Those who back constructivism, whether they know it or not, provide a pretext for those who would care to dictate reality. We must be responsible with our constructs.
Thank you very much for your comment. It is clear that we often make binary problems that are actually continuous. For example the future is imminently predictable but only to a matter of degree. Is there for a mistake to say that the future is absolutely not predictable. This is true in non-linear dynamic systems whether there is a fundamental causal relationship between the past and present seems to dissipate over time. The number of iterations of time in which the prior data are no longer predictive is quantifiable.
Regarding your comment on meditation, I'm a firm believer that people can meditate in profoundly different ways.
I am looking forward to reading this new article on Desmet, thank you.
We have much to learn and there are myriad deep insights to tap into.
Funny you should mention that. I just re-read that book. IPAK-EDU Analytics will be revisiting all of this soon. I'll say more in an article. Read the Mattias article. The publisher had sent me a copy of the book to review. Re: the book, much is correct BUT... he does not truly understand the non-linear dynamics may not be predictable, but they can be stable (those are after all the ones that stay around long enough for us to find them).... and the boundary conditions, the tolerances, specificy a multi-dimensional tolerance of outcomes. MUCH more on this both in courses and in articles. We have a strong group of minds that will participate. Email me, I'll send you some details on the plan.
Well, I got bad news for you. The universe is just one of those things a wee bit too big for our tiny little brains, in the scheme of things, to understand and express within the limits of human language. Essentially we try to explain the unexplainable.
Me--I save myself the headache and stick to fiction, where I can do anything I want to. Quite soothing.
The mind operates on the brain. The mind connects us to whatever is out there, which can thereby intercede in our world. I think we are mostly left to our own devices, but often not. See (interpret) the Bible and Torah Codes for details.
Specifically as I read this analysis of Hoffman and time it made me think of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I think of that principal a lot though :). This article also reminded me of Henry Stapp's Mindful Universe. Thanks for the thought provoking article.
Harris and Hoffman are simply mouthing ancient religious doctrines-Dharmas dressed up in pseudo-scientific terminology. The belief in Fate i.e., absence of free will was a central tenet of Stoicism for example. Other examples are the Hindu concept of "Maya," i.e. the material world is an illusion, a manifestation of Brahma, the only true reality. In Taoism, the traditional religion of China, this ultimate reality is known as the Tao, or Dao, as symbolized by the dragon, ubiquitous throughout China. The true reality simply goes through illusory exterior changes. True reality never changes, simply repeats itself endlessly in the Wheel of Time. In Buddism we find the dharma-doctrine of "No-self" i.e., we do not exist as individual entities, merely as emenations of the "Buddha- Nature. These concepts are designed to undermine the "Western Mind," with its fundamental concepts of linear time, the scientific method, logical thinking, rationalism, mathematics, and empiricism. Hoffman gives himself away when he admits that he meditates two hours a day, meditation being an ancient religious-spiritual practice.
"All visible things are "maya"....One must strive to get rid of Maya, which devastates the mind; the destruction of the mind (manas) means the annihilation of Maya. Meditation is the only way in which to dominate Maya. (Adhilash Rajendran, https//www.hindu.com)
.....this IS my playground, Jamie - HAS been for a while now and, although the associated existential, scale-unifying framework I've identified can't be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated in its EVERY aspect - at present, feel that it's built on a VERY solid foundation.....evidence has overwhelmingly shown that natural order INITIALLY (however applicable that word is HERE; conceded) goes from simplest expression to most-complex organizational patterns, NEVER the reverse.....an ability to recognize aspects of our 'existence'' is determined by decreasingly-subjective experience of MAGNETIC (every other such as even 'gravity', RELATED 'time', 'electricity', heat' SECONDARY or tertiary) resonant informational effects to the mixed media (and evolutionarily-designed INSTRUMENTS for same, such as eyes - 'light', conceptually RESULTING from them, ears - likewise 'sound', fingers) of varying densities that we ALL are.....NO better example of material consciousness can be FOUND, than what's CALLED 'blood' - or, MORE accurately, 'plasma' (but AGAIN, as ALL 'life' - INCLUDING 'water', is) providing a VITAL resonant value, baseline reference point which, when it's compromised or even interrupted altogether, ultimately produces necrotization / tissue 'death', devitalization.....
This is an operational description about how science works, not a hypothesis.
Nevertheless, it is falsifiable, bcause I can make up any statement I want and claim that it's true. Through the process of proper hypothesis testing i.e., science. You can test i my claims and I can test yours. If you cannot test my claim, and I cannot test yours, the claim falls outside of the demarcation of science. It's still a claim, it's just not a scientific hypothesis. We can actually study the rate at which the operational protocol of science in hypothesis testing leads to false positives and false negatives, and therefore we can determine under which conditions it is likely to lead to correct inference. We never make universal claims in science. We attempt to reject the hypotheses not prove it. But nevertheless the entire paradigm is potentially falsifiable yes. It has withstood the empirical test of time. There are those who claim to have debunked Popper and hypothesis testing, but there is very little in terms of material impact on their claims on how science is conducted.
"This is an operational description about how science works, not a hypothesis."
It's how *you claim* science works, not how all actual scientists claim it works. E.g. see Newton's Rules of Reasoning. In any case, I don't accept your description/demarcation. Which means that much of what you just wrote is begging one of the questions (i.e. you assume your definition in order to make your case -- but your definition hasn't been demonstrated as legitimate.)
"Nevertheless, it is falsifiable, bcause I can make up any statement I want and claim that it's true."
This either makes no sense or isn't phrased very well. And I think you need to offer up a specific test, right? As in, a specific experiment that we can run whose outcome would, if it went in an "unexpected" way, prove that your claim is false.
"We can actually study the rate at which the operational protocol of science in hypothesis testing leads to false positives and false negatives, and therefore we can determine under which conditions it is likely to lead to correct inference."
This is non-sequitur. The original question is of the "All S is P" form, it either is or isn't falsifiable; statistical answers are mere probabilities.
"There are those who claim to have debunked Popper and hypothesis testing, but there is very little in terms of material impact on their claims on how science is conducted."
On the other hand, it's also pretty easy for Popperians to not comprehend the argument, just as Popper didn't comprehend induction.
Actually, I asked a binary question and indicated how your answer wasn't an answer to it.
"Induction is very straightforward: what part of it do you think Popper did not grasp?"
E.g. Popper thinks induction needs to be proved via deductive logic, by virtue of what was deductive logic proved? Popper failed to comprehend Hume. Russell got it right:
“It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume [on the problem of induction] within the framework of a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity. The lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority, or rather – since we must not assume democracy – on the ground that the government does not agree with him. This is a desperate point of view, and it must be hoped that there is some way of escaping from it. … What [Hume’s] arguments prove – and I do not think the proof can be controverted – is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible.”
It's MY question. I get to say what it means, not you. If you don't like what I meant by my question, then you can critique that meaning, but you don't get to tell me what I mean.
okay, so science, the rationale, which is descending into the deeper levels of being corrupted badly in the direction of becoming the faith-based religion of scientism...
has worthiness to the degree it provides meaningfully predictability which is compromised to the degree this perspective considers from a math-based, atomistic, maximin resolution, bottom-up reductionistic, limited modeled perspective...
which leaves out the perspective of what is the energized archetypical setting of potential from which our observed experience within consciousness births forth from, this model considered for meaningful predictability within a top-down reductionistic framework, that sure we can play strawman about the opposites of the aether vs atomism polarity but whatever we call it i would contend that science is compromised without this as a developed perspective, that to perceive at any level of scientific depth perception you need to consider from more that the solo perspective that is atomism...
all this driven by the issue of the insecurity that goes along with accepting that meaningful predictability is the best science the rationale can provide, that any concept of truth, morals, ethics, is at best a social concept which has been valuated to at least the meaningful predictability of what is perceived to serve us well...
that much of our social life is beyond meaningfully predictable where we are by default required to consider from an irrational, what feels most warm and fuzzy, perspective, so the setting where intuitive hunches birth forth from, where chaos theory explains CG Jung's concept of synchronicity...
I get your frustration with scientism, but if we do Science instead, it will be a better world.
The utilty of Science is the degree to which we reduce pain & suffering, and the degree to which we can better understand the world, the universe, and each other. What people like Fauci are doing is ushering in a new Dark Ages.
well yes pragmatically to the degree science provides meaningfully predictability it keeps us safe from the experience of unnecessary pain which becomes real as real tends to get, so agree science has primary worthiness, just would contend that we need to give up the neediness of this becoming an absolute, that what is absolute truth becomes what defines eternity, not defined by Fauci types...
so do support/share a love for science, science as a primary tool for co-creating a better society, a world/setting where the need to solve currently being created problems for which we currently have no/little clue how to solve can be solved within a healthier psychology which has the wisdom not to create something new out of knowledge without knowing first how to take it back apart in ways that don't cause an ecocidal dark age...
and just finishing Mattias Desmet's, The Psychology of Totalitarism, overall i find it an excellent book to give an current intro into the topic, which for me it stays well enough within what i would include as being within science that i don't have an issue, but then might note that for me CG Jung stays within my acceptance of what fits within science...
so other than maybe Mattias does not consider enough the potential for what which can be tested for and brought out of the unknown into knowledge, now i would contend that he leaves out some concepts, like Jung's concept of the inner opposites, which i would contend might add relevant psychological modeling that i at least tend to find meaningfully predictable, just note to test/verify this beyond just me is work left to be done...
Lol, most respectfully, (and especially because i am very keen to read your book, with a title like that!), what you call Science, I call codified kindergarten, dogma these days. 🤗
I know, because I have seen, touched, breathed and nurtured, REAL science...those of us who are in it daily, we call it Nature.
So, we KNOW we are capable of so much more, because we ARE energy. I've tried, and continue to try and disprove THAT hypothesis.
Fauci and Co, simply abused and continue to abuse, institutionalised administrative laxity, egocentric pandering and innattentive minds, in an already rusty faux pavillion. But to limit an abstract concept of validity or "hypotheses' on its ability to be reproduced, as able to determine whether it is "Science", is as childish as a 5yr olds inability to understand themselves as NOT the centre of the universe/galaxy. It does not make it wrong/untrue, but does not make it true, or require us to move the sun! It depends on perspective.
As some in the scientific community and it's 'dodgy cousin' known as "bureaucracy" have discovered, this age has lost its moral centre. It's philosophers.
And so the scientists no longer have their brother philosophers compass to guide and challenge them to do...not "successfully", "grant-worthy", or 'vox populi'.... but BETTER. Seeking the gnosis.
So if this is the dark ages 2.0, then I embrace the onslaught, because I know (without egocentric need to "prove" it to myself), that the renaissance is coming, because in one of many, or even just in mine, it is already here.😊🤯😉 And it will/is beautiful!!🤔🤗🙏
Your comment tells me you don't understand what Science is. Science never proves anything. Science is not egocentric. The very definition of non-ecocentric cognition.
The damage that has been done to the reputation of Science by those who have been selling pseudoscience as Science has reached you.
I am glad to have made this connection. Perhaps if you do some more reading on the tyranny of pseudoscience, for instance. You'll see that we are in agreement if you replace the word "science" in your thoughts with "pseudoscience" and "scientism" and you'll see that science is not as you describe it. Please see https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2016/03/13/the-tyranny-of-pseudoscience/
so, the search for a more meaningful conceptual match within whatever reality might be, this starting with the defining of the word science...
that sure, science defined as being an over dominant focus within quantifiable falsifiability this shadow driven by desires for the empowerment within the shadowlands of the dare not question...
that yes would contend that this would better become what labels scientism, however, this does not necessitate that we sacrifice the head of the word science to make amends, science being just a word in the hunt for its serves us best common understanding which okay yes appears is overdue a revision...
however, at some point we get to the gates of the current limits of what the rationale can provide, come to the limits within the box of what is the current knowledge poteintal of meaningful predictability, are left with what we have to work with within the irrational, which starts within the spectrum of what feels warm and fuzzy all the way to its opposite of what does not...
such that to me at least, a clear distinction can be made between science vs scientism, that science knows where these gates are, and scientism denies their existence...
you might be quite interested in quantum physicist Nicolas Gisin's use of L.E.J. Brouwer's Intuitionist Mathematics. These address many of these same problems and frame it as the problematic assumption of infinity within the idealist mathematics we currently use. Gisin's basic premise is that you can't use real numbers, which he renames "random numbers" because they assume an infinite amount of information within a finite space which is not possible. This brings back in time. This is a big argument he makes, using Brouwer's mathematics and quite profound. I have an article coming out in the fall in a Bloomsbury publication titled discussing this from the perspective of medieval Indian philosophy, the 11th century philosopher Abhinavagupta. “Abhinavagupta’s Svātantryavāda: Mental Causality, Emergentism and Intuitionist Mathematics” in Cross Cultural Approaches to Consciousness: Mind, Nature and Ultimate Reality. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2022.
“math itself is a human construct that fairly well represents the necessary relationships among objects and processes, and numbers about objects and processes”
Agreed 100%!!!
What are your views on logic? Tool constructed by humans? Or somehow intrinsic to or inherently part of reality? Or something else entirely?
On Hoffman? I don’t know. But I strongly believe that what each of us holds in our mind as reality, is as much an approximation to reality as mathematics is. One thing mathematics allows us is a kind of social contract on a person-independent level to judge and settle discrepancies between our mental models. A sort of agreed upon ruler by which we measure “truth.” Its utility to humanity has been incalculable. Is it the best way? No idea.
Lastly, I’m beginning to wonder if there are significant advantages to allowing a small number of people to dictate reality(TM) to the rest. It’s been done that way for most if not all of recorded history. Even recorded history itself is an instance of exactly that. I’m afraid of what feels like impending tyranny, but when I compare it to the past, it feels the same. And we’re all still here. And we’re more advanced than before. Could it be that this friction is routine in human history and is simply part of the story? Could it be a significant driver of huge innovations and improvements? Could the friction we’re experiencing be a signal that we’re about to break free of the cycle of tyranny for what seems like the first time in human history? I don’t know any answers to any of these questions, but I’m starting to see value in the stability offered by dictators of the reality(TM). Despite the previous pattern that highly educated and critical people like me are the first to get trampled by the tyranny.
Thank you for your comment. I would question the conclusion that we're all still here. There is no doubt survivorship bias. And leave me all well be empowered with predisposition to defer to more powerful authority based on the evolutionary principle of survival and reproduction for obvious reasons. Past tyranny his daughter justification for present or future tyranny. But maybe adoptive at one scale IE the individual May well prove to be maladaptive at a larger scale IE a society or planet.
As for my views on logic, it is a historical fact that it is a a human construct. That is not to say that something like logic does not exist in nature in terms of the laws of consequences and causal that works. Animals exhibit the use of something akin to logic but we can't be sure of the type or amount of cognition involved, whether it's similar to human developed formal logic. I would hasten to guess that I believe many animals perform logic in the sense that there are neural networks are de facto logic gates and switches, if we understand the process of decision making at the cellular level as well as we think that we do. However formal logic leads to counterintuitive results that can and do fool biological computers. Consider for example Bertrand's box "paradox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox
I'm reading Hoffman's book "The case against reality" at the moment (I recommend it). I've not finished it, so this may be incomplete, but I think a) he takes the position you can be sure of the "I am" and b) his argument about the interface can be mathematically backed up by what he calls the Fitness Beats Truth Theorem.
Math is model. So of course he sees model. It is well known in evolution that the most adaptive solutions may not actually be those that require the fewest steps. Kk it's also known that sometimes fuzziness in the solution set provided by adaptive evolution is better than an exact match. There are many empirical examples of this phenomenon not the least of which is the maintenance of genetic diversity.
More on this point, I am aware and have studied to some degree the problem of the lack of ability of many people to derive proper conclusions in the face of situations in which Bayes' theorem applies. An example of that is Bertrand' box paradox. The fact that it is called a paradox is that the core of the issue that I have with this type of thinking. In reality, only if we focus on the people who do not perceive the proper solution to a complex problem as evidence that our brains can lie to us about the world do we risk coming to the erroneous conclusion that our brains are lying to us at all times, clearly and unwarranted generalization. Plus we must keep forgetting about those who people who see through the misguided solutions and render the correct solution with the same organs of perception and the same organ of cognition as those who were successfully fooled. Our software might mislead us but our hardware is capable of doing far better. I'm fascinated on the limits of human cognition. So this is a good discussion to have. Thank you.
I haven’t studied much of Hoffman - just one Friedman video - but it seems to me, James, that you see through his claims pretty well. Yes, Hoffman says some interesting things, but the plain English word “reality” means something that is necessarily (in virtue of the meaning of the word) distinguishable from appearance. That doesn’t imply anything about what reality is or whether we can always separate it from appearance, or how that is to be done when we do it - though surely we sometimes do know when appearances have deceived us. It also doesn't imply anything about the nature of reality. The point I'm making is a semantic/conceptual one, not an empirical one.
Take, for example, the perceptual illusion of seeing a cube where there isn’t one. Hoffman says our minds create the cube. Huh? Of course we all get what he means - we see the cube and we get the idea that the appearance has been created by the way our eyes and minds work. But if he were being really careful about using words, would we agree with the way he makes the claim? Did our minds create a cube? No. We did not take a piece of clay and shape it like a cube. To be exact, that - or some similar process - is what it means to create a cube. Hoffman, without noticing it, has conflated appearance with reality. Then when he mixes that conflation with a lot of interesting ideas, theories and observations it all sounds profound and difficult to grasp. But maybe it isn’t so profound - just confused.
Okay, maybe I just haven’t studied Hoffman enough to understand what he’s really saying. But talk of “real reality” seems a pleonasm to me, indicating that the word “reality” wasn’t properly understood in the first place.
Thank you very much for your comment. It is clear that we often make binary problems that are actually continuous. For example the future is imminently predictable but only to a matter of degree. Is there for a mistake to say that the future is absolutely not predictable. This is true in non-linear dynamic systems whether there is a fundamental causal relationship between the past and present seems to dissipate over time. The number of iterations of time in which the prior data are no longer predictive is quantifiable.
Regarding your comment on meditation, I'm a firm believer that people can meditate in profoundly different ways.
I am looking forward to reading this new article on Desmet, thank you.
We have much to learn and there are myriad deep insights to tap into.
Funny you should mention that. I just re-read that book. IPAK-EDU Analytics will be revisiting all of this soon. I'll say more in an article. Read the Mattias article. The publisher had sent me a copy of the book to review. Re: the book, much is correct BUT... he does not truly understand the non-linear dynamics may not be predictable, but they can be stable (those are after all the ones that stay around long enough for us to find them).... and the boundary conditions, the tolerances, specificy a multi-dimensional tolerance of outcomes. MUCH more on this both in courses and in articles. We have a strong group of minds that will participate. Email me, I'll send you some details on the plan.
A little online open discourse never hurt anyone
Well, I got bad news for you. The universe is just one of those things a wee bit too big for our tiny little brains, in the scheme of things, to understand and express within the limits of human language. Essentially we try to explain the unexplainable.
Me--I save myself the headache and stick to fiction, where I can do anything I want to. Quite soothing.
That's a huge knowledge claim!
Skewered me!
:) Hope you're ok.
Making another cup of hot strong sweet tea, as the British murder mysteries always call it, even as I type...
The mind operates on the brain. The mind connects us to whatever is out there, which can thereby intercede in our world. I think we are mostly left to our own devices, but often not. See (interpret) the Bible and Torah Codes for details.
Specifically as I read this analysis of Hoffman and time it made me think of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I think of that principal a lot though :). This article also reminded me of Henry Stapp's Mindful Universe. Thanks for the thought provoking article.
Harris and Hoffman are simply mouthing ancient religious doctrines-Dharmas dressed up in pseudo-scientific terminology. The belief in Fate i.e., absence of free will was a central tenet of Stoicism for example. Other examples are the Hindu concept of "Maya," i.e. the material world is an illusion, a manifestation of Brahma, the only true reality. In Taoism, the traditional religion of China, this ultimate reality is known as the Tao, or Dao, as symbolized by the dragon, ubiquitous throughout China. The true reality simply goes through illusory exterior changes. True reality never changes, simply repeats itself endlessly in the Wheel of Time. In Buddism we find the dharma-doctrine of "No-self" i.e., we do not exist as individual entities, merely as emenations of the "Buddha- Nature. These concepts are designed to undermine the "Western Mind," with its fundamental concepts of linear time, the scientific method, logical thinking, rationalism, mathematics, and empiricism. Hoffman gives himself away when he admits that he meditates two hours a day, meditation being an ancient religious-spiritual practice.
"All visible things are "maya"....One must strive to get rid of Maya, which devastates the mind; the destruction of the mind (manas) means the annihilation of Maya. Meditation is the only way in which to dominate Maya. (Adhilash Rajendran, https//www.hindu.com)
We are all ignorant, only of different things.
.....this IS my playground, Jamie - HAS been for a while now and, although the associated existential, scale-unifying framework I've identified can't be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated in its EVERY aspect - at present, feel that it's built on a VERY solid foundation.....evidence has overwhelmingly shown that natural order INITIALLY (however applicable that word is HERE; conceded) goes from simplest expression to most-complex organizational patterns, NEVER the reverse.....an ability to recognize aspects of our 'existence'' is determined by decreasingly-subjective experience of MAGNETIC (every other such as even 'gravity', RELATED 'time', 'electricity', heat' SECONDARY or tertiary) resonant informational effects to the mixed media (and evolutionarily-designed INSTRUMENTS for same, such as eyes - 'light', conceptually RESULTING from them, ears - likewise 'sound', fingers) of varying densities that we ALL are.....NO better example of material consciousness can be FOUND, than what's CALLED 'blood' - or, MORE accurately, 'plasma' (but AGAIN, as ALL 'life' - INCLUDING 'water', is) providing a VITAL resonant value, baseline reference point which, when it's compromised or even interrupted altogether, ultimately produces necrotization / tissue 'death', devitalization.....
"Falsifiability is the hallmark of Science: Any hypothesis worth considering must be testable."
Is this proposition falsifiable? If yes, how? If no, then how do you verify that it's true?
This is an operational description about how science works, not a hypothesis.
Nevertheless, it is falsifiable, bcause I can make up any statement I want and claim that it's true. Through the process of proper hypothesis testing i.e., science. You can test i my claims and I can test yours. If you cannot test my claim, and I cannot test yours, the claim falls outside of the demarcation of science. It's still a claim, it's just not a scientific hypothesis. We can actually study the rate at which the operational protocol of science in hypothesis testing leads to false positives and false negatives, and therefore we can determine under which conditions it is likely to lead to correct inference. We never make universal claims in science. We attempt to reject the hypotheses not prove it. But nevertheless the entire paradigm is potentially falsifiable yes. It has withstood the empirical test of time. There are those who claim to have debunked Popper and hypothesis testing, but there is very little in terms of material impact on their claims on how science is conducted.
"This is an operational description about how science works, not a hypothesis."
It's how *you claim* science works, not how all actual scientists claim it works. E.g. see Newton's Rules of Reasoning. In any case, I don't accept your description/demarcation. Which means that much of what you just wrote is begging one of the questions (i.e. you assume your definition in order to make your case -- but your definition hasn't been demonstrated as legitimate.)
"Nevertheless, it is falsifiable, bcause I can make up any statement I want and claim that it's true."
This either makes no sense or isn't phrased very well. And I think you need to offer up a specific test, right? As in, a specific experiment that we can run whose outcome would, if it went in an "unexpected" way, prove that your claim is false.
"We can actually study the rate at which the operational protocol of science in hypothesis testing leads to false positives and false negatives, and therefore we can determine under which conditions it is likely to lead to correct inference."
This is non-sequitur. The original question is of the "All S is P" form, it either is or isn't falsifiable; statistical answers are mere probabilities.
"There are those who claim to have debunked Popper and hypothesis testing, but there is very little in terms of material impact on their claims on how science is conducted."
On the other hand, it's also pretty easy for Popperians to not comprehend the argument, just as Popper didn't comprehend induction.
No, it's how Popper described it.
I studied and mastered his formal calculus.
You have binarized a continuous problem and called the actual situation (on the ground) non-sequitur. Interesting.
Induction is very straightforward: what part of it do you think Popper did not grasp?
"You have binarized a continuous problem"
Actually, I asked a binary question and indicated how your answer wasn't an answer to it.
"Induction is very straightforward: what part of it do you think Popper did not grasp?"
E.g. Popper thinks induction needs to be proved via deductive logic, by virtue of what was deductive logic proved? Popper failed to comprehend Hume. Russell got it right:
“It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume [on the problem of induction] within the framework of a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity. The lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority, or rather – since we must not assume democracy – on the ground that the government does not agree with him. This is a desperate point of view, and it must be hoped that there is some way of escaping from it. … What [Hume’s] arguments prove – and I do not think the proof can be controverted – is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible.”
Your precept that that is a binary question is incorrect.
It's MY question. I get to say what it means, not you. If you don't like what I meant by my question, then you can critique that meaning, but you don't get to tell me what I mean.
I should not have to point this out to you.
okay, so science, the rationale, which is descending into the deeper levels of being corrupted badly in the direction of becoming the faith-based religion of scientism...
has worthiness to the degree it provides meaningfully predictability which is compromised to the degree this perspective considers from a math-based, atomistic, maximin resolution, bottom-up reductionistic, limited modeled perspective...
which leaves out the perspective of what is the energized archetypical setting of potential from which our observed experience within consciousness births forth from, this model considered for meaningful predictability within a top-down reductionistic framework, that sure we can play strawman about the opposites of the aether vs atomism polarity but whatever we call it i would contend that science is compromised without this as a developed perspective, that to perceive at any level of scientific depth perception you need to consider from more that the solo perspective that is atomism...
all this driven by the issue of the insecurity that goes along with accepting that meaningful predictability is the best science the rationale can provide, that any concept of truth, morals, ethics, is at best a social concept which has been valuated to at least the meaningful predictability of what is perceived to serve us well...
that much of our social life is beyond meaningfully predictable where we are by default required to consider from an irrational, what feels most warm and fuzzy, perspective, so the setting where intuitive hunches birth forth from, where chaos theory explains CG Jung's concept of synchronicity...
I get your frustration with scientism, but if we do Science instead, it will be a better world.
The utilty of Science is the degree to which we reduce pain & suffering, and the degree to which we can better understand the world, the universe, and each other. What people like Fauci are doing is ushering in a new Dark Ages.
well yes pragmatically to the degree science provides meaningfully predictability it keeps us safe from the experience of unnecessary pain which becomes real as real tends to get, so agree science has primary worthiness, just would contend that we need to give up the neediness of this becoming an absolute, that what is absolute truth becomes what defines eternity, not defined by Fauci types...
so do support/share a love for science, science as a primary tool for co-creating a better society, a world/setting where the need to solve currently being created problems for which we currently have no/little clue how to solve can be solved within a healthier psychology which has the wisdom not to create something new out of knowledge without knowing first how to take it back apart in ways that don't cause an ecocidal dark age...
and just finishing Mattias Desmet's, The Psychology of Totalitarism, overall i find it an excellent book to give an current intro into the topic, which for me it stays well enough within what i would include as being within science that i don't have an issue, but then might note that for me CG Jung stays within my acceptance of what fits within science...
so other than maybe Mattias does not consider enough the potential for what which can be tested for and brought out of the unknown into knowledge, now i would contend that he leaves out some concepts, like Jung's concept of the inner opposites, which i would contend might add relevant psychological modeling that i at least tend to find meaningfully predictable, just note to test/verify this beyond just me is work left to be done...
best...
Lol, most respectfully, (and especially because i am very keen to read your book, with a title like that!), what you call Science, I call codified kindergarten, dogma these days. 🤗
I know, because I have seen, touched, breathed and nurtured, REAL science...those of us who are in it daily, we call it Nature.
So, we KNOW we are capable of so much more, because we ARE energy. I've tried, and continue to try and disprove THAT hypothesis.
Fauci and Co, simply abused and continue to abuse, institutionalised administrative laxity, egocentric pandering and innattentive minds, in an already rusty faux pavillion. But to limit an abstract concept of validity or "hypotheses' on its ability to be reproduced, as able to determine whether it is "Science", is as childish as a 5yr olds inability to understand themselves as NOT the centre of the universe/galaxy. It does not make it wrong/untrue, but does not make it true, or require us to move the sun! It depends on perspective.
As some in the scientific community and it's 'dodgy cousin' known as "bureaucracy" have discovered, this age has lost its moral centre. It's philosophers.
And so the scientists no longer have their brother philosophers compass to guide and challenge them to do...not "successfully", "grant-worthy", or 'vox populi'.... but BETTER. Seeking the gnosis.
So if this is the dark ages 2.0, then I embrace the onslaught, because I know (without egocentric need to "prove" it to myself), that the renaissance is coming, because in one of many, or even just in mine, it is already here.😊🤯😉 And it will/is beautiful!!🤔🤗🙏
Your comment tells me you don't understand what Science is. Science never proves anything. Science is not egocentric. The very definition of non-ecocentric cognition.
The damage that has been done to the reputation of Science by those who have been selling pseudoscience as Science has reached you.
I am glad to have made this connection. Perhaps if you do some more reading on the tyranny of pseudoscience, for instance. You'll see that we are in agreement if you replace the word "science" in your thoughts with "pseudoscience" and "scientism" and you'll see that science is not as you describe it. Please see https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2016/03/13/the-tyranny-of-pseudoscience/
so, the search for a more meaningful conceptual match within whatever reality might be, this starting with the defining of the word science...
that sure, science defined as being an over dominant focus within quantifiable falsifiability this shadow driven by desires for the empowerment within the shadowlands of the dare not question...
that yes would contend that this would better become what labels scientism, however, this does not necessitate that we sacrifice the head of the word science to make amends, science being just a word in the hunt for its serves us best common understanding which okay yes appears is overdue a revision...
however, at some point we get to the gates of the current limits of what the rationale can provide, come to the limits within the box of what is the current knowledge poteintal of meaningful predictability, are left with what we have to work with within the irrational, which starts within the spectrum of what feels warm and fuzzy all the way to its opposite of what does not...
such that to me at least, a clear distinction can be made between science vs scientism, that science knows where these gates are, and scientism denies their existence...
you might be quite interested in quantum physicist Nicolas Gisin's use of L.E.J. Brouwer's Intuitionist Mathematics. These address many of these same problems and frame it as the problematic assumption of infinity within the idealist mathematics we currently use. Gisin's basic premise is that you can't use real numbers, which he renames "random numbers" because they assume an infinite amount of information within a finite space which is not possible. This brings back in time. This is a big argument he makes, using Brouwer's mathematics and quite profound. I have an article coming out in the fall in a Bloomsbury publication titled discussing this from the perspective of medieval Indian philosophy, the 11th century philosopher Abhinavagupta. “Abhinavagupta’s Svātantryavāda: Mental Causality, Emergentism and Intuitionist Mathematics” in Cross Cultural Approaches to Consciousness: Mind, Nature and Ultimate Reality. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2022.
“Falsifiability is the hallmark of Science”
“math itself is a human construct that fairly well represents the necessary relationships among objects and processes, and numbers about objects and processes”
Agreed 100%!!!
What are your views on logic? Tool constructed by humans? Or somehow intrinsic to or inherently part of reality? Or something else entirely?
On Hoffman? I don’t know. But I strongly believe that what each of us holds in our mind as reality, is as much an approximation to reality as mathematics is. One thing mathematics allows us is a kind of social contract on a person-independent level to judge and settle discrepancies between our mental models. A sort of agreed upon ruler by which we measure “truth.” Its utility to humanity has been incalculable. Is it the best way? No idea.
Lastly, I’m beginning to wonder if there are significant advantages to allowing a small number of people to dictate reality(TM) to the rest. It’s been done that way for most if not all of recorded history. Even recorded history itself is an instance of exactly that. I’m afraid of what feels like impending tyranny, but when I compare it to the past, it feels the same. And we’re all still here. And we’re more advanced than before. Could it be that this friction is routine in human history and is simply part of the story? Could it be a significant driver of huge innovations and improvements? Could the friction we’re experiencing be a signal that we’re about to break free of the cycle of tyranny for what seems like the first time in human history? I don’t know any answers to any of these questions, but I’m starting to see value in the stability offered by dictators of the reality(TM). Despite the previous pattern that highly educated and critical people like me are the first to get trampled by the tyranny.
Highly enjoyable article!!
Thank you for your comment. I would question the conclusion that we're all still here. There is no doubt survivorship bias. And leave me all well be empowered with predisposition to defer to more powerful authority based on the evolutionary principle of survival and reproduction for obvious reasons. Past tyranny his daughter justification for present or future tyranny. But maybe adoptive at one scale IE the individual May well prove to be maladaptive at a larger scale IE a society or planet.
As for my views on logic, it is a historical fact that it is a a human construct. That is not to say that something like logic does not exist in nature in terms of the laws of consequences and causal that works. Animals exhibit the use of something akin to logic but we can't be sure of the type or amount of cognition involved, whether it's similar to human developed formal logic. I would hasten to guess that I believe many animals perform logic in the sense that there are neural networks are de facto logic gates and switches, if we understand the process of decision making at the cellular level as well as we think that we do. However formal logic leads to counterintuitive results that can and do fool biological computers. Consider for example Bertrand's box "paradox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox
I'm reading Hoffman's book "The case against reality" at the moment (I recommend it). I've not finished it, so this may be incomplete, but I think a) he takes the position you can be sure of the "I am" and b) his argument about the interface can be mathematically backed up by what he calls the Fitness Beats Truth Theorem.
Math is model. So of course he sees model. It is well known in evolution that the most adaptive solutions may not actually be those that require the fewest steps. Kk it's also known that sometimes fuzziness in the solution set provided by adaptive evolution is better than an exact match. There are many empirical examples of this phenomenon not the least of which is the maintenance of genetic diversity.
More on this point, I am aware and have studied to some degree the problem of the lack of ability of many people to derive proper conclusions in the face of situations in which Bayes' theorem applies. An example of that is Bertrand' box paradox. The fact that it is called a paradox is that the core of the issue that I have with this type of thinking. In reality, only if we focus on the people who do not perceive the proper solution to a complex problem as evidence that our brains can lie to us about the world do we risk coming to the erroneous conclusion that our brains are lying to us at all times, clearly and unwarranted generalization. Plus we must keep forgetting about those who people who see through the misguided solutions and render the correct solution with the same organs of perception and the same organ of cognition as those who were successfully fooled. Our software might mislead us but our hardware is capable of doing far better. I'm fascinated on the limits of human cognition. So this is a good discussion to have. Thank you.
I haven’t studied much of Hoffman - just one Friedman video - but it seems to me, James, that you see through his claims pretty well. Yes, Hoffman says some interesting things, but the plain English word “reality” means something that is necessarily (in virtue of the meaning of the word) distinguishable from appearance. That doesn’t imply anything about what reality is or whether we can always separate it from appearance, or how that is to be done when we do it - though surely we sometimes do know when appearances have deceived us. It also doesn't imply anything about the nature of reality. The point I'm making is a semantic/conceptual one, not an empirical one.
Take, for example, the perceptual illusion of seeing a cube where there isn’t one. Hoffman says our minds create the cube. Huh? Of course we all get what he means - we see the cube and we get the idea that the appearance has been created by the way our eyes and minds work. But if he were being really careful about using words, would we agree with the way he makes the claim? Did our minds create a cube? No. We did not take a piece of clay and shape it like a cube. To be exact, that - or some similar process - is what it means to create a cube. Hoffman, without noticing it, has conflated appearance with reality. Then when he mixes that conflation with a lot of interesting ideas, theories and observations it all sounds profound and difficult to grasp. But maybe it isn’t so profound - just confused.
Okay, maybe I just haven’t studied Hoffman enough to understand what he’s really saying. But talk of “real reality” seems a pleonasm to me, indicating that the word “reality” wasn’t properly understood in the first place.