Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16061 - 16080 of total 22966 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
I hardly coined that term. Look into it, if you want, and get yourself straight.

Scientism is not a knock on quantifying.

The hell you say.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
People want to believe in SOMETHING

Whoa, is this a dig at the Pleiadians High Council?

I'm with Dick Proenekke on this( may he RIP) in that he believed in the Alaskan Wilderness, and himself.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LP-3N_00TOk&feature=related
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 28, 2013 - 01:48pm PT
Take a look at the last half dozen pages of the climate change thread to see who your fellow travelers are on the use of the term scientism....

DMT
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:00pm PT
I don't understand why humans have such a need for belief, but it is nigh universal among our species.

I have one big problem of those who are delving into the human mind:

None of you take the time to do comparative anatomy of the brain on other animals. We share many similarities in structure, and can get a reasonably good handle on an animal's intelligence.

If I wanted to understand the brain and mind, that would have been one of my first pursuits. It is a big assumption to assume that we are uniquely different from other animals. Sure, there are differences, but the brain anatomy is shared all the way back to lizards.

There is a ton of information to be gleaned from the anatomy and behavior of animals. To regard ourselves as anything other than very smart mammals is short sighted.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
While some may use "scientism" in a pejorative way, this is not my intention, nor would it be anything but hypocritical for me to say as much, seeming that part of my work (as mentioned) is in breakking the mechanics of climbing and anchor systems down into practical terms and protocols, which is about as stringent a discursive drill as I can ever hope to do.

Verily, when I use "scientism," I use it as described by PBS.ORG:

Scientism

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method (discursive mind).

In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.


By any definition this is all-or-nothing thinking, known in psychology as a "thought distortion."

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
Take a look at the last half dozen pages of the climate change thread to see who your fellow travelers are on the use of the term scientism....

That thread is a huge waste of time. People only hear the part of the science which supports their position. This is known as cherry picking data, and is common among young scientists who don't know how to prevent falling in love with your own idea. That is rule #1 of the scientific method.

The Chief is an odd guy. He is so unpleasant that when he shows up on a thread, I leave until he leaves. I will never forget how he treated Doug Robinson over Growing Up on Half Dome. Mean guy.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
An extreme, fundamntalist take on this is to assert that the discursive mind has no limits on quantifying or "knowing" reality.

The " quantifiers " can hardly be faulted for thinking this way.

Thousands of years of navel gazing didn't produce a hell of a hill of beans when it comes to unravelling the mysteries of the universe.

Along comes theorists like Einstein and measurers like Eddington and !voila! We have one of the great insights into the nature of the universe, namely, Relativity.

The proof is in the rising bread.

Any scientist that gets carried away by thinking that all reality can be defined by theory and measurement has really , more than anything else , violated some style preference preferred by competing systems, like Nehru jacket navel study.
The quantifier is adjudged to wax as too overconfident, too resolute ,which is a violation of style, not of substance.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

I know only one or two scientists who act that way, and it is only about religion. As per answers, it depends on the topic. Some topics are thoroughly covered by science. Others not so much. Some not at all. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out which topics.

We are not all Richard Dawkins.

My personal hero is Ghandi. Not Einstein, although he was very bright.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
justifiable access to the truth.

This is a misunderstanding of the aims and methods of science.
No given scientist is concerned with the absolute truth. He/ she is concerned with getting at a localized truth, as Pasteur did with the discovery of the origins of certain diseases.

His problem: anthrax
The local truth: its caused by a germ.

There is of course the philosopher of science. Such an individual may or may not be what is here defined as a proponent of " scientism" . In that case your beef is not with science per se but with the rare eccentric philosopher who avers that science is unlimited in its potential to unravel the mysteries of the universe..
In that case , your problem with , and critique of, scientism , must include a precise definition of those regions or aspects of the universe where the limits of quantification (, and its antecedent, "theory") kick in.
We know that the so-called non-discursive proponent has defined just such a region: the subjective.
So.
We have the subjectivists who claim that their territory , so to speak, the subjective, is inherently off-limits to quantification .
So
We have objectivists who claim the subjective is merely a construct of biological functioning .
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
Thousands of years of navel gazing didn't produce a hell of a hill of beans when it comes to unravelling the mysteries of the universe.


Not sure what you mean by naval gazing. Were you under the impression that people doing subjective explorations were tying to "unravel the mysteries" of the physical world. If so, you have once more slipped into what I have previously mentioned, believing that everyone is actually doing science, but only the quantifiers are doing it correctly and with discipline.

If you consider the mysteries of being and existence and mind, part of the universal mysteries, you would be quite mistaken that all (again, all or nothing thinking) those naval gazers have not unraveled things that quantifying never can.

However, never having any experiencs with this realm, it is easy to see why you would take the only track open to a strictly discursive pov. If you want to see that there is more to the game, you'll have to start by examining the discursive itself, lest you keep spinning around on the same turf, repeatint the sme arguments, and making no ground and learning nothing new.

Another negative per scientism is the belief that the only investigation worth while is by way of quantifying, so forays outside the discursive are pretty much ruled out beforhand.

It would be instructive to hear what you believe is actually going on with those you refer to as "navel gazing." Given that (as had been sadi MANY times), the drill has nothign to do with attempting to do science (quantify the physical), entails no beliefs, faith, or agenda, and is focused on no particular content and is striving after no particular state, what then, do you imagine is happening? In the most specific terms.

JL
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 28, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
you would be quite mistaken that all (again, all or nothing thinking) those naval gazers have not unraveled things that quantifying never can

If the implication here is that "naval gazers" have had mind experiences that many "quantifiers" have not had, then I would probably agree. On the other hand if the implication is that these experiences relate to a more fundamental level of reality it is my opinion this is pure conjecture.

No one knows.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 03:08pm PT
John,

Please take a moment to explain what you are saying when you discuss the discursive mind and discursive thinking.

Thanks. We all need to be on the same page to get anywhere, and I always try to use easy language when bringing up an unfamiliar topic.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 28, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
On the other hand if the implication is that these experiences relate to a more fundamental level of reality it is my opinion this is pure conjecture.

Which brings it right back to Norton's "warm fuzzy feelings," though they may not necessarily be warm or fuzzy, but the gist is the sense of personal satisfaction and ability to smugly spray about the subjective value of one's subjective adventures, whatever their nature. And the world might indeed become a better place if more people did this or that "inner work" of tackling The Deeper Issues™. Or then again maybe not.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 03:26pm PT
I meant " navel gazing " in the most innocuous terms . I didn't mean to belittle or impugn any given explorations in that regard. It's part of the give and take of this thread.

Now. You asked:

entails no beliefs, faith, or agenda, and is focused on no particular content and is striving after no particular state, what then, do you imagine is happening? In the most specific terms.

I "imagine "all sorts of things could be occurring :
Self-hypnosis
An excursion into altered brain wave states.
A primal reiteration of prey/predator paralysis or some other paleo- neuro state.

All of these things could be naturally occurring without the subject being intentionally striving to bring them about. Humans are animals , animals experience all sorts of things without these experiences necessarily containing a de novo content preconceived by the individual.
For instance, one's sexual drives possess a content and an agenda. Other than breathing the individual does little to fundamentally bring it about. One simply wakes up one day and is horny( so to speak)
So- called subjective states , of whatever provenance, operate in much the same way. They are biologically driven and constituted, and per the criteria offered above, are intuitively much purer as raw experiences than strictly cognitive analysis. This is part of their charm ,pleasure, and allure.
The individual who imagines his rarefied subjective state as not being driven by content and agenda is involved in a little self-foolery.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 03:47pm PT
Please take a moment to explain what you are saying when you discuss the discursive mind and discursive thinking.
-


Notice Cintune's last post, where he sprays about "the subjective value of one's subjective experience." In other words, to Cintune, what we are talking about is some state, some feeling tone, some imagined sense of higher self, some ephemeral shimmering knowing that shats on everything else. Of course this is all about Cintune, since he's doing it, and can't be bothered to ask any questions. This is a person totally captive to the discursive mind - that's a fact. And his speculations come from that perspective.

To understand how the discursive mind actually works, you have to first learn how to divert your attention away from it till you get enough distance (breaking enmeshment with or breaking awareness fusion) from it to realize you are NOT your discursive mind. Not easy. Nor yet quickly accomplished.

One way to get started with this long and tricky process is to be aware that your awareness is the one thing over which we have some modicum of control. Not much at first. Hardly any, really. Your awarenes will get shainghaied away no matter how hard or intently you decide to try and control it. But so far as you can, simply notice that for a little while anyway, you can seemingly chose where and on what to DIRECT your awareness.

For instance, if you were to look around your immediate surroundings, you will notice a computer screen, a desk, a floor, a rose, books, a picture, a fifth of Old Parr, and a beanstalk. You can consciously decide to move or place your attention on one or the other items just mentioned.

This automatically sets up a perceptual dynamic in which that are basially two aspects at work: The Figure (the thing you are focued on), and the Ground, or everything else in your field or awarenss which is, at this point, part of the background.

While the field, which roughly speaking is EVERYTHING, is discernable, it is not your focus so you are only incidentally or marginally aware of what is going on in that field. The Figure, be it the floor, a book or the fifth of Old Parr, is right in your focus and so it has most of your primary attention.

So far, so good.

Next, notice that your awareness works much like the aperature on a camera. Whatever the Figure is, requires a narrow focus, relative to the background. Your awareness has a kind of depth of field in this regard, and in order for our discursive minds to grock onto some thing, we need to close the aparature so to speak, narrow focusing on some thing at the exclusion of some other thing. While we can multi task, we can really only hold a steady focus on one thing, and we do this by narrowing our focus, presenting to our awareness a figure which is IN focus (narrow), and a Greound, which is out (open) of focus. In other words, to quantify anything, we must narrow the field to the essentials of the experiment, leaving all else "out of focus." We focus on a particular at expense of the whole.

Just play with that for a bit and I'll come back with more later. Try and keep in mind that we are not to the point where you can take issue with or argue with this or that. This is simply how perception and focus operate from the inside, so see where it is true for you with some simple observations. Again, thi shas nothig to do with opinion. Get a feel for Figure and Ground, and narrow and open focus. And how it is hard to hold focus on one thing without trying to quantify or reckon it in some way. Our discursive minds are like hungry dogs ready to pounce on whatever we narrow focus on. Just see how this works in your own process.

JL

jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
Good luck and bon voyage to you voyagers of the mind !

Just joking. Sounds like a good technical approach.

;>)
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:19pm PT
In other words, to Cintune, what we are talking about

The "royal we" is always an adorable little tell. Unless of course the whole carpool is huddled around the monitor with you, yukking it up.

...is some state, some feeling tone, some imagined sense of higher self, some ephemeral shimmering knowing that shats on everything else.

Yes, I'm clearly not the only one who gets that impression, but I suppose I do make for an easy target.

Of course this is all about Cintune, since he's doing it, and can't be bothered to ask any questions. This is a person totally captive to the discursive mind - that's a fact. And his speculations come from that perspective.

Yes, that's true. And what Largo writes is all about Largo, who only wants to be asked questions parsed in an particularly submissive manner. This is a person totally captive to the etiquette of the zendo.

Try and keep in mind that we are not to the point where you can take issue with or argue with this or that.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
Ward, take that vid you just posted and focus on the guy claping. Note how the guy is the Figure and everything outside the black border is Ground, as mentioned. Note also that to hold you awareness on the clapper, you have to narrow your focus on the black box. Everything outside the box is "out of focus" so to speak.

We'll walk you through it, kicking and screming and ranting and spraying if need be. And mentioined, the discursive is a very jealous and almost brat like subpersonality at times, evidenced by our responses and snide come backs when it is politely stepped away from. Some people go into a kind of tantrum, even, to the point that they can't take themselves seriously, the whole business seems so foreigh, and their enmeshment with the discursive so rigid.

It is not work that everyone can or should attempt - for many reasons.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:07pm PT
Ward, take that vid you just posted

It 'twas not I who posted said video.

I posted only one video today , that of the great Dick Proenekke and his 30 yr. adventures in the Alaskan outback.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
Ward: I "imagine "all sorts of things could be occurring. . .


Yeah, . . . if imagination only helped. Imagination is not the right tool. There is no tool to be used; no tool will be helpful. It's like trying to box your way out of outer space.

(It's a trick question, silly.)


Hey, Base, thanks for the personal history lesson. Helps. It shouldn't, but a little bit of personal history shifts reality a bit, doesn't it? (How can it do that?)


On the other hand if the implication is that these experiences relate to a more fundamental level of reality it is my opinion this is pure conjecture.

Jogill, there can only be one reality. WYSIWYG. Much of it is constructed. That doesn't make any of it more or less real. Reality is what you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and think. There's nothing special going on beyond everything. There's no need for conjecture of any sort. Making any conjecture is derelict--real, but not useful and worthy of ignorance.
Messages 16061 - 16080 of total 22966 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews