3 ms·

The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you

The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it, not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved, because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. A red door in a video game is also manipulated information. But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic, or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed.

mistermann 4y ago
> The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. Science can try, but can a correct answer necessarily be reached? Has a correct answer been reached, or might you be engaged in some speculation, perhaps unintentionally? > We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. Have you eliminated your biases? > The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. Some techniques work on some problems, but not all techniques work on all problems. Do these techniques work on this problem? > As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it... They are certainly working on some details of it, but "the" details is an ontological claim that implies a comprehensive understanding. Also, there are known aspects like phenomenology and causality that it is a bit of a stretch to say that science is "working on the details" of (as compared to the level of quality and magnitude they are reputed and perceived to work on things at). > ...not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved... Does "kind of a given" mean "it is conclusively known, in an epistemically flawless manner"? > ...because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. It is not known how the brain works, comprehensively. Only some things are known, and one of which is that most brains are not able to skilfully identify the boundaries of their knowledge, and what lies beyond - in such cases, "reality" is generated on the fly and injected into the stream, typically with no indication that it is a simulated reality. > But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic... Science itself, in that it has no volition - scientists on the other hand, they do have volition, as well as not well constrained or understood imaginations. > ...or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed. And yet, speculation (not realized as such) is extremely common, particularly among the fan base. When religious people do this they get mocked relentlessly, it's an interesting double standard.
- Comevius 4y ago
  When I mean science I mean the scientific method, which is pretty universal, and you won't find a better tool to get to the bottom of things. You don't need a comprehensive understanding to find objective truth either. Newton's theory of gravitation is a really crude approximation to general relativity, and yet it's all true. Unfortunately for us the world doesn't exactly work like our intuitions suggests, so relying on them is not enough to understand it. I don't think religious people are mocked for speculating, they are mocked for being dogmatic, but at the same time completely changing the interpretation of their dogma to serve their purposes, for power no less.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > When I mean science I mean the scientific method, which is pretty universal The scientific method does not have volition, it must be implemented by humans. > ...and you won't find a better tool to get to the bottom of things. It's an extremely popular meme, but how did you go about determining that it is comprehensively true? > You don't need a comprehensive understanding to find objective truth either. You do of variables that have causal influence on the problem space you're making claims of fact about. > Newton's theory of gravitation is a really crude approximation to general relativity, and yet it's all true. It is true that it exists, but the results that it produces are not necessarily true. > Unfortunately for us the world doesn't exactly work like our intuitions suggests, so relying on them is not enough to understand it. But is that not what you are doing here today? Your ability to provide proof of your claims may shed some light, let's wait and see. > I don't think religious people are mocked for speculating... They are. Perhaps you've never witnessed it, or perhaps your biases do not allow you to see it. > ...they are mocked for being dogmatic, but at the same time completely changing the interpretation of their dogma to serve their purposes, for power no less. Indeed - a lot like Scientific Materialists! My interest is in why there is such a substantial double standard when it comes to people discussing the flaws of the different people. Does it not seem weird that people will criticize their outgroup members for flaws that they themselves suffer from, while representing that they have superior intellectual capabilities?
    - 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. Science can try, but can a correct answer necessarily be reached? Has a correct answer been reached, or might you be engaged in some speculation, perhaps unintentionally? > We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. Have you eliminated your biases? > The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. Some techniques work on some problems, but not all techniques work on all problems. Do these techniques work on this problem? > As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it... They are certainly working on some details of it, but "the" details is an ontological claim that implies a comprehensive understanding. Also, there are known aspects like phenomenology and causality that it is a bit of a stretch to say that science is "working on the details" of (as compared to the level of quality and magnitude they are reputed and perceived to work on things at). > ...not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved... Does "kind of a given" mean "it is conclusively known, in an epistemically flawless manner"? > ...because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. It is not known how the brain works, comprehensively. Only some things are known, and one of which is that most brains are not able to skilfully identify the boundaries of their knowledge, and what lies beyond - in such cases, "reality" is generated on the fly and injected into the stream, typically with no indication that it is a simulated reality. > But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic... Science itself, in that it has no volition - scientists on the other hand, they do have volition, as well as not well constrained or understood imaginations. > ...or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed. And yet, speculation (not realized as such) is extremely common, particularly among the fan base. When religious people do this they get mocked relentlessly, it's an interesting double standard.

Comevius 4y ago
When I mean science I mean the scientific method, which is pretty universal, and you won't find a better tool to get to the bottom of things. You don't need a comprehensive understanding to find objective truth either. Newton's theory of gravitation is a really crude approximation to general relativity, and yet it's all true. Unfortunately for us the world doesn't exactly work like our intuitions suggests, so relying on them is not enough to understand it. I don't think religious people are mocked for speculating, they are mocked for being dogmatic, but at the same time completely changing the interpretation of their dogma to serve their purposes, for power no less.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > When I mean science I mean the scientific method, which is pretty universal The scientific method does not have volition, it must be implemented by humans. > ...and you won't find a better tool to get to the bottom of things. It's an extremely popular meme, but how did you go about determining that it is comprehensively true? > You don't need a comprehensive understanding to find objective truth either. You do of variables that have causal influence on the problem space you're making claims of fact about. > Newton's theory of gravitation is a really crude approximation to general relativity, and yet it's all true. It is true that it exists, but the results that it produces are not necessarily true. > Unfortunately for us the world doesn't exactly work like our intuitions suggests, so relying on them is not enough to understand it. But is that not what you are doing here today? Your ability to provide proof of your claims may shed some light, let's wait and see. > I don't think religious people are mocked for speculating... They are. Perhaps you've never witnessed it, or perhaps your biases do not allow you to see it. > ...they are mocked for being dogmatic, but at the same time completely changing the interpretation of their dogma to serve their purposes, for power no less. Indeed - a lot like Scientific Materialists! My interest is in why there is such a substantial double standard when it comes to people discussing the flaws of the different people. Does it not seem weird that people will criticize their outgroup members for flaws that they themselves suffer from, while representing that they have superior intellectual capabilities?
  - 4y ago