Re: Disagreement Over *Meaning* and Values and Method and Progress !

--- In [email protected], Brett Hall <brhalluk@...> wrote:

> Speak for yourself. If you are guided by what is popular, so be it.
 
> I think the objective truth, which has nothing whatever to do with consensus, is a far better guide.

> You quote many famous people here in your reply. Sometimes, quotes are great. Sometimes, if they appear in spades, they are an appeal to authority. I have no respect for authority. 
> 

> Inter-intra is silly. It's not standard language people can understand. Why not stick to standard english?

> There is no first and primal cause. That's foundationalism, which is false. It's also an appeal to authority (the authority of prior things being more important than subsequent ones). It also makes no sense in its own terms. If causes are important to you...why are they not important when it comes to energy and consciousness? Why must they be without cause? Why give up trying to explain them?
> 

> Of course not. You need to value lots of stuff. Logical consistency. Evidence. Rationality. Of course there are values! Do you think we can be value free...anywhere?
> 
> 
> > a Science independent of political and economic gains?
> > 
> 
> What people are interested in discovering may at times, on the fringes, be influenced by politics and economics. But, only for a very short time. The truth "will out". You like people like Thomas Kuhn, right?

> As I have shown, it is not. You are wrong. 

> What kind of consciousnesses are there? 

> Do you know what consciousness is? Beyond saying you possess it, can you tell me more? As far as I know, no one has a good explanations. Explain it to me, if you can. 

> Removing doubt is not possible! *You* are on a quest for certainty, which cannot be obtained. Because certainty is not possible, this cannot be what "to know" means. Knowing is not the removal of any doubt. Doubt is always with us. 
> 
> But because you think science is about removing doubt and because you see it has failed to do this (you are actually right about that...science has failed to remove doubt, though it has never been the purpose of science to remove doubt) but because you see this as a failing of science you think science is weaker than it is.
> 
> You thus endorse relativism.
> 
> But it's okay. You can discover how knowledge *really* does emerge and grow. You need only realise that science has never been in the business of removing all doubt. Indeed it is an engine *of* doubt. All quests for knowledge begin in doubts. And by criticising creative explanatory theories, we can discard the ballast of useless deadends and make progress.
> 
> 
> You really must read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and The Beginning of Infinity. It will help you understand how better to discuss these philosophical matters, here, on this list, devoted to the work of that philosopher.

> All false. Break free!

> That's true. Stick with this. We need more interaction and argumentation to learn!
> 

> > Science and *rationality* could also be viewed from a historical point of view...that is, a mirrorinng, of our...own progresss as cultural/social/political/moral beings (that includes science and politics and religion.)
> > 
> 
> Yes. Sounds like you have read lots about the sociology of science. Did you start with Kuhn and then get into people like David Bloor? Has Barry Barnes made an appearance on your shelf?
> 
> Of course science can be looked at historically...or culturally...or morally. So what? No amount of looking at the history of science or politics of science changes the objectivity of science. It is, par excellance, an objective sphere of knowledge. With it, we can study stuff like history and culture.
> 

> The denial of objective knowledge is what is dangerous.


> > > Science has never been the "mere study of objects and materials". Without going into it too much, I return to my earlier hint about whether you endorsed the ontological distinction between subjective and objective reality. If you do, then you might realise that there are tentative steps into a subjective science of consciousness.

> > > But anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".


> Science is not based solely on economics in terms of profit. Unless you disagree, then we can move forward from that.

> 
> *You* have missed the point. Is general relativity progress over Newton's theory of gravity?

> Progress is easy. I said this. I don't get your objection to such a simple concept. Things improve. Theories get deeper and more explanatory. We make better stuff.
> 
> 
> If you do not believe in objective progress...why bother with your own research in psychology? Why not go fishing? Or do you think you can learn something new and improve stuff? Do you think you can do better? Make progress? 
> 

> If I need to explain all the logical fallacies there, we might have to start the whole conversation again. 
> 

> I think it is fair that some truths are the domain of science...and can come only from scientific inquiry and methods.

> 
> Again, seems to be a straw man. Just because some questions are the exclusive domain of science, and should be, doesn't mean everything need come from science. No one here would say that. Except you, it seems...when arguing against...who? The straw man.


> > > Everything anyone knows about anything, is a theory. Some theories are good explanations. Some are less so. Almost all are false and even those we currently think are correct are likely to be proven false.

> You are a relativist. And a justificationist. You believe, and desire, truth to be verified. You do not understand epistemology.
> 
> There is hope! Read David Deutsch's books! Back to back! It will help in these discussions. At the moment you disagree with almost all the themes in those books. It is so hard for me to know where to begin. But let's stick at it to see if we can reach agreement and make progress towards truth.
> 
 Why are you arguing this point? I can only guess you just don't understand the general themes underpinning the work of DD that this list is formed to discuss. I agree that science is not the exclusive final word on all things. It's the exclusive word on scientific matters. There is no final word. It cannot be the exclusive word on why, for example, we should value rationality over irrationality. Or what exactly a good explanation *is*.

> > > You're a justificationist. You should read about justificationism on these lists, or in DD's books. Justificationism is false.

> Um....you are not making much sense. This is intended to be a rational place. It is hard when you don't use at least some standard philosophical vocabulary. I don't think you want a serious discussion about the work of DD, hey?


> > > I don't think we need to invoke supernatural divinity to give meaning to stuff. I'm not sure how meaning works. You seem to be. So tell me more.

> > > Any attempt to link QM to divinity is metaphysical BS.
> > 

> It's serious. *You* should take it to heart. Most of what you said was not said clearly. That impedes us from reaching agreement. And that is possible. I am an optimist.
> 
> Brett.
> 
>

Hi Brett,

for the time being i will let you re-read and reflect on your own wordsand maybe, i say maybe, you will see for yourself the various contradictions and internal 'conflicts' in your reasoning, claims, and presentation here. 

At this time, i won't engage in to any further 'argumentation', simply bc it is obvious that you can not follow/understand my motives and aproaches, and reasoning and goals here. English is my third language and i will accept and take responsibility for some 'misunderstanding' here but it goes beyond this and other semantical implications.

Besides, the purpose of this list is about the work of DD -and his apparent hero/idol, Carl Popper.

My main 'mentor' and super-hero is Socrates, but then there so many others too, there are huge differences -in so many fronts- to be discussed and understood here,.. and while I am here to learn more, I am not willing to pay lip service to anyone.

There are major and very specific disagreements when it comes to methods and modes and goals of knowledge, and Science, and much more, of course, but am not sure if we could escape our own reasoning and traing and values, and politics and culture and experiences for that matter, necessary to engage in a truly productive and creative discussion here....well....ok...we'll see....at least, let's try to avoid potential and dangerous 'ad hocs' and ad hominen attacks? ;) 

However, since we talked about Human Evolution and Progress and Consciouness, and the marvles of Science and Technology, here are a few relevant articles and arguments that, hopefully, you might also find interesting:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0168952512001588/1-s2.0-S0168952512001588-main.pdf?_tid=a08f07f8-7e04-11e2-8249-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1361657091_34e510d7b6d91237bb014bcdc2a3dc3d

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S016895251200159X/1-s2.0-S016895251200159X-main.pdf?_tid=be207dce-7e04-11e2-ba16-00000aacb360&acdnat=1361657141_5c947fca49023e24d8c757d946af6268

http://download.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/PIIS0168952512002090.pdf?intermediate=true

http://download.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/PIIS0168952512001941.pdf?intermediate=true


http://bmi205.stanford.edu/_media/crabtree-2.pdf



and here is an interesting one on consciouness research/intersubjectivity:

http://www.frontiersin.org/consciousness_research/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00020/abstract



On a different note, I think it would be useful to read the following report as well:


http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/roc12.pdf



Finally, i think it would fair and even necesarry here, to mention the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousnees:

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf


;)

All the best

JAG



"We are only undeceived
Of that which, deceiving,
could no longer harm."
-T.S.Eliot, East Coker

"I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons,
knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside!"
-Rumi 

"Great men are they who see that spiritual is stronger than any material force; that thoughts rule the world." -Emerson, Progress of Culture.

"The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world is to be in reality what we would appear to be; all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice and experience of them." 
-Socrates

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." —Daniel Dennett, Darvin's Dangerous Idea


"Creativity is the power to connect the seemingly unconnected."
-Bertrand Russell