5 ms·

I wish we had a world where the discernment between science, axiom and ideology was a real thing ironed into the public muscle memory as much as ideology itself

I wish we had a world where the discernment between science, axiom and ideology was a real thing ironed into the public muscle memory as much as ideology itself. Idealism.

rogerkirkness 5y ago
Teleological thinking centers in our brain atrophy but remain active even if you denounce religion.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Teleological thinking does not have to be supernatural, as long as you replace the idea of a "will" driving things towards a final state, with the idea of attractors and stable versus unstable states. You can't really deny telos and also believe in evolution as a system that fits species to their environments.
  - lisper 5y ago
    Evolution fits species to their environments in exactly the same sense (though not quite by the same mechanism) that gravity fits puddles to theirs.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      That's also a teleological approach (looking at the final state of the interaction of rain, terrain and gravity) - I used evolution as an example because its the first thing that came to mind. Evolution is also a good touchpoint because everybody who considers themselves "rational" accepts it, and yet it is taught, and reasoned about, teleologically - compared to most pop-science topics which are analytical in nature.
      - lisper 5y ago
        I don't think most people would think of puddles as having telos. Telos goes beyond what is and looks at purpose and meaning in terms of what ought to be. Puddles don't really have a purpose in that sense, and neither does evolution. Puddles fill voids, not because that's their purpose, but simply because that's what happens when you have water, gravity, and the right kind of void. Likewise for evolution. I know some people like to ascribe telos to evolution, but they're simply wrong, at least as adjudicated by the evidence.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        My understanding is that telos is about the final configuration of something, the outcome of it, as well as its goals in the human sense, and that these two ideas are covered by the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic telos. Extrinsic telos, as in human purposive use, isn't what I was talking about - I meant intrinsic telos, the settled state that a system will reach if left to its own devices. If you leave rain to its own devices, it will form puddles through gravity and the depressions in the environment. If you don't change the environment (practically impossible given species are part of the environment themselves, but hey-ho), evolution will (loosely) match the species to said environment, or kill them off, if allowed to run to infinite time. Those examples both spell out the idea of intrinsic telos to me.
        lisper 5y ago
        I refer you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos "Telos [refers] to the full potential or inherent purpose or objective of a person or thing,[2] similar to the notion of an 'end goal' or 'raison d'être'. Telos is the root of the modern term teleology, the study of purposiveness or of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions." Puddles don't have aims, purposes, or intentions.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        From the teleological viewpoint, the purpose of rain is to become a puddle - or soak into the soil, or rejoin the oceans, etc etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology > (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of, say, its cause. > Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy, though controversial today,[5] contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. That's the angle I'm coming from. Especially this part, given my introduction to teleology was through learning about systems theory: > An example of the reintroduction of teleology into modern language is the notion of an attractor.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Right, telos is not purely a matter of will, which is a special case. Telos is about the ordering of a thing toward an end. You can't explain efficiently causality without recourse to telos. The fact that the same causes consistently lead to the same effects is a testament to the telos of the things involved. Unfortunately, most opponents of telos don't really understand what it really means. They seem to hold to a mechanistic/Paleyian view of the world and assume the telos can therefore only be something in some mind external to the universe that directs things according to its purposes but that things themselves lack any intrinsic teleological character. But this is not correct.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      It seems to be the materialist/reductionist perspective, which is based on 19th century science (despite being totally outmoded since the early 20th century and the discovery of emergent properties in physics and biology alike). I sincerely think that it's the thing holding us back the most in the 21st century.
- drak0n1c 5y ago
  Teleological thinking persists regardless of whether you're secular. The "ideological intensity" in the article is partly a result of teleological drive judging every facet of modern life, even the trivial. On the left it is how X contributes to equity vs oppression, and on the right it is how X contributes to orderliness vs dysfunction.
- eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  There is no specific center in the brain for teleological thinking.
wyager 5y ago
The “science” most people believe (more accurately called scientism) is an aspect of the state secular religion.
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
  '"Believe" in the science.'
- remarkEon 5y ago
  It’s interesting seeing this point, which has been around the internet for at least a decade now, start to get printed in what are otherwise mainstream publications these days. I don’t know that I buy it, but I certainly understand and see the merit of the argument.
  - zxzax 5y ago
    I don't really buy it, it seems to suggest that scientific discoveries are not questioned and changed constantly, when they absolutely are. It's not accurate to always refer to them as "beliefs."
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      I mean, I agree with you, it's not accurate to refer to "science" as "[a set of] beliefs" but that's sort of besides the point. The point others are making is that "believe the science" is not the mantra of a society that actually "does science" but one that "Practices The Science^(tm)".
    - varjag 5y ago
      I think it expresses doubt in ability of a layperson to make a rational judgement on merits of a particular scientific research or process rather than on science itself.
      - zxzax 5y ago
        I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. There is nothing in the context of "science itself" besides that particular scientific research or process. That's what it's defined as. Did you mean something like: a layperson might be inclined to place higher value on scientific research performed by a personal friend or colleague? That's probably true in some cases, but it's not "scientism."

I wish we had a world where the discernment between science, axiom and ideology was a real thing ironed into the public muscle memory as much as ideology itself. Idealism.

rogerkirkness 5y ago

Teleological thinking centers in our brain atrophy but remain active even if you denounce religion.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Teleological thinking does not have to be supernatural, as long as you replace the idea of a "will" driving things towards a final state, with the idea of attractors and stable versus unstable states. You can't really deny telos and also believe in evolution as a system that fits species to their environments.
- lisper 5y ago
  Evolution fits species to their environments in exactly the same sense (though not quite by the same mechanism) that gravity fits puddles to theirs.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    That's also a teleological approach (looking at the final state of the interaction of rain, terrain and gravity) - I used evolution as an example because its the first thing that came to mind. Evolution is also a good touchpoint because everybody who considers themselves "rational" accepts it, and yet it is taught, and reasoned about, teleologically - compared to most pop-science topics which are analytical in nature.
    - lisper 5y ago
      I don't think most people would think of puddles as having telos. Telos goes beyond what is and looks at purpose and meaning in terms of what ought to be. Puddles don't really have a purpose in that sense, and neither does evolution. Puddles fill voids, not because that's their purpose, but simply because that's what happens when you have water, gravity, and the right kind of void. Likewise for evolution. I know some people like to ascribe telos to evolution, but they're simply wrong, at least as adjudicated by the evidence.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        My understanding is that telos is about the final configuration of something, the outcome of it, as well as its goals in the human sense, and that these two ideas are covered by the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic telos. Extrinsic telos, as in human purposive use, isn't what I was talking about - I meant intrinsic telos, the settled state that a system will reach if left to its own devices. If you leave rain to its own devices, it will form puddles through gravity and the depressions in the environment. If you don't change the environment (practically impossible given species are part of the environment themselves, but hey-ho), evolution will (loosely) match the species to said environment, or kill them off, if allowed to run to infinite time. Those examples both spell out the idea of intrinsic telos to me.
        lisper 5y ago
        I refer you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos "Telos [refers] to the full potential or inherent purpose or objective of a person or thing,[2] similar to the notion of an 'end goal' or 'raison d'être'. Telos is the root of the modern term teleology, the study of purposiveness or of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions." Puddles don't have aims, purposes, or intentions.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        From the teleological viewpoint, the purpose of rain is to become a puddle - or soak into the soil, or rejoin the oceans, etc etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology > (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of, say, its cause. > Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy, though controversial today,[5] contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. That's the angle I'm coming from. Especially this part, given my introduction to teleology was through learning about systems theory: > An example of the reintroduction of teleology into modern language is the notion of an attractor.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Right, telos is not purely a matter of will, which is a special case. Telos is about the ordering of a thing toward an end. You can't explain efficiently causality without recourse to telos. The fact that the same causes consistently lead to the same effects is a testament to the telos of the things involved. Unfortunately, most opponents of telos don't really understand what it really means. They seem to hold to a mechanistic/Paleyian view of the world and assume the telos can therefore only be something in some mind external to the universe that directs things according to its purposes but that things themselves lack any intrinsic teleological character. But this is not correct.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    It seems to be the materialist/reductionist perspective, which is based on 19th century science (despite being totally outmoded since the early 20th century and the discovery of emergent properties in physics and biology alike). I sincerely think that it's the thing holding us back the most in the 21st century.
drak0n1c 5y ago
Teleological thinking persists regardless of whether you're secular. The "ideological intensity" in the article is partly a result of teleological drive judging every facet of modern life, even the trivial. On the left it is how X contributes to equity vs oppression, and on the right it is how X contributes to orderliness vs dysfunction.
eli_gottlieb 5y ago
There is no specific center in the brain for teleological thinking.

wyager 5y ago

The “science” most people believe (more accurately called scientism) is an aspect of the state secular religion.

andrewmcwatters 5y ago
'"Believe" in the science.'
remarkEon 5y ago
It’s interesting seeing this point, which has been around the internet for at least a decade now, start to get printed in what are otherwise mainstream publications these days. I don’t know that I buy it, but I certainly understand and see the merit of the argument.
- zxzax 5y ago
  I don't really buy it, it seems to suggest that scientific discoveries are not questioned and changed constantly, when they absolutely are. It's not accurate to always refer to them as "beliefs."
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    I mean, I agree with you, it's not accurate to refer to "science" as "[a set of] beliefs" but that's sort of besides the point. The point others are making is that "believe the science" is not the mantra of a society that actually "does science" but one that "Practices The Science^(tm)".
  - varjag 5y ago
    I think it expresses doubt in ability of a layperson to make a rational judgement on merits of a particular scientific research or process rather than on science itself.
    - zxzax 5y ago
      I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. There is nothing in the context of "science itself" besides that particular scientific research or process. That's what it's defined as. Did you mean something like: a layperson might be inclined to place higher value on scientific research performed by a personal friend or colleague? That's probably true in some cases, but it's not "scientism."