SCIENTIFIC REALISM

[empty_clouds]

Re: SCIENTIFIC REALISM

Can only share my own sense of things.

There's a mindset, a frame of reference, a set of assumptions that seems to underlie most of the positions asserted here on this (and other) Philosophical threads. Let's call this set of notions collectively 'Scientific Realism'. Scientific Realism tells us that mankind's highest, best function is our capacity for Cognition...i.e. our capacity for knowledge and the manipulation of such. Oh yes, there are some other aspects of human nature. But the merely subjective, while being somehow, vaguely, connected to human nature can safely be ignored. It is just fundamentally rational to consider some unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs as having no place in the world of cold, hard, proven objective reality. Good Grief man !! What do we have minds for if not to use them ?

Hmmmm......

There's a problamatic aspect of this 'common sense' assertion.

We all know experientially that to cry or to laugh is also part of being human. To fall in love is human. To be struck by a particular poem or bit of geography is within human nature. We have all experienced those wonderful 'ah Ha!' moments where something puzzling us flashes clearly in our minds...so clearly as to be laughably obvious....and 'everything' is different while not a single thing has changed. etc.
So where's the problem for the Scientific minded folks ??
Even if you max out your choice, the very best...the absolute most you can ever hope to obtain is a partial understanding of human nature. And this is simply because you have chosen to ignore aspects of the human condition / human nature.

[anon]

Re: SCIENTIFIC REALISM

Can only share my own sense of things.

There's a mindset, a frame of reference, a set of assumptions that seems to underlie most of the positions asserted here on this (and other) Philosophical threads. Let's call this set of notions collectively 'Scientific Realism'. Scientific Realism tells us that mankind's highest, best function is our capacity for Cognition...i.e. our capacity for knowledge and the manipulation of such. Oh yes, there are some other aspects of human nature. But the merely subjective, while being somehow, vaguely, connected to human nature can safely be ignored. It is just fundamentally rational to consider some unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs as having no place in the world of cold, hard, proven objective reality. Good Grief man !! What do we have minds for if not to use them ?

Hmmmm......

There's a problamatic aspect of this 'common sense' assertion.

We all know experientially that to cry or to laugh is also part of being human. To fall in love is human. To be struck by a particular poem or bit of geography is within human nature. We have all experienced those wonderful 'ah Ha!' moments where something puzzling us flashes clearly in our minds...so clearly as to be laughably obvious....and 'everything' is different while not a single thing has changed. etc.
So where's the problem for the Scientific minded folks ??
Even if you max out your choice, the very best...the absolute most you can ever hope to obtain is a partial understanding of human nature. And this is simply because you have chosen to ignore aspects of the human condition / human nature.

Aren't you kind of committing to realism once you use the word "partial" in that way?

[captaincrunk]

Re: SCIENTIFIC REALISM

Can only share my own sense of things.

There's a mindset, a frame of reference, a set of assumptions that seems to underlie most of the positions asserted here on this (and other) Philosophical threads. Let's call this set of notions collectively 'Scientific Realism'. Scientific Realism tells us that mankind's highest, best function is our capacity for Cognition...i.e. our capacity for knowledge and the manipulation of such. Oh yes, there are some other aspects of human nature. But the merely subjective, while being somehow, vaguely, connected to human nature can safely be ignored. It is just fundamentally rational to consider some unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs as having no place in the world of cold, hard, proven objective reality. Good Grief man !! What do we have minds for if not to use them ?

Hmmmm......

There's a problamatic aspect of this 'common sense' assertion.

We all know experientially that to cry or to laugh is also part of being human. To fall in love is human. To be struck by a particular poem or bit of geography is within human nature. We have all experienced those wonderful 'ah Ha!' moments where something puzzling us flashes clearly in our minds...so clearly as to be laughably obvious....and 'everything' is different while not a single thing has changed. etc.
So where's the problem for the Scientific minded folks ??
Even if you max out your choice, the very best...the absolute most you can ever hope to obtain is a partial understanding of human nature. And this is simply because you have chosen to ignore aspects of the human condition / human nature.

Aren't you kind of committing to realism once you use the word "partial" in that way?

This specific kind of realism is just in regards to whether science is related to reality directly or indirectly. He's saying neither (which really isn't saying anything), to be fair.

[empty_clouds]

PLease consider.
The 'scientific' headset is, by its very nature, a narrow(er) viewpoint. This is obviously so because its advocates tell us that only certain aspects of human nature need (are worthy of) study. They freely eliminate all they term as the merely subjective.
So if you freely choose to 'study' only a part of human nature how do you expect to gain understanding of the whole ??

[matty]

I don't think you're looking hard enough - there are lots of neurologists and psychologists (even sociologists) out there conducting scientific studies of topics like emotions, and I would argue it inspires and informs a significant amount of the popular science which is published more prominently, especially the current glut of behavioural economics.

[empty_clouds]

I don't think you're looking hard enough - there are lots of neurologists and psychologists (even sociologists) out there conducting scientific studies of topics like emotions, and I would argue it inspires and informs a significant amount of the popular science which is published more prominently, especially the current glut of behavioural economics.

Thanks for your response. Re: "I don't think you're looking hard enough" The OP cited a specific context. And the question asked was how could philosophers, who sought to understand and elucidate the fundamental nature of the human condition ignor aspects of this condition. The question-" Is anyone studying human emotion?" was not asked.

[Smears]

PLease consider.
The 'scientific' headset is, by its very nature, a narrow(er) viewpoint. This is obviously so because its advocates tell us that only certain aspects of human nature need (are worthy of) study. They freely eliminate all they term as the merely subjective.
So if you freely choose to 'study' only a part of human nature how do you expect to gain understanding of the whole ??

Maybe the part you're studying is indicative of properties of the whole which aren't clearly evidenced as being as fundamental as they are at first glance of the big picture. I think if a "scientific realist" were to be backed into a corner, he'd essentially say, "look dude, the only thing I'm saying is real is the stuff we can quantify".

[attano]

I sort of like the post, but probably I am missing your point.

There's a mindset, a frame of reference, a set of assumptions that seems to underlie most of the positions asserted here on this (and other) Philosophical threads.

Pretty much as everywhere else, I guess.

Let's call this set of notions collectively 'Scientific Realism'. Scientific Realism tells us that mankind's highest, best function is our capacity for Cognition...i.e. our capacity for knowledge and the manipulation of such.

I guess that "manipulation" is the relevant aspect. The power of prediction - to mention the prominent criterion qualifying scientific knowledge - is the power of manipulation. Knowledge not entailing manipulation is considered second order. Even more so, scientific knowledge is ultimately instrumental to manipulation.

Oh yes, there are some other aspects of human nature. But the merely subjective, while being somehow, vaguely, connected to human nature can safely be ignored. It is just fundamentally rational to consider some unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs as having no place in the world of cold, hard, proven objective reality. Good Grief man !! What do we have minds for if not to use them ?

Here's where I start losing you. It sounds emotional... Your point is that knowledge should be all-embracing? And "all" is what exactly?

Yes, indeed knowledge is selection, the capability to put "something" in a framework (of assumptions and beliefs as well). In the case of science, that could be thought of as representation for manipulation (and that would apply only to science?). We could agree to define "study" as this process of "reducing".
What are the other options? Are there other options?

[ZenKitty]

This thread had so much potential as well.

[finishedman]

empty clouds …

As long as you are searching for the understanding of your nature you will be performing one of human thought’s mental tricks: that there is some you there that is trying to find out another separate you, the nature of which it does not know.

[Dan~]

99% of the self proclaimed scientific people are fakes and turds.

[empty_clouds]

Some very interesting thoughts here.....

The single intent of the OP was (is) that you can not understand the whole by analyzing a part. In my sense of things this is fundamental and obvious.

A few notions to consider....or not.

The problematic aspect of 'Scientific Realism' is that it's too narrow; not that it's wrong.
Analysis, by its very nature, is divisive and can only produce knowledge. Understanding the entirety, however, comes only with wisdom.

These are not new / original ideas. Consider Parmenides, Plato's 'Unwritten Doctrine', the older Witgenstein,...et al. Therefore our fundamental choice seems to be between words/knowledge and silence/wisdom.

For those with the desire....there are always more words to be spoken.

[James S Saint]

Some very interesting thoughts here.....

The single intent of the OP was (is) that you can not understand the whole by analyzing a part. In my sense of things this is fundamental and obvious.

A few notions to consider....or not.

The problematic aspect of 'Scientific Realism' is that it's too narrow; not that it's wrong.
Analysis, by its very nature, is divisive and can only produce knowledge. Understanding the entirety, however, comes only with wisdom.

These are not new / original ideas. Consider Parmenides, Plato's 'Unwritten Doctrine', the older Witgenstein,...et al. Therefore our fundamental choice seems to be between words/knowledge and silence/wisdom.

For those with the desire....there are always more words to be spoken.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not grasping the intent of the OP. Can you possibly "bottom line" it for us slow thinkers?

[_________]

I think what's going on is you're either a) speaking of a specific group comprised of only a small portion of the scientific community or b) creating a straw man. The nature of scientific specialty is...specialization. It's no secret that science compartmentalizes 'things'; it attempts to learn about the part through the part, and later puts these parts together to form larger parts. Now if we want to go all Baudrillard and say, "Well, fuck guys. Everything is like Borges' fable; all we've got is a 1:1 scale map." - fine, but good luck getting anywhere. So in this sense perhaps Scientific Pragmatism would be more accurate? As for 'understanding the entirety'... well, I don't think wisdom - or science, for that matter - will get you there. Ever. Being a human with a finite mind capable only of finite mental processes, you are barred from the get-go from any 'ultimate understanding of everything', excepting the infinitely improbable realization of an Adams scenario.

[empty_clouds]

I think what's going on is you're either a) speaking of a specific group comprised of only a small portion of the scientific community or b) creating a straw man. The nature of scientific specialty is...specialization. It's no secret that science compartmentalizes 'things'; it attempts to learn about the part through the part, and later puts these parts together to form larger parts. Now if we want to go all Baudrillard and say, "Well, fuck guys. Everything is like Borges' fable; all we've got is a 1:1 scale map." - fine, but good luck getting anywhere. So in this sense perhaps Scientific Pragmatism would be more accurate? As for 'understanding the entirety'... well, I don't think wisdom - or science, for that matter - will get you there. Ever. Being a human with a finite mind capable only of finite mental processes, you are barred from the get-go from any 'ultimate understanding of everything', excepting the infinitely improbable realization of an Adams scenario.

There's a story, told by some folks, that has greatly intrigued me. The story tells us of a man who went forth out in the brightness of high noon, on a cloudless day, to search for ultimate reality...he carried aloft a single lit candle. The candle, we are told, represents the contribution to the search made by discursive thinking.

This is Philosophy as 'love of wisdom'.....not as 'love of knowledge'.

[_________]

Awesome. Care to elaborate on why labeling my 'thinking' as 'discursive' makes your finite mind capable of overcoming its limitations without getting into a theological digression whereby we admit parallelism and that we've just wasted each other's time? Or how a story that intrigues you equates to instantiation of some rather pedantic and thoroughly condescending refusal of my entire post without actually addressing it?

[empty_clouds]

It bears repeating...All that can be shared is 'my sense of things'.

Everyone's worth and value as a human being is a given.

[_________]

Presumably, the point of posting your "sense of things" on a forum is ultimately discourse, n'est-ce pas?

[finishedman]

The sense of things would derive from the knowledge you have of whatever it is you’re discussing. Even your intuition has basis in the rational arrangements of what’s known to you about a particular matter. So you look for and find what you know and from that you experience what it is to be whatever it is that’s being described. For instance if I asked you to tell me what it is you know of and about a certain state of being, then that is what you’ll experience of it.

Much hype is given to what one knows, but in the process of pitting an honest state of yourself (really not knowing for sure) against the sentimentality and attachment you have to some so called expert and his opinion on the meaning of life, at least there’s a chance you can say no thanks to anything else and stand on your own. But the fear of what you know being not enough or even lost makes you hang on to what you have. But how much of what you know is necessary for good living? Well, probably no one would say that the gaining of more and more knowledge is a bad thing and for those who want more of it there’s probably no way they would think that without it they would still be all right. They’d be putting aside that which gives value to their identity and sustains their worth I guess. But you just can’t say that without a lot of baggage knowledge there would be a problem with your life, or else tell me right now what it is I have to know in order to live peacefully in my life in this world.

[empty_clouds]

The sense of things would derive from the knowledge you have of whatever it is you’re discussing. Even your intuition has basis in the rational arrangements of what’s known to you about a particular matter. So you look for and find what you know and from that you experience what it is to be whatever it is that’s being described. For instance if I asked you to tell me what it is you know of and about a certain state of being, then that is what you’ll experience of it.

Much hype is given to what one knows, but in the process of pitting an honest state of yourself (really not knowing for sure) against the sentimentality and attachment you have to some so called expert and his opinion on the meaning of life, at least there’s a chance you can say no thanks to anything else and stand on your own. But the fear of what you know being not enough or even lost makes you hang on to what you have. But how much of what you know is necessary for good living? Well, probably no one would say that the gaining of more and more knowledge is a bad thing and for those who want more of it there’s probably no way they would think that without it they would still be all right. They’d be putting aside that which gives value to their identity and sustains their worth I guess. But you just can’t say that without a lot of baggage knowledge there would be a problem with your life, or else tell me right now what it is I have to know in order to live peacefully in my life in this world.

An interesting feature of our 'Golden Rule' is that an individual can apply this rule to only one, single person...without, at the same time, breaking the rule.
For you... this is the person who can answer your questions.

[finishedman]

Cooperation is tenuous unless applied on a physical level only. It’s in how you and I consider the continued physical existence of our fellow man that allows us to mutually carry on without the need to know exactly what kind of human being we want on this planet. It’s not so much how to exist as it is existence itself that’s significant.

[felix dakat]

Our experience is always more than science can tell us about it. Science is always dependent on the formulation of models that can be tested systematically. Such models can inform and influence our experience to some extent but they will never encompass it.

[empty_clouds]

Our experience is always more than science can tell us about it. Science is always dependent on the formulation of models that can be tested systematically. Such models can inform and influence our experience to some extent but they will never encompass it.

yes...much more.

[Suzera]

There's a mindset, a frame of reference, a set of assumptions that seems to underlie most of the positions asserted here on this (and other) Philosophical threads. Let's call this set of notions collectively 'Scientific Realism'. Scientific Realism tells us that mankind's highest, best function is our capacity for Cognition...i.e. our capacity for knowledge and the manipulation of such. Oh yes, there are some other aspects of human nature. But the merely subjective, while being somehow, vaguely, connected to human nature can safely be ignored. It is just fundamentally rational to consider some unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs as having no place in the world of cold, hard, proven objective reality. Good Grief man !! What do we have minds for if not to use them ?

Psychology and sociology are more or less sciences about human nature nowadays. Arguably so is neurology though a little less directly. It is a cold hard proven objective reality that people have irrational thoughts or patterns of thought, and there are fields that deal with finding the objective reasons for it and make empirically derived models for those things. The often ironic truth is that the irrational part of the brain is far more computationally powerful than the rational part.

In my opinion, it's not that "unsubstantianted, subjective beliefs" have no place per se, but some are more functional or better to have than others. Some types of them can be essentially crippling to the person holding the particular belief or very harmful to others.

We all know experientially that to cry or to laugh is also part of being human. To fall in love is human. To be struck by a particular poem or bit of geography is within human nature. We have all experienced those wonderful 'ah Ha!' moments where something puzzling us flashes clearly in our minds...so clearly as to be laughably obvious....and 'everything' is different while not a single thing has changed. etc.

Aside from animals not producing tears when sad, many animals do experience sadness, happiness, some definitions of love and grow attached to locations that strike their fancy. There are also people that are ostensibly human that do not exhibit at least one of those things or at least not in the typical manner, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't make them less human. Stating that part of being human is the ability to feel every emotion humans can feel isn't very distinctive and places some people as not human. Our advanced problem solving capability and ability to think into the future is a lot more distinctive though and if I said any one thing makes a being into a person, it would probably be that. If anything really exemplifies the "human condition" in my opinion it is those abilities teamed with the pair of a universe that doesn't care and the irrational parts of the brain that causes us to essentially constantly trip over those abilities by lying to ourselves about a wide variety of things including that the universe doesn't care.

You might be interested in this. It has something relevant to explaining part of the "Aha!" moment phenomenon. It's kind of old, but easy to link and still relevant today: http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf

So where's the problem for the Scientific minded folks ?? Even if you max out your choice, the very best...the absolute most you can ever hope to obtain is a partial understanding of human nature. And this is simply because you have chosen to ignore aspects of the human condition / human nature.

Our experience is always more than science can tell us about it. Science is always dependent on the formulation of models that can be tested systematically. Such models can inform and influence our experience to some extent but they will never encompass it.

Psychology as a field knows about and can do some really freaky stuff that is empirically backed to manipulate how you think and experience things in various ways, and typically without you being aware it is happening. That is even aside from the knowledge gained from analyzing various mental disabilities and disorders that lend empirical insight for systemic models of how the mind functions even for people without those conditions. I find it continually harder to see this as a rationally acceptable position asserted on its own as time goes on and I learn more about psychology and neurology, two subjects of great interest to me. Psychology, neurology, sociology and some other fields seem very likely to one day fully explain "human nature" as much as humans can be considered to have a nature. That said, there will likely always be a use for philosophical discussions about these things because of their uses in learning and possible therapeutic benefit because those will still need to be done. Not to mention that even when/if psychology describes the how of people determining their oughts, that doesn't make those oughts the same across people. Those discussions are just likely to be more refined in some aspects, like going from humors to modern psychology for how we treat mental conditions.

[empty_clouds]

There's a mindset, a frame of reference, a set of assumptions that seems to underlie most of the positions asserted here on this (and other) Philosophical threads. Let's call this set of notions collectively 'Scientific Realism'. Scientific Realism tells us that mankind's highest, best function is our capacity for Cognition...i.e. our capacity for knowledge and the manipulation of such. Oh yes, there are some other aspects of human nature. But the merely subjective, while being somehow, vaguely, connected to human nature can safely be ignored. It is just fundamentally rational to consider some unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs as having no place in the world of cold, hard, proven objective reality. Good Grief man !! What do we have minds for if not to use them ?

Psychology and sociology are more or less sciences about human nature nowadays. Arguably so is neurology though a little less directly. It is a cold hard proven objective reality that people have irrational thoughts or patterns of thought, and there are fields that deal with finding the objective reasons for it and make empirically derived models for those things. The often ironic truth is that the irrational part of the brain is far more computationally powerful than the rational part.

In my opinion, it's not that "unsubstantianted, subjective beliefs" have no place per se, but some are more functional or better to have than others. Some types of them can be essentially crippling to the person holding the particular belief or very harmful to others.

We all know experientially that to cry or to laugh is also part of being human. To fall in love is human. To be struck by a particular poem or bit of geography is within human nature. We have all experienced those wonderful 'ah Ha!' moments where something puzzling us flashes clearly in our minds...so clearly as to be laughably obvious....and 'everything' is different while not a single thing has changed. etc.

Aside from animals not producing tears when sad, many animals do experience sadness, happiness, some definitions of love and grow attached to locations that strike their fancy. There are also people that are ostensibly human that do not exhibit at least one of those things or at least not in the typical manner, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't make them less human. Stating that part of being human is the ability to feel every emotion humans can feel isn't very distinctive and places some people as not human. Our advanced problem solving capability and ability to think into the future is a lot more distinctive though and if I said any one thing makes a being into a person, it would probably be that. If anything really exemplifies the "human condition" in my opinion it is those abilities teamed with the pair of a universe that doesn't care and the irrational parts of the brain that causes us to essentially constantly trip over those abilities by lying to ourselves about a wide variety of things including that the universe doesn't care.

You might be interested in this. It has something relevant to explaining part of the "Aha!" moment phenomenon. It's kind of old, but easy to link and still relevant today: http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf

So where's the problem for the Scientific minded folks ?? Even if you max out your choice, the very best...the absolute most you can ever hope to obtain is a partial understanding of human nature. And this is simply because you have chosen to ignore aspects of the human condition / human nature.

Our experience is always more than science can tell us about it. Science is always dependent on the formulation of models that can be tested systematically. Such models can inform and influence our experience to some extent but they will never encompass it.

Psychology as a field knows about and can do some really freaky stuff that is empirically backed to manipulate how you think and experience things in various ways, and typically without you being aware it is happening. That is even aside from the knowledge gained from analyzing various mental disabilities and disorders that lend empirical insight for systemic models of how the mind functions even for people without those conditions. I find it continually harder to see this as a rationally acceptable position asserted on its own as time goes on and I learn more about psychology and neurology, two subjects of great interest to me. Psychology, neurology, sociology and some other fields seem very likely to one day fully explain "human nature" as much as humans can be considered to have a nature. That said, there will likely always be a use for philosophical discussions about these things because of their uses in learning and possible therapeutic benefit because those will still need to be done. Not to mention that even when/if psychology describes the how of people determining their oughts, that doesn't make those oughts the same across people. Those discussions are just likely to be more refined in some aspects, like going from humors to modern psychology for how we treat mental conditions.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to share such a thoughtful analysis.