Is science inherently atheistic?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Not being science and not being addressable by science are not the same thing. Agree? Astrology is not science and yet it and the questions it addresses can be investigated and understood using science.




Yet you insist that there are limits to science and therefore elements of reality about which science cannot inform us?

If you admit that there are things which do not make up part of science, then it inevitably follows that there are limits to science. That doesn't imply that there are necessarily elements of reality about which science cannot inform us. It is simply that the limits of science lie outside the investigation of reality and lie, for example, in the determination of action.

Quote:

Nope. If there is not a scientifically correct way to act then we can still use science to inform our decisions and make decisions based on science. Does it make the decisions 'correct'...well who or what is judging? There is no correct way to act. There is only the way we choose to act and the reactions of others to what we choose.

So nothing can tell us what the 'correct' way to act is then? So what makes you think such a thing exists in reality?

And again you make assumptions about what I'm saying, when I'm being extremely careful not to say these things.

I am deliberately, on this topic, sticking to areas which should be equally acceptable to theists and atheists. I keep saying that there is no magic there, and you keep pining for it.

The search for an objectively correct course of action is a chimera. There is no "correct" course of action. Nevertheless we need to act. We need to choose. Therefore in the absence of a scientific scale of value - which does not exist - we need to choose one. The one option we do not have is the option not to choose. We have to act. We have to select from a number of options.

Again, this has nothing to do with free will or determinism. The necessity to choose is something that can be objectively observed in all living creatures beyond the unicellular stage. That the choices may, in fact, be inevitable, has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

So science can't measure the width of blue, or the volume of contentment or define the 'correct' way to act. It's not a limitation if you can't do a meaningless thing. It would only be a limitation if you could show there is something there that can be uncovered by another means. Which it seems you can't. Fine. There's nothing there. Science can't define 'correct way to act' in the same way my car can't go faster than passion.

Then why the continuous fighting over it? Why the defensiveness? Dafydd proclaimed that it "wasn't science's fault". This seems to be carrying anthropomorphism to absurd lengths.

I just want people to recognise that science cannot solely provide a guide to action and consider the implications of this fact. The reaction seems to be akin to slandering the honour of a lady of the court.

Quote:

No I didn't. I asked you what was involved in decision making. What is the bit that science can't address. You were the one saying that it has limitations. That somehow making a decision is separate and different to the brain chemistry that carries out the function - we still have to decide? I believe that was your expression.

The bit that science can't address is choosing a particular decision.

Quote:

Brain chemistry + Data Input? That's all. Right? Agreed? None of that is outwith the remit of science.



The only dilemma I am faced with in 'How to act' is incomplete information. I don't have a dilemma in making a decision any more than I have a dilemma in seeing the house across the street.

That is simply untrue. You could have total information, and would still have to make a choice. And an examination of your brain in operation would show you making that choice, and would determine that it was not based solely on science.

Nobody has yet shown a choice that could ever be based solely on science. They cannot, in principle.

Quote:

Did you? Why didn't you post it then?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

If you admit that there are things which do not make up part of science, then it inevitably follows that there are limits to science. That doesn't imply that there are necessarily elements of reality about which science cannot inform us. It is simply that the limits of science lie outside the investigation of reality and lie, for example, in the determination of action.

Westprog - you are playing around with misconceptions about words again.

What do you mean by talking about "things which do not make up part of science". What does that mean? What are you thinking of when you say that.

Science is not "made up of things". Science is a conceptual approach, or method, by which we can investigate and explain the world around us.

What do you mean by saying "the limits of science lie outside the investigation of reality". What on earth does a sentence like that mean?

Again - science is a conceptual method by which we can investigate things and produce useful explanations. As far as anyone can honestly tell, that scientific method can always be used in any human investigative thinking.

What is this notion of "outside reality"? Where is that? What is it that is "outside reality"? Do you mean imaginary claims about things that simply don’t exist? If not, then what are these things that are "outside reality"?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

So science can't measure the width of blue, or the volume of contentment or define the 'correct' way to act. It's not a limitation if you can't do a meaningless thing.

Originally Posted by westprog

Then why the continuous fighting over it? Why the defensiveness?

Really? After dozens of pages you're gonna play obtuse?

You're the one demanding an answer to what causes that magical point volition you seem to think exists.

We've been stuck in this same conversation loop now for far too long because you keep asking the same question over and over.

I eagerly await your hairsplitting, word game response.

[Halfcentaur]

In that science is asexual, science would also be atheist. But science is not an organism or able to hold opinions.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

In that science is asexual, science would also be atheist. But science is not an organism or able to hold opinions.

Most here want to limit the discussion to Science, ignoring that science is a process that requires fallible, human scientists.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

If you admit that there are things which do not make up part of science, then it inevitably follows that there are limits to science. That doesn't imply that there are necessarily elements of reality about which science cannot inform us. It is simply that the limits of science lie outside the investigation of reality and lie, for example, in the determination of action.

Sorry, but something not being science does not mean there is a limit to the applicability of science. That makes no sense. A banana is not science but that doesn't mean science can't be applied to bananas. A banana is not me but that doesn't mean I can't see a banana.

You then skip on to the determination of action which is a jump to considering a completely different area. Astrology is not science therefore science can't determine action ..... that's not an argument.

Quote:

And again you make assumptions about what I'm saying, when I'm being extremely careful not to say these things.

I am deliberately, on this topic, sticking to areas which should be equally acceptable to theists and atheists. I keep saying that there is no magic there, and you keep pining for it.

Because you keep telling me what science can't do but refuse to put a name on the thing that can do it. Then when pressed you agree its not really there, and then immediately go back to insisting its a limitation of science that it can't do it. Watch...

Quote:

The search for an objectively correct course of action is a chimera. There is no "correct" course of action.

So not being able to determine it is not and can never be a limitation

Quote:

Nevertheless we need to act. We need to choose.

What exactly is it we need to do? What is this thing you keep referring to? It's just a brain function. If you disagree then please spell out what else there is.

Quote:

Therefore in the absence of a scientific scale of value - which does not exist - we need to choose one. The one option we do not have is the option not to choose. We have to act. We have to select from a number of options.

If nothing can measure 'value' (and I'm not necessarily agreeing that science can't but lets just go with it) then clearly we are not making decisions based on 'value'. So you've got something wrong there.

Or to put it another 'value' is just a result of a brain function too. No different from making a decision. In fact, they might even be the same process. Certainly, deciding something has more value than something else is a decision.

Quote:

Again, this has nothing to do with free will or determinism. The necessity to choose is something that can be objectively observed in all living creatures beyond the unicellular stage. That the choices may, in fact, be inevitable, has nothing to do with it.

I never raised these issues so the fact you think they are relevant makes me think you are misunderstanding what I said.

Quote:

I just want people to recognise that science cannot solely provide a guide to action and consider the implications of this fact.

Yes, what exactly are the implications of your argument? I need to make decisions. Decisions cannot be based solely on reality therefore I need to include elements of unreal things in my decision making? That's nonsense.

Science does and can provide a guide to action. I gave a perfectly good example of it. People do it all the time and have no problem with doing it. It's only you and your philosopher chums who seem to be convinced its not really doing what it seems to be doing just fine.

[/quote]That is simply untrue. You could have total information, and would still have to make a choice. And an examination of your brain in operation would show you making that choice, and would determine that it was not based solely on science.

Nobody has yet shown a choice that could ever be based solely on science. They cannot, in principle.[/quote]

If I had perfect information I wouldn't need to make a decision because I would know which option fulfills my needs best. My brain would do the brain function automatically and I would proceed with my life.

Your still trying to claim that there is something else than brain function + input? You break the decision making process down into its constituent parts, identify all the steps and then insist that 'actually making the decision' is something else than just these steps?

Or worse still that science does not involve using your brain, and that 'thinking' or other brain functions are unscientific?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Westprog - you are playing around with misconceptions about words again.

What do you mean by talking about "things which do not make up part of science". What does that mean? What are you thinking of when you say that.

Science is not "made up of things". Science is a conceptual approach, or method, by which we can investigate and explain the world around us.

What do you mean by saying "the limits of science lie outside the investigation of reality". What on earth does a sentence like that mean?

Again - science is a conceptual method by which we can investigate things and produce useful explanations. As far as anyone can honestly tell, that scientific method can always be used in any human investigative thinking.

What is this notion of "outside reality"? Where is that? What is it that is "outside reality"? Do you mean imaginary claims about things that simply don’t exist? If not, then what are these things that are "outside reality"?

Yes, science can provide explanations. What it can't do is determine a preferable course of action. That's because of what it is.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Sorry, but something not being science does not mean there is a limit to the applicability of science. That makes no sense. A banana is not science but that doesn't mean science can't be applied to bananas. A banana is not me but that doesn't mean I can't see a banana.

You then skip on to the determination of action which is a jump to considering a completely different area. Astrology is not science therefore science can't determine action ..... that's not an argument.

The argument - which I have continually put forward and which you have consistently ignored - is that science does not have preferences for courses of action. Nowhere in science is it ever stated that a particular outcome is to be preferred. Until that preference is provided, science cannot indicate which action is to be chosen.

You know this, Tsig knows this, Dafydd knows this - you've pretty well stated as much in a previous posts - and yet actually agreeing with it seems to be impossible.

Quote:

Because you keep telling me what science can't do but refuse to put a name on the thing that can do it. Then when pressed you agree its not really there, and then immediately go back to insisting its a limitation of science that it can't do it. Watch...

Because if I give it a name you'll say "that's not it". People make choices using all kinds of methodology. They use philosophy. They use religion. They use personal desire. They do whatever is easiest at the time. They do whatever is challenging at the time. The one thing they cannot do is do what science tells them to do, because science has no preferred outcomes.

All the above methods use brain chemistry. Now, if you think that means that someone buying lottery tickets because Leos are lucky that week is applying science, then you can look at it that way. Personally, I don't think that's valid.

If you think that there is a possible example of somebody using only science to make a decision, please give such an example. That will mean using science to determine a preferred outcome. I've seen Joe Bentley's example - you can re-use that if you wish.

Quote:

So not being able to determine it is not and can never be a limitation



What exactly is it we need to do? What is this thing you keep referring to? It's just a brain function. If you disagree then please spell out what else there is.

Of course it's a brain function. As a guide to action, that's pretty worthless. Everything we do, everything we might do, is a brain function.

You talk as if being a human being was a new and unusual experience for you. You ask for guidance as if making a decision was something you've never done. I suggest you take an example of a decision you've made today, and look at why you made it. Yes, it will almost certainly reduce to brain chemistry - but that doesn't mean that you didn't have reasons for what you did. Saying you had reasons for your action does not imply that you didn't operate according to biological imperatives. Any biologist will understand that brain chemistry and purposive action are simply different ways of examining the same thing. A lion kills a gazelle because he's hungry. He wants to eat it. That's a perfectly valid way to look at it. You can also look at the biochemical way that hormones cause certain reflexes to operate. That's valid too.

Quote:

If nothing can measure 'value' (and I'm not necessarily agreeing that science can't but lets just go with it) then clearly we are not making decisions based on 'value'. So you've got something wrong there.

Of course we are making decisions based on value. We assign value to outcomes. Value is not an inherent scientific property. It's a subjective property we give to different outcomes.

Scientifically, there's no value difference between whether we live or die. We choose to give our life value. We choose to do so because we are impelled to do so by our biological setup.

Quote:

Or to put it another 'value' is just a result of a brain function too. No different from making a decision. In fact, they might even be the same process. Certainly, deciding something has more value than something else is a decision.

You've been told again and again that assigning value is something the brain does.

Quote:

I never raised these issues so the fact you think they are relevant makes me think you are misunderstanding what I said.



Yes, what exactly are the implications of your argument? I need to make decisions. Decisions cannot be based solely on reality therefore I need to include elements of unreal things in my decision making? That's nonsense.

It means you have to choose values which you assign to different outcomes. You don't have a choice in this. That is how your brain works. There seems to be an odd idea that because you know how the brain works, you aren't subject to how the brain works. The human brain works by assigning values to different outcomes, and attempting to select the outcome which is most desired.

The choice of what is considered valuable determines behaviour.

Quote:

Science does and can provide a guide to action. I gave a perfectly good example of it. People do it all the time and have no problem with doing it. It's only you and your philosopher chums who seem to be convinced its not really doing what it seems to be doing just fine.

Quote:

That is simply untrue. You could have total information, and would still have to make a choice. And an examination of your brain in operation would show you making that choice, and would determine that it was not based solely on science.

Nobody has yet shown a choice that could ever be based solely on science. They cannot, in principle.

If I had perfect information I wouldn't need to make a decision because I would know which option fulfills my needs best. My brain would do the brain function automatically and I would proceed with my life.

What do you mean, your "brain would function automatically"? You cannot decide that your brain will function automatically. You are your brain. Your brain will assign values to different outcomes because that is what nature formed it to do. You do not become a godlike superior being by scientific understanding. You remain a human being, bound by biological necessity. You will continue to assign values and choose outcomes, because you have no choice but to do so.

Quote:

Your still trying to claim that there is something else than brain function + input? You break the decision making process down into its constituent parts, identify all the steps and then insist that 'actually making the decision' is something else than just these steps?

I'm claiming exactly the opposite. You seem to think that once we understand the brain, we will supercede it in some way. You seem to think that making choices is something separate from the brain. It is not. Making choices, assigning values - that is brain function.

Quote:

Or worse still that science does not involve using your brain, and that 'thinking' or other brain functions are unscientific?

And again, you fail to realise the implication of what being a human being is. You are confined by the physical and biological limitations of humanity. You do not cease to be a human being by knowing science. You are a biological entity, every bit as much as an eagle or a flea.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

The argument - which I have continually put forward and which you have consistently ignored - is that science does not have preferences for courses of action. Nowhere in science is it ever stated that a particular outcome is to be preferred. Until that preference is provided, science cannot indicate which action is to be chosen.

You know this, Tsig knows this, Dafydd knows this - you've pretty well stated as much in a previous posts - and yet actually agreeing with it seems to be impossible.



Because if I give it a name you'll say "that's not it". People make choices using all kinds of methodology. They use philosophy. They use religion. They use personal desire. They do whatever is easiest at the time. They do whatever is challenging at the time. The one thing they cannot do is do what science tells them to do, because science has no preferred outcomes.

All the above methods use brain chemistry. Now, if you think that means that someone buying lottery tickets because Leos are lucky that week is applying science, then you can look at it that way. Personally, I don't think that's valid.

If you think that there is a possible example of somebody using only science to make a decision, please give such an example. That will mean using science to determine a preferred outcome. I've seen Joe Bentley's example - you can re-use that if you wish.



Of course it's a brain function. As a guide to action, that's pretty worthless. Everything we do, everything we might do, is a brain function.

You talk as if being a human being was a new and unusual experience for you. You ask for guidance as if making a decision was something you've never done. I suggest you take an example of a decision you've made today, and look at why you made it. Yes, it will almost certainly reduce to brain chemistry - but that doesn't mean that you didn't have reasons for what you did. Saying you had reasons for your action does not imply that you didn't operate according to biological imperatives. Any biologist will understand that brain chemistry and purposive action are simply different ways of examining the same thing. A lion kills a gazelle because he's hungry. He wants to eat it. That's a perfectly valid way to look at it. You can also look at the biochemical way that hormones cause certain reflexes to operate. That's valid too.



Of course we are making decisions based on value. We assign value to outcomes. Value is not an inherent scientific property. It's a subjective property we give to different outcomes.

Scientifically, there's no value difference between whether we live or die. We choose to give our life value. We choose to do so because we are impelled to do so by our biological setup.



You've been told again and again that assigning value is something the brain does.



It means you have to choose values which you assign to different outcomes. You don't have a choice in this. That is how your brain works. There seems to be an odd idea that because you know how the brain works, you aren't subject to how the brain works. The human brain works by assigning values to different outcomes, and attempting to select the outcome which is most desired.

The choice of what is considered valuable determines behaviour.



What do you mean, your "brain would function automatically"? You cannot decide that your brain will function automatically. You are your brain. Your brain will assign values to different outcomes because that is what nature formed it to do. You do not become a godlike superior being by scientific understanding. You remain a human being, bound by biological necessity. You will continue to assign values and choose outcomes, because you have no choice but to do so.



I'm claiming exactly the opposite. You seem to think that once we understand the brain, we will supercede it in some way. You seem to think that making choices is something separate from the brain. It is not. Making choices, assigning values - that is brain function.



And again, you fail to realise the implication of what being a human being is. You are confined by the physical and biological limitations of humanity. You do not cease to be a human being by knowing science. You are a biological entity, every bit as much as an eagle or a flea.

So again your argument is that brain functions are unscientific. Ok, I disagree.

At least you've actually named the alternatives this time. Religion and philosophy. Of course you have to decide to follow religion and philosophy using values that are not part of the religion or philosophy so that doesn't help you either.

So it comes back to personal preference. Which is a biological brain function of humans. And you call it unscientific. And I disagree.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, science can provide explanations. What it can't do is determine a preferable course of action. That's because of what it is.

Of course it can. You made that claim before. And was just as wrong then.

Science explains what's likely to happen if you take different courses of action. It's then up to you if you want to do something silly and unscientific ... such as lighting a match next to a petrol can.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

So again your argument is that brain functions are unscientific. Ok, I disagree.

Ah, brilliant. You've managed a summing up which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

Quote:

At least you've actually named the alternatives this time. Religion and philosophy. Of course you have to decide to follow religion and philosophy using values that are not part of the religion or philosophy so that doesn't help you either.

So it comes back to personal preference. Which is a biological brain function of humans. And you call it unscientific. And I disagree.

If you think personal preference is scientific - and there is a sense in which you are right - then astrology is scientific in exactly that sense. If astrology is unscientific - and clearly it is - then personal preference is unscientific in exactly that sense.

The idea that personal preference is equivalent to science means that a scientist could decide that when his litmus paper turns blue, it means it's his birthday.

[westprog]

Consider two scientists. One is psychopathic. He has no interest in the well-being of anyone but himself. The other is a philanthropist. He is consumed with the good of humanity. Their scientific knowledge is identical. Will they behave in the same way? Of course not. Their brain chemistry is different - which means that their values are different. Is the difference due to science? In the same sense that the different behaviour of two apes is due to science, yes - but in terms of guidance by knowledge of science, obviously not. Their scientific knowledge is the same. It is their value system that is different.

Personal preference = philosophy = religion = brain chemistry != science.

[JoeBentley]

*Sighs* So what does provide a "preferable course of action?"

You're basically using the "Buridan's Ass" argument. The idea that if you placed a starving but purely rational man an exactly equal distance between two exactly identical plates of food he would starve to death because there would be no rational reason to pick one over the other.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

Ah, brilliant. You've managed a summing up which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

No it isn't. Your argument is that decision making is not scientific and that decision making is a brain function. That's the argument you have made. It's not my fault if that's not what you were trying to say.

Quote:

If you think personal preference is scientific - and there is a sense in which you are right - then astrology is scientific in exactly that sense. If astrology is unscientific - and clearly it is - then personal preference is unscientific in exactly that sense.

No it isn't and that's where you keep going wrong. Personal preference is an internal brain function, it is the reality and doesn't need any reference to external data. Once you include the data input part of the process then you do have to reference external reality and its at that point that you have to apply a useful methodology to do so - i.e. science.

Brain Function + Data Input - you can try to shoehorn something else in there but it's unnecessary and in the end it will always only be data input. You can choose to have solely scientific methods of data input, solely unscientific ones or some mix of both. It's all just data input.

The brain function you pretty much can't change. Given that its a purely biochemical process I can't get on board with a definition of it as being anything other than scientific.

So you end up with 2 choices:

1. A scientific brain function + solely scientific data input (Possible)
2. A scientific brain function + less than 100% scientific data input (Possible too)

You are either claiming that 1 never and can't happen, which is false, or that brain functions can't be classed as scientific which we are never going to agree on.

Quote:

The idea that personal preference is equivalent to science means that a scientist could decide that when his litmus paper turns blue, it means it's his birthday.

No it doesn't. It simply means that if you prefer the litmus paper to be blue you can did it in everything and smile when it turns blue or you can find out what turns it blue and only do that. Or you can take the religious approach of looking at the paper and pretending its blue. Or the philosophical approach of wondering whether the paper really exists and how do I know what blue is anyway?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

Consider two scientists. One is psychopathic. He has no interest in the well-being of anyone but himself. The other is a philanthropist. He is consumed with the good of humanity. Their scientific knowledge is identical. Will they behave in the same way? Of course not. Their brain chemistry is different - which means that their values are different. Is the difference due to science? In the same sense that the different behaviour of two apes is due to science, yes - but in terms of guidance by knowledge of science, obviously not. Their scientific knowledge is the same. It is their value system that is different.

Personal preference = philosophy = religion = brain chemistry != science.

Personal preference = biology != philosophy or religion

Last time I checked the biology textbooks were in the science section.Even if you have a preference for just making **** up that's still biology and not philosophy.

In your example it is the biology that is different. That's all. Why does that bother you? Why do you need to re-label biology as values?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

*Sighs* So what does provide a "preferable course of action?"

You're basically using the "Buridan's Ass" argument. The idea that if you placed a starving but purely rational man an exactly equal distance between two exactly identical plates of food he would starve to death because there would be no rational reason to pick one over the other.

What rational reason might help making the needed decision?

ps. I doubt Buridan's Ass would have any problem; just a rational human although looking for rationality in a starving human is a stretch.

pps. As mentioned many times there most often is no "preferable course of action".

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AlBell

What rational reason might help making the needed decision?

What rational reason might lead to the avoidance of death by selecting arbitrarily from 2 options between which you are genuinely indifferent? Oh, I can't think....

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Personal preference = biology != philosophy or religion

Last time I checked the biology textbooks were in the science section.Even if you have a preference for just making **** up that's still biology and not philosophy.

In your example it is the biology that is different. That's all. Why does that bother you? Why do you need to re-label biology as values?

Where do you think religion and philosophy come from? How does a religious viewpoint get into the human brain? Do you think it's divinely inspired? Has it some kind of magical quality? Or is it part of the same brain chemistry?

See, I can do the "magic" thing too.

Tell me where you think humans get their religion and philosophy, and how it differs from where they get their personal preference. I'll wait.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

1. A scientific brain function + solely scientific data input (Possible)
2. A scientific brain function + less than 100% scientific data input (Possible too)

2 is not possible. How can you have unscientific data input? Any input is valid data about the environment. An astrologer uses exactly the same data as the astronomer.

You seem to have the bizarre idea that the human brain is a perfect scientific processor, that only goes wrong if the data is misleading. That is quite obviously not the case. The same data is available to everyone. The difference is what their brains make of it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, people are capable of being wrong as well. Is being wrong scientific?

There's no end to this, is there?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

Ah, brilliant. You've managed a summing up which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

He does a lot of that.

[dafydd]

hoi ik ben david en ik ben bellachelijk this is david speaking and i'm silly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

Where do you think religion and philosophy come from? How does a religious viewpoint get into the human brain? Do you think it's divinely inspired? Has it some kind of magical quality? Or is it part of the same brain chemistry?

See, I can do the "magic" thing too.

Tell me where you think humans get their religion and philosophy, and how it differs from where they get their personal preference. I'll wait.

Humans get their religion and philosophy from external sources - for example from priests and philosophers. Their preferences and brain chemistry are internal. External input requires validation.

Originally Posted by westprog

2 is not possible. How can you have unscientific data input? Any input is valid data about the environment. An astrologer uses exactly the same data as the astronomer.

Clearly not, as the astrologer also relies on the data that the position of the stars can impact on the lives of individuals. A fundamental fact-based disagreement exists between the astrologer and the non-astrologer.

Quote:

You seem to have the bizarre idea that the human brain is a perfect scientific processor, that only goes wrong if the data is misleading. That is quite obviously not the case. The same data is available to everyone. The difference is what their brains make of it.

The same data may in theory be available to everyone but not everyone avails themselves of it and quite clearly each individual has a unique and different experience of the world. Nor are our preferences the same.

Obviously it is quite easy to simply be wrong or misinformed about something. But then, if you had information that convinced you that you were wrong then you wouldn't be wrong...

In the absence of perfect information its important to acknowledge that we might be operating under a misapprehension which is why testing ideas via science is so helpful.

None of this argument seems to support anything you have said or go against anything I have said. It's an irrelevance.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

What rational reason might lead to the avoidance of death by selecting arbitrarily from 2 options between which you are genuinely indifferent? Oh, I can't think....

The question wasn't about choosing life vs death. Try paying attention.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AlBell

The question wasn't about choosing life vs death. Try paying attention.

Yes, it was. Try reading what you reply to.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

Consider two scientists. One is psychopathic. He has no interest in the well-being of anyone but himself. The other is a philanthropist. He is consumed with the good of humanity. Their scientific knowledge is identical. Will they behave in the same way? Of course not. Their brain chemistry is different - which means that their values are different. Is the difference due to science? In the same sense that the different behaviour of two apes is due to science, yes - but in terms of guidance by knowledge of science, obviously not. Their scientific knowledge is the same. It is their value system that is different.

Personal preference = philosophy = religion = brain chemistry != science.

PP of the gaps.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Of course it can. You made that claim before. And was just as wrong then.

Science explains what's likely to happen if you take different courses of action. It's then up to you if you want to do something silly and unscientific ... such as lighting a match next to a petrol can.

So you rephrase what I say, agree that it's right, and say that it's wrong.

Science explains what's likely to happen if you take different courses of action. That's exactly what I've been saying! And somehow, you are able to read what I'm saying, repeat it back to me, and tell me that I'm "just as wrong". How can you consistently do this? How can you read what I say and interpret it as something totally different?

It's up to you. Yes, that's also what I've been saying. Science tells you what is likely to happen, then it's up to you. Obviously, the "it's up to you" bit is separate from the "explains what's likely to happen" bit. And yet you seem totally unable to realise that the "it's up to you" part is not determined by science.

And then we go through the dance again, where it's pointed out that what we decide to do is determined by brain chemistry yada yada yada.

[JJM 777]

Is science inherently atheistic?

Psychiatry is inherently political, and politics includes a religious element.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, science can provide explanations. What it can't do is determine a preferable course of action. That's because of what it is.

Originally Posted by IanS

Of course it can. You made that claim before. And was just as wrong then.

Science explains what's likely to happen if you take different courses of action. It's then up to you if you want to do something silly and unscientific ... such as lighting a match next to a petrol can.

Originally Posted by westprog

So you rephrase what I say, agree that it's right, and say that it's wrong.

Science explains what's likely to happen if you take different courses of action. That's exactly what I've been saying! And somehow, you are able to read what I'm saying, repeat it back to me, and tell me that I'm "just as wrong". How can you consistently do this? How can you read what I say and interpret it as something totally different?

It's up to you. Yes, that's also what I've been saying. Science tells you what is likely to happen, then it's up to you. Obviously, the "it's up to you" bit is separate from the "explains what's likely to happen" bit. And yet you seem totally unable to realise that the "it's up to you" part is not determined by science.

And then we go through the dance again, where it's pointed out that what we decide to do is determined by brain chemistry yada yada yada.

Dear me. No! …. no, you are completely wrong.

Look at your first sentence above in blue - you said that science cannot determine which actions are preferable.

I disagreed with that, saying - what science does is to explain what’s likely to happen if you take any of several different courses of action, where some of those options are explained as disastrous and others will be explained as highly likely to produce the outcome you prefer (a "preferable" outcome!).

Most sensible people, having those scientific results, will take that scientific information and choose the option that’s likely to produce the results that they want to achieve.

But you can of course, decide to pick any of the other possible courses of action and do something less likely to provide the result you want.

I’ve said here before at least half a dozen times that humans, perhaps unlike other animals, have the capacity to reject or override more basic rational levels of their thinking, to finally make a choice of doing things which are seemingly silly or irrational.

People can make choices and do things which are irrational. I’ve never disputed that. And I don't think you will find any quote of me ever doing that here.

What I’ve said is that all these thinking processes, inc. even the seemingly irrational ones, appear to be open to scientific study and scientific explanation - they are not somehow “inherently outside” or “inherently beyond” the remit of all scientific investigation.

All those thought process, human decision making, and human actions appear to be well within the capacity of scientific analysis.

IOW - there is nothing “un-scientific” about it.

[IanS]

Westprog - we can probably get to the bottom of all this if you just answer the following simple question -

Q. Are you claiming that certain human decisions or actions, are inherently “beyond “ or “outside” the capacity of science as a method which can ever investigate and explain those human actions & decisions?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

And then we go through the dance again, where it's pointed out that what we decide to do is determined by brain chemistry yada yada yada.

No, its not that the decision is dictated by brain chemistry, the decision is brain chemistry.

You don't refer to your brain chemistry for input to the decision, your brain decides.

Whether it first generates an 'ought' sensation then you act, or whether you act then backfill an 'ought' or whatever way it works the brain chemistry is the decision.

I never understood the claim 'you can't get ought from is', our brains do it thousands of times a day.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by dafydd

hoi ik ben david en ik ben bellachelijk this is david speaking and i'm silly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Sorry about that. My neighbour's daughter typed it when my back was turned.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

So you rephrase what I say, agree that it's right, and say that it's wrong.

Science explains what's likely to happen if you take different courses of action. That's exactly what I've been saying! And somehow, you are able to read what I'm saying, repeat it back to me, and tell me that I'm "just as wrong". How can you consistently do this? How can you read what I say and interpret it as something totally different?

It's up to you. Yes, that's also what I've been saying. Science tells you what is likely to happen, then it's up to you. Obviously, the "it's up to you" bit is separate from the "explains what's likely to happen" bit. And yet you seem totally unable to realise that the "it's up to you" part is not determined by science.

And then we go through the dance again, where it's pointed out that what we decide to do is determined by brain chemistry yada yada yada.

The yada yada yada bit is also known as reality.

[JoeBentley]

Yeah I loved how the entire spectrum from quantum mechanics to organic chemistry to evolutionary biology to neuroscience that has spent the last century helping us understand the thinking process better gets written off as "Yada yada yada" while "Okay that's the answer, now I want the truth" is some grand mystery we all have to sit down and ponder in a cave for 60 years.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by IanS

Westprog - we can probably get to the bottom of all this if you just answer the following simple question -

Q. Are you claiming that certain human decisions or actions, are inherently “beyond “ or “outside” the capacity of science as a method which can ever investigate and explain those human actions & decisions?

Answer for me of course is no. The problem is that process is not what originally made the decision_0, nor is there any way to demonstrate that that same process actually made the decision_0 in question. Ergo, what did? Er, yes: brain chemistry + input data available at the time.

I suspect that is also Westprog's stance.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Sorry about that. My neighbour's daughter typed it when my back was turned.

I thought that was your best post in some time.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Dear me. No! …. no, you are completely wrong.

Look at your first sentence above in blue - you said that science cannot determine which actions are preferable.

I disagreed with that, saying - what science does is to explain what’s likely to happen if you take any of several different courses of action, where some of those options are explained as disastrous and others will be explained as highly likely to produce the outcome you prefer (a "preferable" outcome!).

Most sensible people, having those scientific results, will take that scientific information and choose the option that’s likely to produce the results that they want to achieve.

But you can of course, decide to pick any of the other possible courses of action and do something less likely to provide the result you want.

I’ve said here before at least half a dozen times that humans, perhaps unlike other animals, have the capacity to reject or override more basic rational levels of their thinking, to finally make a choice of doing things which are seemingly silly or irrational.

People can make choices and do things which are irrational. I’ve never disputed that. And I don't think you will find any quote of me ever doing that here.

What I’ve said is that all these thinking processes, inc. even the seemingly irrational ones, appear to be open to scientific study and scientific explanation - they are not somehow “inherently outside” or “inherently beyond” the remit of all scientific investigation.

All those thought process, human decision making, and human actions appear to be well within the capacity of scientific analysis.

IOW - there is nothing “un-scientific” about it.

And again you show that there are two elements to a decision - the scientific prediction of what will happen, and the unscientific selection of a desired outcome. And yes, both of these are subject to scientific analysis.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Westprog - we can probably get to the bottom of all this if you just answer the following simple question -

Q. Are you claiming that certain human decisions or actions, are inherently “beyond “ or “outside” the capacity of science as a method which can ever investigate and explain those human actions & decisions?

I've repeatedly stated that science can investigate and potentially find out everything about what's involved in making decisions. And I've repeatedly stated that this does not make individual preference scientific.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Personal preference = biology != philosophy or religion

Last time I checked the biology textbooks were in the science section.Even if you have a preference for just making **** up that's still biology and not philosophy.

In your example it is the biology that is different. That's all. Why does that bother you? Why do you need to re-label biology as values?

Values are biology. Do a biological study of human beings and you find them making choices according to values.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

And again you show that there are two elements to a decision - the scientific prediction of what will happen, and the unscientific selection of a desired outcome. And yes, both of these are subject to scientific analysis.

OK.

But, although I've probably only said this before in passing, since it was not my main point at all, and not something I felt particularly strongly about - it seems to me that even apparently irrational responses and seemingly irrational actions are still entirely open to being explained by scientific study.

And if we can explain that sort of seemingly irrational action, then does that explanation mean it was not so irrational after all ?

If we can explain the action scientifically, does that not mean that in fact the individuals thinking process was not as irrational and inexplicable as might have been imagined. But actually more logical and considered than it might have appeared?