From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 08:08:15 BST
Ian,
Ian said:
Erin, the "two realms" was not something I wanted to introduce. I was
simply referring to the fact that Scott was (seemed to be) dividing
the real world into areas where science was "valid" and areas where
religion / aesthetics et al were applicable, and by implication,
science not.
Scott:
I wouldn't call them "realms", but, yes, I hold that science's writ is a
limited one. However, I do not see this as a metaphysical divide, but as a
linguistic convention. We call some investigations scientific and others we
don't (and within the category "scientific" there are many methods -- in
this I am in synch with Feyerabend. We find out how electricity works by a
method peculiar to finding out how electricity works. This doesn't have much
in common with finding out, say, whether or not the universe is expanding,
or what the effect of the Fed increasing the interest rate will be.)
Ian said:
Scott, I don't know what scientism is.
I'm a "physicalist" I think. (What would once have been characterised
as a "materialist" in older times before new-physics proved to be so
awesome - Platt - there's a lot more to physics than material /
matter.)
Scott:
My dictionary defines "scientism" as "the principle that scientific methods
can and should be applied in all fields of investigation." That's not quite
how I was using it -- I was thinking of it as the principle that only that
which science can investigate is real -- but I think either way you qualify
as a scientism-ist, and therefore (this was the original issue), you are in
conflict with religion, while science itself is not.
Ian said:
The whole world is "the real world".
Physics (by axiomatic definition of the word) describes the real
world. All of it.
Anywhere where physics does not currently have accepted explanations,
are simply "gaps in knowledge".
Scott:
I will take this as a declaration of faith/hypothesis, that is, as *your*
axiom. The Greeks had a lot of other words for parts of reality than physis
(e.g., psyche, nous, logos), so saying that all those others are "really"
changes rung on physis is an assumption. I consider it to be a bad
assumption, for various reasons. Mainly, I see it as dependent on that slew
of changes in philosophy known as modernism, which came about due to a
change in consciousness. Barfield (Saving the Appearances) gives the full
argumentation. Here is a very brief synopsis of his thesis that I've posted
before:
"That, around 500 B.C. in Greece (and with parallel movements in the East),
consciousness started to change from what he called "original
participation", where subject and object had not split apart, where the
spirit in the trees was seen "behind" the tree, and where totemism made
sense (the social level was everything).
With the Greeks, what he calls alpha-thinking commenced, that is, thinking
about things. This requires that the things become objective, and that is
what happened, a process that didn't really become fully accomplished until
about 500 years ago, and which accomplishment made the scientific revolution
possible. So we are now in a state where the participation has gone
underground, so to speak, namely we are not conscious of it, yet it is still
there, since otherwise we couldn't be aware of anything. Or rather, our
being aware of anything is what he calls 'figuration' -- turning the
unrepresented into the represented. The future he calls 'final
participation', where we regain our connection with everything else, but as
opposed to original participation, the connection is experienced internally,
not externally."
Ian said:
The difference between my "faith" in physics and a religious "faith"
in a divine (causal) being / intelligence, lies in the nature of
explanation it provides. Religion provides none, except where it
disingenuously invokes primitive or mis-placed "scientific" causal
evidence to support its arguments.
(Which isn't to say religion doesn't have a place in the world - but
that's another story.)
Scott:
Indeed, too many religionists bought into this caricature that the
Enlightenment foisted on it, that religion consists of bad explanations for
things that science can explain better. But that is a caricature. Religion,
like art, is not about explaining things. It is about how to live in a world
assumed (by theists) to have been created by God, or (by nontheists)
impermanent/illusory, etc. Science doesn't contribute much to this.
Ian said:
Despite being a "physicalist", I am a spiritual person. Zen / MoQ are
part of the real world; whatever it is we use the "spirit" metaphor
for is also part of the real world.. That's why I'm here. For example,
I do in fact believe that intelligence and consciousness beyond the
confines of individual brains (or minds) will turn out to be real -
explainable by physics.
Scott:
While I would say that intelligence/consciousness has the task of explaining
physics, since it creates it. (I agree with Aquinas: "The object of nature
[res naturalis] is established between two intelligences", though, not being
a theist, I would not call one of the intelligences God. But that
"established between two intelligences" is what Barfield (and Aquinas) call
"participation". My point here is just to say that there is an alternative
to the "Physics does it" and "God does it" explanations, one that gets
beyond their limitations.)
Ian said:
I do not believe space-time is a "product" of
our consciousness - though all the metaphors we use clearly are.
Consciousness is just as much a part of physics as space and time.
(See definition of physics)
Scott:
Since the process of perception creates color, sound, touch, pain, smell,
and taste, why not space and time as well? We create the spacetime of our
dreams. Switching from the assumption that perception occurs withing a
spacetime box to the assumption that perception creates the spacetime box
resolves the Cartesian Theater problem without denying consciousness (as
Dennett, in effect, does), and without dualism, and without a pious hope
that someday science will solve it in terms of physics. It also makes simple
sense of quantum weirdness: there is a reality that is not our creation,
which quantum physics shows cannot be imagined in spatio-temporal terms. Its
spatio-temporal form is our creation, but that form cannot include all the
features of the unperceived reality (wave/particle duality, non-locality,
uncertainty when the space and/or time intervals become very small).
Ian said:
More specifically Scott, you're right, doubt is part of religion too.
As I say, the difference is in how physics EXPLAINS the areas of
uncertainty, and the "known" areas up to such wooly boundaries - the
reasons for the uncertainty itself.
So, no I do not recognise any limits to science (physics) whatsoever.
(Good science, high-quality science that is, not just any old
science). But I do not see that belief as "dogmatic" either. It's a
matter of choosing what to believe based on the "Quality" of the
explanation. (Of course having a good explanation of the physics, does
not mean science is necessarily the most useful model for making
decisions and causal predictions in the real world - there we need to
understand the levels in play - in the MoQ sense if we like.)
Scott:
It is dogmatic because you have selected physis as the basis for explaining
psyche, logos, etc., without having in hand even a hint of an explanation
for psyche and logos in terms of physis.
[skip]
Ian tested:
OK - a test.
Q. What is Ian's main point ?
A. Explanation. What constitutes a quality explanation.
Scott:
This is fine if you are looking for a quality explanation of electricity or
a quality description of planetary motion. Science provides the higher
quality explanations for those things. To jump from there to the claim that
the explanation of anything will find its higher quality explanation through
science is an enormous jump. Science works well on the repeatable and
empirically testable. Otherwise, not.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 21 2005 - 08:34:28 BST