly of Scientism
unfortunately or fortunately survival doesnt require a human opinion to be *right* , you only have to avoid being *wrong*.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Explain all the people who run into cars.Parodite wrote:Our senses and attached brain do empirical science all the time.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: The Folly of Scientism
It's okay to be wrong. What matters is how one handles it. Modifying one's views or insisting that belief/tradition/dogma trumps observation and/or experiment.Mr. Perfect wrote:The list of these types of things is very, very, very long.Typhoon wrote: I recall Jacob Bronowski's story about how Hegel, using his "pure reason", proved that there can only be five planets.
As JB tells it, the ink was not yet dry on Hegel's paper when the minor sixth planet, Ceres, was discovered followed by other planets.
No idea what you're trying to say here.Mr. Perfect wrote:Yeah. Another way of looking at it is man's thinking vs reality, I bet on reality every time.Of course, this was experimental observation, astronomy using telescopes, rather than an experiment in a lab. Part of the scientific method and science.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Should/could learning to play the violin be considered a science?
Deep down I'm very superficial
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6232
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: The Folly of Scientism
No. I had a roommate once who was learning violin. It was torture, not science.Parodite wrote:Should/could learning to play the violin be considered a science?
Once he was practicing in a park and a man walked way down a stream, crossed a bridge and doubled back just to tell this guy he played " like an old man with rotting teeth".
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: The Folly of Scientism
Ha. Know how you feel.. have a sister who tortured our eardrums when she started at age 5.Nonc Hilaire wrote:No. I had a roommate once who was learning violin. It was torture, not science.Parodite wrote:Should/could learning to play the violin be considered a science?
Once he was practicing in a park and a man walked way down a stream, crossed a bridge and doubled back just to tell this guy he played " like an old man with rotting teeth".
Deep down I'm very superficial