5 ms·

> For me, it only developed as a coping mechanism because I was unable to accept the world from a nonspiritual point of view. Yeah, I found that after some poi

by bsedlm 4y ago

> For me, it only developed as a coping mechanism because I was unable to accept the world from a nonspiritual point of view. Yeah, I found that after some point, after I realized that a strict linguistic (formal) outlook was rigid and unflexible and started to relax about it, that I started to reach into a wider pool of concepts to allow me to make sense of the world. Also accepting that some beliefs which are not testable by science can still be judged in terms of what do they do for me; do they make me feel good? or bad? do they allow me to engage in actions with postivie outcomes? and so on...

bowsamic 4y ago
There is also a sense in which some people have a strong belief in some ephemeral "the Science" and only want to make decisions based on that. For example, as you say something might make you feel better, but they entirely reject it and want nothing to do with it because it hasn't been "scientifically proven" yet. Obviously science is a very powerful tool (I'm a physicist myself), but we shouldn't expect every corner of our life to need to be accounted for by it to live properly. It has become a new kind of religion for some people, and they don't even realise it.
- Taywee 4y ago
  Just a little bit ago, there was this submission on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 The article in question (quite short), has this passage, which reminded me of your comment here: >> Positivist dispositions can lead to the acceptance of claims because they have a scientific form, not because they are grounded in robust evidence and sound argument. > I think what they are saying is that empiricism is not robust. Yeah, sure, facts are great, and all. But it’s easy to cherry-pick facts and find whatever conclusion you want. I guess if you only follow the branches that you like, you can convince yourself that reality is whatever you want it to be. > I think that’s a fair point. In my opinion, the majority of non-fiction books are an exercise in finding some exciting-sounding thesis and then cobbling together random scraps of evidence to support it.

by bsedlm 4y ago

bowsamic 4y ago

There is also a sense in which some people have a strong belief in some ephemeral "the Science" and only want to make decisions based on that. For example, as you say something might make you feel better, but they entirely reject it and want nothing to do with it because it hasn't been "scientifically proven" yet. Obviously science is a very powerful tool (I'm a physicist myself), but we shouldn't expect every corner of our life to need to be accounted for by it to live properly. It has become a new kind of religion for some people, and they don't even realise it.

Taywee 4y ago
Just a little bit ago, there was this submission on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 The article in question (quite short), has this passage, which reminded me of your comment here: >> Positivist dispositions can lead to the acceptance of claims because they have a scientific form, not because they are grounded in robust evidence and sound argument. > I think what they are saying is that empiricism is not robust. Yeah, sure, facts are great, and all. But it’s easy to cherry-pick facts and find whatever conclusion you want. I guess if you only follow the branches that you like, you can convince yourself that reality is whatever you want it to be. > I think that’s a fair point. In my opinion, the majority of non-fiction books are an exercise in finding some exciting-sounding thesis and then cobbling together random scraps of evidence to support it.