Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 12:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The New York Times is not too impressed by his bs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books/...d=all&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_experience
They can be induced pharmacologically.
He's untrained. A professional bs'er.

I agree - the book itself is pretty shitily written and poorly argued for - but I've tried to represent it in the best possible light in order to criticize the ideas and not the writing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  A villager visiting witch doctors and deciding on a conclusion is the same process that scientists use. A scientists uses the available tools to assess the results then comes to a conclusion. Logic and reason do not get one closer to a "truth" or a "fact" whatever those things are.

Right. So the witch doctor hands you a juju bag, and the scientist gives you a course of quinine. Which will cure your malaria?

(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  Philosophy correctly points out the severe limits of reason and logic.

Philosophy of science admits that. It's just that most people recognize the clear difference between limited and useless. Which is the better malaria cure, I and I?

(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  This type of reduction like reducing humans to just a collection of cells or atoms is logical but not a factual or true outcome.

We've established that nothing is absolutely factual or true. So of course it's not absolutely factual or true.

But that particular statement's not reductive, it's descriptive. Shall I repeat myself? Very well, then - I shall repeat myself.
cjlr Wrote:a description of the world - which is more accurate and self-consistent under all known conditions - ... is closer to true.
Perhaps 'more useful' would be a better term, but the idea's the same. Under what conditions is the above statement either inaccurate or insufficient? Remember that we've acknowledged absolute truth to be impossible (and thus irrelevant in comparing ideas, scientific or otherwise). We must settle for accuracy and consistency (and efficacy where applicable). I think there's a name for that... what was it again? Oh, right - the scientific method.

Here's an example close to your heart - how much luck did the Soviet Union have with Lysenkoism?

Here's a hint for you: none at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-06-2013, 10:41 PM
RE: Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  The scientific methods of inquiry are the same for religion. We use the available tools we have then assess the results and then decide which answer best fits the results of using the tools.

No, the methods of inquiry are not the same. The scientific method relies on evidence, religion relies on faith. Faith does not have the same track record as science.

Quote:A villager visiting witch doctors and deciding on a conclusion is the same process that scientists use. A scientists uses the abailable tools assesses the results then comes to a conclusion. Logic and reason do not get one closer to a "truth" or a "fact" whatever those things are.

Huh? People relying on faith instead of modern medicine are often making a decision in spite of the evidence.

Quote:Philosophy correctly points out the severe limits of reason and logic.

Modern science has become more woo and less science and the so called atheists can't get enough of this woo.

What woo are you referring to? Frontiers of science and new postulates are not the same thing as woo. Those ideas that have yet to be proven or demonstrate their predictive and explanatory abilities are not accepted like theories that have withstood evidential challenges.

Quote:Science also confuses reduction with deduction. Example: humans have hands, a logical statement could be " humans are a series of hands". This is a logical and reasoned statement but false statement. This type of reduction like reducing humans to just a collection of cells or atoms is logical but not a factual or true outcome.

A hammer sees only nails.

Your example doesn't make sense on its face. There are more constituent parts to humans than hands.

Atoms are the constituent parts of molecules, which are the constituent parts of cells, which are the constituent parts of humans. There is no reason to believe this is not true. If your concern is how we go from cellular activity in the brain to consciousness, sure, we have not yet demonstrated with science how that works. But we are working on it. Is your argument that due to the evidence not being there yet, it never can be? In that case, your argument is barely distinguishable from a god of the gaps type argument that a theist would make--you've just not filled the gap yet with god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
11-06-2013, 10:50 PM
Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 10:41 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  The scientific methods of inquiry are the same for religion. We use the available tools we have then assess the results and then decide which answer best fits the results of using the tools.

No, the methods of inquiry are not the same. The scientific method relies on evidence, religion relies on faith. Faith does not have the same track record as science.

Quote:A villager visiting witch doctors and deciding on a conclusion is the same process that scientists use. A scientists uses the abailable tools assesses the results then comes to a conclusion. Logic and reason do not get one closer to a "truth" or a "fact" whatever those things are.

Huh? People relying on faith instead of modern medicine are often making a decision in spite of the evidence.

Quote:Philosophy correctly points out the severe limits of reason and logic.

Modern science has become more woo and less science and the so called atheists can't get enough of this woo.

What woo are you referring to? Frontiers of science and new postulates are not the same thing as woo. Those ideas that have yet to be proven or demonstrate their predictive and explanatory abilities are not accepted like theories that have withstood evidential challenges.

Quote:Science also confuses reduction with deduction. Example: humans have hands, a logical statement could be " humans are a series of hands". This is a logical and reasoned statement but false statement. This type of reduction like reducing humans to just a collection of cells or atoms is logical but not a factual or true outcome.

A hammer sees only nails.

Your example doesn't make sense on its face. There are more constituent parts to humans than hands.

Atoms are the constituent parts of molecules, which are the constituent parts of cells, which are the constituent parts of humans. There is no reason to believe this is not true. If your concern is how we go from cellular activity in the brain to consciousness, sure, we have not yet demonstrated with science how that works. But we are working on it. Is your argument that due to the evidence not being there yet, it never can be? In that case, your argument is barely distinguishable from a god of the gaps type argument that a theist would make--you've just not filled the gap yet with god.

We use the available tools our culture has for us to use. A person visiting witch doctors is using all the best tools he has available. I in 2013 use the best tools I have available to come to a conclusion about what I feel the best cure for malaria is. The process in doing so is the same, I see that most of my culture uses x to cure malaria, I read what others in my culture say about it, what do toes say about it. The villager does exactly the same thing as I did. We both are using logic and reason, and those alone are not a guarantor of a "truth" or any way of knowing if one is closer to a "truth".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 10:53 PM
Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 10:41 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 09:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  The scientific methods of inquiry are the same for religion. We use the available tools we have then assess the results and then decide which answer best fits the results of using the tools.

No, the methods of inquiry are not the same. The scientific method relies on evidence, religion relies on faith. Faith does not have the same track record as science.

Quote:A villager visiting witch doctors and deciding on a conclusion is the same process that scientists use. A scientists uses the abailable tools assesses the results then comes to a conclusion. Logic and reason do not get one closer to a "truth" or a "fact" whatever those things are.

Huh? People relying on faith instead of modern medicine are often making a decision in spite of the evidence.

Quote:Philosophy correctly points out the severe limits of reason and logic.

Modern science has become more woo and less science and the so called atheists can't get enough of this woo.

What woo are you referring to? Frontiers of science and new postulates are not the same thing as woo. Those ideas that have yet to be proven or demonstrate their predictive and explanatory abilities are not accepted like theories that have withstood evidential challenges.

Quote:Science also confuses reduction with deduction. Example: humans have hands, a logical statement could be " humans are a series of hands". This is a logical and reasoned statement but false statement. This type of reduction like reducing humans to just a collection of cells or atoms is logical but not a factual or true outcome.

A hammer sees only nails.

Your example doesn't make sense on its face. There are more constituent parts to humans than hands.

Atoms are the constituent parts of molecules, which are the constituent parts of cells, which are the constituent parts of humans. There is no reason to believe this is not true. If your concern is how we go from cellular activity in the brain to consciousness, sure, we have not yet demonstrated with science how that works. But we are working on it. Is your argument that due to the evidence not being there yet, it never can be? In that case, your argument is barely distinguishable from a god of the gaps type argument that a theist would make--you've just not filled the gap yet with god.

I believe the exact opposite, believing in parallel worlds is the dumbest shit that humans have produced right up there with any religion and is nothing but a new age religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 10:58 PM
Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
Science and religion both believe there is an ultimate truth, religion believes that it has already been found, science believes it can be found and that we are getting closer to it like the "theory of everything".

Philosophy says there is no such thing as a "truth" or a "fact" that is absolute. Philosophy shits on science and religion all day everyday.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 10:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 10:41 PM)BryanS Wrote:  No, the methods of inquiry are not the same. The scientific method relies on evidence, religion relies on faith. Faith does not have the same track record as science.


Huh? People relying on faith instead of modern medicine are often making a decision in spite of the evidence.


What woo are you referring to? Frontiers of science and new postulates are not the same thing as woo. Those ideas that have yet to be proven or demonstrate their predictive and explanatory abilities are not accepted like theories that have withstood evidential challenges.


Your example doesn't make sense on its face. There are more constituent parts to humans than hands.

Atoms are the constituent parts of molecules, which are the constituent parts of cells, which are the constituent parts of humans. There is no reason to believe this is not true. If your concern is how we go from cellular activity in the brain to consciousness, sure, we have not yet demonstrated with science how that works. But we are working on it. Is your argument that due to the evidence not being there yet, it never can be? In that case, your argument is barely distinguishable from a god of the gaps type argument that a theist would make--you've just not filled the gap yet with god.

We use the available tools our culture has for us to use. A person visiting witch doctors is using all the best tools he has available. I in 2013 use the best tools I have available to come to a conclusion about what I feel the best cure for malaria is. The process in doing so is the same, I see that most of my culture uses x to cure malaria, I read what others in my culture say about it, what do toes say about it. The villager does exactly the same thing as I did. We both are using logic and reason, and those alone are not a guarantor of a "truth" or any way of knowing if one is closer to a "truth".

You're confusing the scientific method as being equivalent to only use of logic and reason. You are leaving out empirical evidence, without which you do not have science. The visitor to the witch doctor is using faith to justify the belief that they may be cured.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 11:04 PM
RE: Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 10:53 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 10:41 PM)BryanS Wrote:  No, the methods of inquiry are not the same. The scientific method relies on evidence, religion relies on faith. Faith does not have the same track record as science.


Huh? People relying on faith instead of modern medicine are often making a decision in spite of the evidence.


What woo are you referring to? Frontiers of science and new postulates are not the same thing as woo. Those ideas that have yet to be proven or demonstrate their predictive and explanatory abilities are not accepted like theories that have withstood evidential challenges.


Your example doesn't make sense on its face. There are more constituent parts to humans than hands.

Atoms are the constituent parts of molecules, which are the constituent parts of cells, which are the constituent parts of humans. There is no reason to believe this is not true. If your concern is how we go from cellular activity in the brain to consciousness, sure, we have not yet demonstrated with science how that works. But we are working on it. Is your argument that due to the evidence not being there yet, it never can be? In that case, your argument is barely distinguishable from a god of the gaps type argument that a theist would make--you've just not filled the gap yet with god.

I believe the exact opposite, believing in parallel worlds is the dumbest shit that humans have produced right up there with any religion and is nothing but a new age religion.

The multiverse is not accepted science. It is a postulate only. We can look for evidence in background cosmic radiation to try to find evidence for other instances of big bangs colliding with our own known universe. It's an area of active research, but it is not yet accepted science because it cannot be without evidence. No legitimate scientist investigating this idea would claim otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 11:30 PM
RE: Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 10:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  Science and religion both believe there is an ultimate truth, religion believes that it has already been found, science believes it can be found and that we are getting closer to it like the "theory of everything".

Philosophy says there is no such thing as a "truth" or a "fact" that is absolute. Philosophy shits on science and religion all day everyday.

Science accepts its theories as true until such time as evidence requires changing them. I would call that conditional acceptance of truth and not absolute. You seem to be fighting some straw man you imagine science to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BryanS's post
12-06-2013, 01:11 AM
Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White
(11-06-2013 11:01 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 10:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  We use the available tools our culture has for us to use. A person visiting witch doctors is using all the best tools he has available. I in 2013 use the best tools I have available to come to a conclusion about what I feel the best cure for malaria is. The process in doing so is the same, I see that most of my culture uses x to cure malaria, I read what others in my culture say about it, what do toes say about it. The villager does exactly the same thing as I did. We both are using logic and reason, and those alone are not a guarantor of a "truth" or any way of knowing if one is closer to a "truth".

You're confusing the scientific method as being equivalent to only use of logic and reason. You are leaving out empirical evidence, without which you do not have science. The visitor to the witch doctor is using faith to justify the belief that they may be cured.

In using logic and reason assembling data like the findings of others (witch doctors) is using empirical evidence. Our methods for examining empirical evidence are different because our tools are different. Different epochs in history have different tools therefore producing different results from using logic and reason based on empirical evidence.

Science hasn't had too many paradigm shifts, neither has religion. Religion like science is different in different historical cultures but most of the time the changes are not radical shifts in thought, both combined have probably produced less than 5 major paradigm shifts in human history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: