The Psychology Thread, I Guess...

Human Behavioral Biology by Robert Sapolsky

  Quote

Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky gave the opening lecture of the course entitled Human Behavioral Biology and explains the basic premise of the course and how he aims to avoid categorical thinking.

Scientism...it's everywhere.

Bill Nye, NDT, Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins...outside of basic scientific literacy, I think these people have done way more harm than good.

e.g.

These people are the Creationists of Philosophy of Science.

Shameful shit.

wrong, those guys do manage to wind up a lot of idiots though. I don't think you actually understand what Scientism is, or else you don't actually understand what those guys actually believe.

*double-checks Wikipedia entry on Scientism*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

  Quote

Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.

 

I'm happy to present my case

But that would require me to 'LimpyLoo' this thread

So I'm torn...

no you're not

  On 12/24/2016 at 2:37 AM, span said:

no you're not

Let's take them one at a time, here:

TL;DR = their positions amount to "my naive phi-sci axioms are the correct ones, so look no further lol"

PS as extra credit, here's a (slightly annoying) compilation of Lawrence Krauss talking about philosophy:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=hL4Gq1Le2rQ

  On 12/24/2016 at 12:03 AM, caze said:

wrong, those guys do manage to wind up a lot of idiots though. I don't think you actually understand what Scientism is, or else you don't actually understand what those guys actually believe.

edit: I'd say more but I figured it was good enough to rebut your "nuh uh" argument in kind.

I mean, here are some philosophy-of-science concerns, and how Scientism would address such concerns:

P: How would/can/should/does one avoid false-positives or -negatives when inferring 'second-level patterns' from 'first-level information' (e.g. 'empirical data')?

S: Lol dude, you just look at the empirical data.

P: Wittgenstein, Rorty etc claimed that our experience of much of the world was mediated by language, and that words are essentially data *encoded* by one person's epistemology and *decoded* by another's...how does one avoid coding errors given differences in epistemologies?

S: I hate shit like this lol.

Richard Dawkins: I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.

Kurt Godel: Yeah about that lol...

What are the risks of scientism concretely ? I mean if you follow a strict observation of the laws of nature/universe, you should have a Star Trek like universe. But the problem is not the concept/philosophy built around it, but humans being primates and making stupid shit.

  On 12/26/2016 at 6:42 PM, Diabrotikos said:

What are the risks of scientism concretely ?

I think one way to (dis)solve the question is by looking at the revelation Wittgenstein made between his first and second books:

First he thought all language was analytic/descriptive (because people naturally think this, and continue to, because our cognitive 'factory preset' seems to be 'Naive Realist' or perhaps 'Logical Positivist')

Then he realized that actually, most actual language used by actual humans was synthetic/prescriptive

So TL;DR of this:

Analytic/Descriptive = 'the world is like this'

Synthetic/Prescriptive = 'here's what that means for you, and what you might do about it'

This distinction shows up in a few different fields

The German Phenomenologists described three basic categories for the things you experience:

Um-Welt (the 'out' world)

Eigen-Welt (the 'in' world)

Mit-Welt (the "with" world)

So, Scientism is basically the hidden default assumption that in practice, language always and necessarily describes the 'Um-Welt'

(i.e. descriptive/analytic language)

And that that's exactly what language should do

or even that that's all it can do

And anyone not solely describing the 'Um-Welt' is talking bloody shite

(e.g. philosophy or religion)

The solution?

I think the solution is at the level of character

Dawkins and Krauss need to un-cling to the alleged supremacy of their knowledge

And entertain the possibility that the ghosts of their ancestors might know something they don't (sorry for the 'Mit-Welt' language)

I hear you, but 

  On 12/26/2016 at 7:15 PM, LimpyLoo said:

So, Scientism is basically the hidden default assumption that in practice, language always and necessarily describes the 'Um-Welt'

(i.e. descriptive/analytic language)
And that that's exactly what language should do
or even that that's all it can do
And anyone not solely describing the 'Um-Welt' is talking bloody shite
(e.g. philosophy or religion)

that's not what scientists do : abolishing people talking a certain language is automatically fascism (burping sounds is a natural right), and science/logic tells you to act for having a society with naturally happy people ≠ fascism.

I'm not really annoyed by the people watching Nye/etc... and Nye himself = those people will never open a math/philosophy book in their whole life besides college.

  On 12/26/2016 at 7:38 PM, Diabrotikos said:

I hear you, but

 

  On 12/26/2016 at 7:15 PM, LimpyLoo said:

So, Scientism is basically the hidden default assumption that in practice, language always and necessarily describes the 'Um-Welt'

(i.e. descriptive/analytic language)

And that that's exactly what language should do

or even that that's all it can do

And anyone not solely describing the 'Um-Welt' is talking bloody shite

(e.g. philosophy or religion)

that's not what scientists do : abolishing people talking a certain language is automatically fascism (burping sounds is a natural right), and science/logic tells you to act for having a society with naturally happy people ≠ fascism.

 

I'm not really annoyed by the people watching Nye/etc... and Nye himself = those people will never open a math/philosophy book in their whole life besides college.

But these folks are doing more than science

They are *massively* influencing public opinion about what is important and what isn't

They perpetually proclaim (with near-certainty) that there is nothing to see here

e.g. Dawkins was campaigning for the removal of 'philosophy of religion' from universities

Because, again, they're not describing the 'Um-Welt' and so obviously they're talking bullocks

The question of defining "bollocks" is not a hard one nowadays, thanks to the work of philosophers/mathematicians, but the problem is : the teaching of logic/criticism is not advanced enough in school nowadays, and even if we could reform education, the problem is deeper : majority of people don't use basic logic in everyday life.

I agree with you that certain people shouldn't act like a spokeperson, but that's what masses crave for : a recognizable figure, who speak in layman terms. If you're really interested in science, you go deeper and confront yourself with your ignorance, listening/reading about the actual scientist and his work. Ain't nobody got time for dat !

  On 12/26/2016 at 8:09 PM, Diabrotikos said:

The question of defining "bollocks" is not a hard one nowadays, thanks to the work of philosophers/mathematicians, but the problem is : the teaching of logic/criticism is not advanced enough in school nowadays, and even if we could reform education, the problem is deeper : majority of people don't use basic logic in everyday life.

 

I agree with you that certain people shouldn't act like a spokeperson, but that's what masses crave for : a recognizable figure, who speak in layman terms. If you're really interested in science, you go deeper and confront yourself with your ignorance, listening/reading about the actual scientist and his work. Ain't nobody got time for dat !

(That is literally my entire thesis about Scientism)

So your argument is eating its own tail

Now, we might disagree about whether the disciplines they're dismissing actually deserve to be dismissed or not

(I'm saying 'not')

But if we disagree on that, then see the start of my argument (this page or last) for my thoughts on that

  On 12/26/2016 at 8:18 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/26/2016 at 8:09 PM, Diabrotikos said:

The question of defining "bollocks" is not a hard one nowadays, thanks to the work of philosophers/mathematicians, but the problem is : the teaching of logic/criticism is not advanced enough in school nowadays, and even if we could reform education, the problem is deeper : majority of people don't use basic logic in everyday life.

 

I agree with you that certain people shouldn't act like a spokeperson, but that's what masses crave for : a recognizable figure, who speak in layman terms. If you're really interested in science, you go deeper and confront yourself with your ignorance, listening/reading about the actual scientist and his work. Ain't nobody got time for dat !

We have a *huge* blind spot about what belongs in the 'bullocks' category or not

(That is literally my entire thesis about Scientism)

 

So your argument is eating its own tail

 

Now, we might disagree about whether the disciplines they're dismissing actually deserve to be dismissed or not

(I'm saying 'not')

But if we disagree on that, then see the start of my argument (this page or last) for my thoughts on that

 

I'm with you : i don't think we should ignore philosophy, it came naturally to man, and i want the right to think about "useless" questions.

https://imgflip.com/i/1gprsk

(If anyone ever wants to 'shop a hunchback face on this dude I would be eternally grateful)

I hate tapatalk btw

  On 12/13/2016 at 10:49 PM, Godwin Austen said:

 

  On 12/12/2016 at 8:04 AM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

 

  On 12/10/2016 at 11:45 PM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 12/10/2016 at 11:40 PM, Godwin Austen said:

That Jordan Peterson video is brilliant. He explains it so well. This is stuff I've been dwelling on for the last couple of years, emerging as a consequence of experiences and acquired knowledge from many different fields -

This lecture is among of those which connects the dots with an archetypal and almost ancient knowledge where ideas like these already existed, and formed into coded imagery and myths. Fascinating how these old teachings are always clouded and obscured, compared with how today knowledge and wisdom are 'injected' into the Matrix, Neo-style... This shows that the old masters knew to retain the 'chaotic' aspects of acquiring knowledge - a path one should take.

 

I completely understand what you mean

 

me too, but it was typed sloppily. /goddamnit

 

Sorry fam, missed the plural there. Or was it something else?

 

 i tried fixing in your quote up above, but i don't know if i made them any better. dont worry about it fam, i still got you 

Science is incredible and brings us so much but what we know on that front constantly changes and it lacks essence.

  On 12/24/2016 at 6:10 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Richard Dawkins: I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.

Kurt Godel: Yeah about that lol...

My uninformed viewpoint is that we are just a big neural net or some shit with hidden variables, and determining state transitions involving hidden variables is outside Godel's Incompleteness Theorem of our universe's math and is undecidable.  Godel's Incompleteness Theorems = Halting Problem = attempting to get a full understanding of our universe from within it is impossible

I like to think of the universe as an experiment some nerd in a higher echelon universe is running on his computer and he forgot about it running in the background and went to take a piss, and he's wondering about the same philosophical questions we are.  It gives you perspective and lets you laugh and forget about unnerving shit you can't change from the past.

  On 12/26/2016 at 6:42 PM, Diabrotikos said:

What are the risks of scientism concretely ? I mean if you follow a strict observation of the laws of nature/universe, you should have a Star Trek like universe. But the problem is not the concept/philosophy built around it, but humans being primates and making stupid shit.

Is a Star Trek like universe preferable?  A utopia where the skilled can explore and the rest can pursue intellectual pursuits like literature and philosophy, freely and without any real responsibilities?  Would it remove part a large chunk of the things from which humans can achieve fulfillment, from the typical human experience - striving to overcome difficult goals (and eventually succeeding) when you really depend on it?  Or is that not a positive part of the human experience?

/sorry high

  On 12/30/2016 at 10:40 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 12/26/2016 at 6:42 PM, Diabrotikos said:

What are the risks of scientism concretely ? I mean if you follow a strict observation of the laws of nature/universe, you should have a Star Trek like universe. But the problem is not the concept/philosophy built around it, but humans being primates and making stupid shit.

I misread Diabrotik's question the first time and so I offered a tone-deaf answer...

You are making massive assumptions with your use of language

"If you follow a strict observation of the laws of nature..."

That is not what we do

We collect empirical data about some aspect of the natural world

and build models and make predictions and upvote the best models and predictions

We don't have an unmediated relationship with the world

Where we just scan the natural laws like a check-out gun at a grocery store

Every scientific discipline has to learn or re-learn this every few years

e.g. Why did we need Behavioral Economics to solve all the problems of Classical Economics?

Because our experience of the world is mediated by us

So our primary relationship is with our models and our language

It's not with nature, because it's not clear how that'd be possible

Here's Hilary Putnum talking about this if you're interested:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=et8kDNF_nEc

But look, our default naive assumption is that language is perfect and frictionless

That when you use a word or category to describe a snapshot of Nature

That therefor Nature is 'word-shaped' or 'category-shaped'

In other words: We collect water in buckets to measure it

But then we get convinced that water is bucket-shaped

And don't understand how it could be otherwise

  On 12/30/2016 at 12:28 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Here's Hilary Putnum talking about this if you're interested:

 

 

But look, our default naive assumption is that language is perfect and frictionless

That when you use a word or category to describe a snapshot of Nature

That therefor Nature is 'word-shaped' or 'category-shaped'

 

In other words: We collect water in buckets to measure it

But then we get convinced that water is bucket-shaped

And don't understand how it could be otherwise

Gorgeous description.  I believe this topic relates to algorithmic complexity theory and proof theory, since human-language based descriptions basically are proofs.  The algorithm for creating a proof of the universe is likely too complex to run within the universe from an algorithmic standpoint.  It wouldn't make sense for it not to be, since we are in the universe itself.  Undecidability of the string representing the proof since it may be infinitely long.  Symmetrical and analoguous to any problem rendered undecidable from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.