3 ms·

There are multiple evolving fields of science, including cognitive science that deals with researching what we are talking about, and they have a scholarly lite

There are multiple evolving fields of science, including cognitive science that deals with researching what we are talking about, and they have a scholarly literature. This is another thing about science, it's peer reviewed. It's not a perfect process, but it's the best one we have to date. You get the best picture by reading papers, following the references in them, or the other way around, the papers that cited them. I don't really see the double standard, because scientific research must be substantiated and falsifiable. People still cheat, there is fraud, but there is a process to control it. Individual volition can only do so much damage, the truth always ends up winning, even if it takes years, because the truth is irremovable. Even if we forget it we will keep rediscovering it. This is the difference between a shaman and a doctor. The shaman takes your money and pretends to be doing something, the doctor works hard using tools, techniques and theories people worked hard on inventing and discovering. Truth pays dividends there, it can heal your sick child, because the truth is real power, not cultural power like a Shaman might have, but actual power against diseases, hunger, death itself one day. I also don't think it's right to call it materialism, matter is just a small part of the picture, an important one as far as we are concerned, but it's only 5% of the Universe, and if you go deeper quantum physics is more fundamental and nothing about that is materialist. The normal, intuitive concepts of space and time or causality don't even affect it, because it is also responsible for those as well. And yet despite how disturbingly weird it is scientists can still deal with it, and find applications for it. This year's Nobel Prize was given to people that made an entire quantum industry possible.

mistermann 4y ago
> There are multiple evolving fields of science... This seems more intended to persuade than inform, in that it is orthogonal to the point of contention. > It's not a perfect process, but it's the best one we have to date. Repeated claims of superiority do not grant superiority - they can certainly cause appearances to take on that form though. > You get the best picture by reading papers, following the references in them, or the other way around, the papers that cited them. Within science. I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior - this is necessarily true, because it is a tautology. >>> ...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. > I don't really see the double standard, because scientific research must be substantiated and falsifiable. I think our wires must be crossed - I was complaining about speculation where it is not necessary (among scientists and their fanbase), not speculation within the scientific process. > People still cheat, there is fraud, but there is a process to control it. The quality of that process is a function of its performance. Memes to the contrary aside, that there is a replication "crisis" in science is old news. > Individual volition can only do so much damage.... This excuse applies to everyone. > ...the truth always ends up winning, even if it takes years... Memes are not evidence. > ...because the truth is irremovable. Even if we forget it we will keep rediscovering it. This seems to assert that science discovers all truth - again, where's the evidence supporting the claim? > This is the difference between a shaman and a doctor. This is one difference, and the degree to which it is actually different varies per shaman and per doctor - information that you do not have access to. Are doctors more structured and thorough than shamans? Surely. Are doctors superior to shamans for all problems? I would like to see evidence if such a claim is made, implicitly or explicitly. > The shaman takes your money and pretends to be doing something... Here you DEMONSTRATE your lack of knowledge (and, the nature of what you consider "knowledge"). > ...the doctor works hard using tools, techniques and theories people worked hard on inventing and discovering. TIL: there is zero incompetence among doctors. And then there's this: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su... "Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) third leading cause of death — respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people per year." > Truth pays dividends there, it can heal your sick child, because the truth is real power, not cultural power like a Shaman might have, but actual power against diseases, hunger, death itself one day. Is "truth" what we're dealing with here today? > I also don't think it's right to call it materialism, matter is just a small part of the picture, an important one as far as we are concerned, but it's only 5% of the Universe, and if you go deeper quantum physics is more fundamental and nothing about that is materialist. "Materialist" has many meanings - in my case, I am using it to refer to people who deny metaphysics, or believe that materialist approaches are adequate to understand it (take your literally incorrect shaman example above as a half decent example). > The normal, intuitive concepts of space and time or causality don't even affect it, because it is also responsible for those as well. Yet another claim. > And yet despite how disturbingly weird it is scientists can still deal with it, and find applications for it. Is "deal with it" a scientific term? Regardless: what is its precise meaning, with respect to the context of this conversation? > This year's Nobel Prize was given to people that made an entire quantum industry possible. Impressive, but again: orthogonal to the point of contention.
- Comevius 4y ago
  Shamans can't have a medical error, or any error, since they don't do anything, they are scam artists and they know it. Obviously doctors are not perfect, they are people, but I would still rather have hospitals than not have them. Our point of contention is whether you need something supernatural to have interesting things like consciousness, and although my concise, crude generalizations are certainly not proof in any sense of the world, they should still give you a new look on the possibility. Your supernatural is intentionally not well-defined or falsifiable, so I cannot refute it, but you can refute my arguments. I didn't meant to convince you as much as I wanted to delight you with a new perspective, to make you think about the problem. The perspective is that the hard problem of consciousness can be trivially made easy once you realize that a being experiencing things is an unreliable witness, because their entire experience is manufactured by an organ that evolved to manipulate information, and this evolution is actually supported by physics, namely thermodynamics. > I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior It is superior in all the problem spaces. It's the best approach we have, the only legitimate one. You aren't going to be able to sit on a couch with a bunch of crystals and conjure the truth out of the Universe, you have to work for it, and you have to have a way to filter out your biases, and that's science. The one and only. It doesn't mean that you cannot have things like spirituality, because guess what, science is the way to understand that as well, and it can even help creating practices that enhances those experiences. I myself enjoy spirituality. It's a nice brain thing, everyone should have a spiritual life, just not via organized religion.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    - Shamans can't have a medical error, or any error, since they don't do anything, they are scam artists and they know it. What is the source of your omniscience? > Our point of contention is whether you need something supernatural to have interesting things like consciousness That's part of it - another part is that you have no evidence for most of your claims. > Your supernatural is intentionally not well-defined or falsifiable My supernatural what?, so I cannot refute it, but you can refute my arguments. > I didn't meant to convince you as much as I wanted to delight you with a new perspective, to make you think about the problem. I suspect I've done a bit more thinking on the matter than you. > The perspective is that the hard problem of consciousness can be trivially made easy once you realize that a being experiencing things is an unreliable witness, because their entire experience is manufactured by an organ that evolved to manipulate information, and this evolution is actually supported by physics, namely thermodynamics. If you have no concern for, or perhaps knowledge of, logic (ternary) and epistemology. >> I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior > It is superior in all the problem spaces. What is the source of your omniscience? > It's the best approach we have, the only legitimate one. What is the source of your omniscience? > You aren't going to be able to sit on a couch with a bunch of crystals and conjure the truth out of the Universe, you have to work for it Demonstrating your ignorance/delusion on the matter. > and you have to have a way to filter out your biases, and that's science. It seems to have done the opposite for you, like many others I've talked with. > The one and only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_... > It doesn't mean that you cannot have things like spirituality, because guess what, science is the way to understand that as well What is the source of your omniscience? > everyone should have a spiritual life, just not via organized religion. The religion of wild guesses might catch on.

mistermann 4y ago

> There are multiple evolving fields of science... This seems more intended to persuade than inform, in that it is orthogonal to the point of contention. > It's not a perfect process, but it's the best one we have to date. Repeated claims of superiority do not grant superiority - they can certainly cause appearances to take on that form though. > You get the best picture by reading papers, following the references in them, or the other way around, the papers that cited them. Within science. I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior - this is necessarily true, because it is a tautology. >>> ...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. > I don't really see the double standard, because scientific research must be substantiated and falsifiable. I think our wires must be crossed - I was complaining about speculation where it is not necessary (among scientists and their fanbase), not speculation within the scientific process. > People still cheat, there is fraud, but there is a process to control it. The quality of that process is a function of its performance. Memes to the contrary aside, that there is a replication "crisis" in science is old news. > Individual volition can only do so much damage.... This excuse applies to everyone. > ...the truth always ends up winning, even if it takes years... Memes are not evidence. > ...because the truth is irremovable. Even if we forget it we will keep rediscovering it. This seems to assert that science discovers all truth - again, where's the evidence supporting the claim? > This is the difference between a shaman and a doctor. This is one difference, and the degree to which it is actually different varies per shaman and per doctor - information that you do not have access to. Are doctors more structured and thorough than shamans? Surely. Are doctors superior to shamans for all problems? I would like to see evidence if such a claim is made, implicitly or explicitly. > The shaman takes your money and pretends to be doing something... Here you DEMONSTRATE your lack of knowledge (and, the nature of what you consider "knowledge"). > ...the doctor works hard using tools, techniques and theories people worked hard on inventing and discovering. TIL: there is zero incompetence among doctors. And then there's this: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su... "Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) third leading cause of death — respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people per year." > Truth pays dividends there, it can heal your sick child, because the truth is real power, not cultural power like a Shaman might have, but actual power against diseases, hunger, death itself one day. Is "truth" what we're dealing with here today? > I also don't think it's right to call it materialism, matter is just a small part of the picture, an important one as far as we are concerned, but it's only 5% of the Universe, and if you go deeper quantum physics is more fundamental and nothing about that is materialist. "Materialist" has many meanings - in my case, I am using it to refer to people who deny metaphysics, or believe that materialist approaches are adequate to understand it (take your literally incorrect shaman example above as a half decent example). > The normal, intuitive concepts of space and time or causality don't even affect it, because it is also responsible for those as well. Yet another claim. > And yet despite how disturbingly weird it is scientists can still deal with it, and find applications for it. Is "deal with it" a scientific term? Regardless: what is its precise meaning, with respect to the context of this conversation? > This year's Nobel Prize was given to people that made an entire quantum industry possible. Impressive, but again: orthogonal to the point of contention.

Comevius 4y ago
Shamans can't have a medical error, or any error, since they don't do anything, they are scam artists and they know it. Obviously doctors are not perfect, they are people, but I would still rather have hospitals than not have them. Our point of contention is whether you need something supernatural to have interesting things like consciousness, and although my concise, crude generalizations are certainly not proof in any sense of the world, they should still give you a new look on the possibility. Your supernatural is intentionally not well-defined or falsifiable, so I cannot refute it, but you can refute my arguments. I didn't meant to convince you as much as I wanted to delight you with a new perspective, to make you think about the problem. The perspective is that the hard problem of consciousness can be trivially made easy once you realize that a being experiencing things is an unreliable witness, because their entire experience is manufactured by an organ that evolved to manipulate information, and this evolution is actually supported by physics, namely thermodynamics. > I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior It is superior in all the problem spaces. It's the best approach we have, the only legitimate one. You aren't going to be able to sit on a couch with a bunch of crystals and conjure the truth out of the Universe, you have to work for it, and you have to have a way to filter out your biases, and that's science. The one and only. It doesn't mean that you cannot have things like spirituality, because guess what, science is the way to understand that as well, and it can even help creating practices that enhances those experiences. I myself enjoy spirituality. It's a nice brain thing, everyone should have a spiritual life, just not via organized religion.
- mistermann 4y ago
  - Shamans can't have a medical error, or any error, since they don't do anything, they are scam artists and they know it. What is the source of your omniscience? > Our point of contention is whether you need something supernatural to have interesting things like consciousness That's part of it - another part is that you have no evidence for most of your claims. > Your supernatural is intentionally not well-defined or falsifiable My supernatural what?, so I cannot refute it, but you can refute my arguments. > I didn't meant to convince you as much as I wanted to delight you with a new perspective, to make you think about the problem. I suspect I've done a bit more thinking on the matter than you. > The perspective is that the hard problem of consciousness can be trivially made easy once you realize that a being experiencing things is an unreliable witness, because their entire experience is manufactured by an organ that evolved to manipulate information, and this evolution is actually supported by physics, namely thermodynamics. If you have no concern for, or perhaps knowledge of, logic (ternary) and epistemology. >> I am not disputing that science is the superior methodology for problems spaces where it is superior > It is superior in all the problem spaces. What is the source of your omniscience? > It's the best approach we have, the only legitimate one. What is the source of your omniscience? > You aren't going to be able to sit on a couch with a bunch of crystals and conjure the truth out of the Universe, you have to work for it Demonstrating your ignorance/delusion on the matter. > and you have to have a way to filter out your biases, and that's science. It seems to have done the opposite for you, like many others I've talked with. > The one and only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_... > It doesn't mean that you cannot have things like spirituality, because guess what, science is the way to understand that as well What is the source of your omniscience? > everyone should have a spiritual life, just not via organized religion. The religion of wild guesses might catch on.