Does secularism replace religion with other superstitions?

[Mars]

17 hours ago, Analytics said:

This is a substantial impasse.  You insist that I believe in an external "reality" beyond what can be seen, touched, or experienced.  In contrast, I happen to be quite sure that I am 100% agnostic about any proposed reality beyond what can be seen, touched, or experienced. 

I have to believe at this point you are just trolling me.  You are calling me a Cartesian dualist now?  Please.

Analytics, it's because you wrote this:

Quote

scientific justification is the body of science that shows a given model corresponds reasonably well to the real world. 

I speak a little bukowskese...    The way you painted the picture between observance, conclusion, and trust that the two match/correlate/correspond triggered the responses he gave.

Let's take it as a given that science is the iterative process of discarding old theories that don't accurately describe observed phenomena in favor of new ones that do.  We 'discover' things that we didn't see before, be they actual items or interactions between those items.  A lot of people tend to then begin to think that there is some external world beyond our ability to observe, and as our ability to observe and understand moves forward, then we begin to see into that world.  Quarks have always been there, but prior to 1964(ish) we had no real ideas about them and prior to 1967(ish) we couldn't prove it.  So our world in 1960 was cold and cruel - without quark knowledge! - and our world in 1970 was warm and fulfilling, where everyone knew what quarks were.  Our world touched the world that had quarks in it and our ability to discern reality grew.  (Not that you needed to be told what science and quarks were, I just wanted to assure ourselves that we're working with the same definitions.)

As I understand it, this is the essence of correspondance theory.  That there is some external world where everything is truly as it is and we just have to get there.  Your posting history in and beyond this thread has led me to believe you ascribe to this theory of what truth and reality are, but I admit, I could be way off.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

In mfbukowski's world - and in the interest of full disclosure, mine too - there is only what you experience.  There is no world of any kind beyond reach.  There's only what we can experience and the words we use to describe what we observe.  Things aren't truly some other thing that we have yet to experience because if you can't experience it's entirely useless to you.  Refine your ability to observe and your science - it's very helpful.  But it's not enabling you to experience some heretofore hidden reality.  It's just an improvement on your ability to discern and observe.

Have I got it, mfbukowski?

Edited January 19, 2016 by Mars

[Gray]

On 1/17/2016 at 0:03 PM, Zakuska said:

Intrestingly... many of the natural remedies of yesteryear... have become the medicine of today.

Many more have failed to show clinical effectiveness

Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The key is to remember that all we have is experiences and then their verbal interpretation.....

Thank you for refraining from telling me what I believe.  I happen to think by definition, what is out there is reality.  Reality goes way beyond everything that we directly experience and includes everything that can be directly or indirectly observed and measured.  Beyond what can be directly or indirectly observed or measured there may or may not be more reality.  I'm agnostic about such things. 

Although I believe reality is out there, I don't think we can comprehend it, and for multiple reasons, I don't think it's possible "know" the "truth" about anything. 

However, I believe it is possible to create models that can represent reality reasonably well.  By "represent reality" or "correspond to reality" I mean the model has a robust ability to predict future observations.   Of course "the map isn't the terrain" and the model isn't reality, but a good model can give us some insight into reality, and actively being skeptical and trying to find the faults in the model (which is the opposite posture of faith) has a tendency to lead to better models.

 

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Mars said:

I speak a little bukowskese...   

Thanks for pitching in.

[Mars]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for pitching in.

my apologies if i stepped on your toes.  i'm not trying to talk down to you or anything.

[Analytics]

33 minutes ago, Mars said:

my apologies if i stepped on your toes.  i'm not trying to talk down to you or anything.

No, not at all.  I didn't mean to be curt--I really did value your contribution and am obviously in desperate need of a translator of somebody fluent in bukowskese. 

Going back to my unclear post, this is what I said:

Scientific justification is the body of science that shows a given model corresponds reasonably well to the real world. 

When I wrote it, it was clear to me that a "model" and "the real world" are two different things, and that by qualifying the correspondence as being merely "reasonably well," I was making it clear that I recognize that the model is a simplification and abstraction of reality, and doesn't cause literal "truth" to be known about literal reality.  When I said "real world," it should go without saying that I'm talking about observed reality, not the superlative truth of the ultimate nature of things. 

I see my philosophical position as being that of a skeptic, and it has gotten really tiring to be lectured on about how naïve I am to think I know the truth about things.  I'm quite happy if people disagree with me, but I really don't like people arguing with me about what I actually think. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thank you for refraining from telling me what I believe.  I happen to think by definition, what is out there is reality.  Reality goes way beyond everything that we directly experience and includes everything that can be directly or indirectly observed and measured.  Beyond what can be directly or indirectly observed or measured there may or may not be more reality.  I'm agnostic about such things. 

Although I believe reality is out there, I don't think we can comprehend it, and for multiple reasons, I don't think it's possible "know" the "truth" about anything. 

However, I believe it is possible to create models that can represent reality reasonably well.  By "represent reality" or "correspond to reality" I mean the model has a robust ability to predict future observations.   Of course "the map isn't the terrain" and the model isn't reality, but a good model can give us some insight into reality, and actively being skeptical and trying to find the faults in the model (which is the opposite posture of faith) has a tendency to lead to better models.

 

That's what I am saying, essentially.

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's what I am saying, essentially.

Well, that's a huge step towards feeling understood.  Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Mars said:

Analytics, it's because you wrote this:

I speak a little bukowskese...    The way you painted the picture between observance, conclusion, and trust that the two match/correlate/correspond triggered the responses he gave.

Let's take it as a given that science is the iterative process of discarding old theories that don't accurately describe observed phenomena in favor of new ones that do.  We 'discover' things that we didn't see before, be they actual items or interactions between those items.  A lot of people tend to then begin to think that there is some external world beyond our ability to observe, and as our ability to observe and understand moves forward, then we begin to see into that world.  Quarks have always been there, but prior to 1964(ish) we had no real ideas about them and prior to 1967(ish) we couldn't prove it.  So our world in 1960 was cold and cruel - without quark knowledge! - and our world in 1970 was warm and fulfilling, where everyone knew what quarks were.  Our world touched the world that had quarks in it and our ability to discern reality grew.  (Not that you needed to be told what science and quarks were, I just wanted to assure ourselves that we're working with the same definitions.)

As I understand it, this is the essence of correspondance theory.  That there is some external world where everything is truly as it is and we just have to get there.  Your posting history in and beyond this thread has led me to believe you ascribe to this theory of what truth and reality are, but I admit, I could be way off.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

In mfbukowski's world - and in the interest of full disclosure, mine too - there is only what you experience.  There is no world of any kind beyond reach.  There's only what we can experience and the words we use to describe what we observe.  Things aren't truly some other thing that we have yet to experience because if you can't experience it's entirely useless to you.  Refine your ability to observe and your science - it's very helpful.  But it's not enabling you to experience some heretofore hidden reality.  It's just an improvement on your ability to discern and observe.

Have I got it, mfbukowski?

Yup!  I gotta put that stuff in a can!

But here is the problem.  It goes one step farther.  To speak of "quarks" being there is strictly speaking incorrect.  There was something doing what we call "quarks" "doing what quarks do".  Even those words do not capture it though because they are words and what there "WAS" is strictly unspeakable. 

There are no words for it.  Amorphous "unorganized matter".   It has its own organization obviously but it is not what we think it is nor can we ever totally capture what it "really is" and certainly it does not "correspond" to language.  Even "red" as an experience does not correspond to the word in any way.

The word "quark" itself is a human invention, and everything we know about quarks is a human observation filtered through a human brain.  We are gods organizing "reality as we know it" in our own little "World of Humans" kind of like the "Wonderful World of Disney".

So even the explanation- closest I have seen- is not strictly what I am trying to say.

Nietzsche got it as close as one can get it, though it is still cryptic:

 "There are no facts"- in other words- no words which correspond to the world "as it is"

"only interpretations" of the world as we experience it filtered through a human mind/brain/spirit.  This is important in understanding what we call "truth".  It is always contextual and it is always about personal experiences some of which can be shared with others.

Once we understand this, all the problems disappear.  No more worries about "facts"- there are none.  

There are only best guesstimates that will eventually be replaced.  But clearly some work better than others for a given purpose.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

No, not at all.  I didn't mean to be curt--I really did value your contribution and am obviously in desperate need of a translator of somebody fluent in bukowskese. 

Going back to my unclear post, this is what I said:

Scientific justification is the body of science that shows a given model corresponds reasonably well to the real world. 

When I wrote it, it was clear to me that a "model" and "the real world" are two different things, and that by qualifying the correspondence as being merely "reasonably well," I was making it clear that I recognize that the model is a simplification and abstraction of reality, and doesn't cause literal "truth" to be known about literal reality.  When I said "real world," it should go without saying that I'm talking about observed reality, not the superlative truth of the ultimate nature of things. 

I see my philosophical position as being that of a skeptic, and it has gotten really tiring to be lectured on about how naïve I am to think I know the truth about things.  I'm quite happy if people disagree with me, but I really don't like people arguing with me about what I actually think. 

Here is the problem with your model though.

It is not an "abstraction" OF anything or anyone can ever know, so why even speak of it?

To me, it is totally confusing.  It is cartesian- there are thoughts or as you say "abstractions" and then there is the real world.  The language is still dualist.

THAT is my gripe.  You can peak the way you want to, obviously but that does not mean you will be understood in the way you wanted to be.

These are very fine points about language using language to describe itself.  We are on the edge of making no sense, which is what most who read this think.  Notice we are down to 3 participants on issues which are essential to expressing the "truth of Mormonism" and no one even gets it.

You may be a skeptic but can you give up the real world for only words and what you see and feel in your heart?

This path means that ultimately your emotions and impressions are as real as anything.  Are you skeptical enough?  Or do you need someone else to verify your "observations" for you?  

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Here is the problem with your model though.

It is not an "abstraction" OF anything or anyone can ever know, so why even speak of it?

Models are valuable because they can predict what we see in the real world (or, if you prefer, they can predict what we will perceive in our own subjective personal experience).  If a model says that if I drop an object, it will fall 16 x t² feet in t seconds, and if that model does a really good job of predicting what we observe when things fall, it has value, does it not? I'm going out on a ledge here, but if things always behave in predictable ways, one can hypothesize about what causes this predictability, and then test that hypothesis.

I know you like labeling, so let's clarify something.  Am I saying anything here that runs contradictory to what a scientific skeptic would say?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Models are valuable because they can predict what we see in the real world (or, if you prefer, they can predict what we will perceive in our own subjective personal experience).  If a model says that if I drop an object, it will fall 16 x t² feet in t seconds, and if that model does a really good job of predicting what we observe when things fall, it has value, does it not? I'm going out on a ledge here, but if things always behave in predictable ways, one can hypothesize about what causes this predictability, and then test that hypothesis.

I know you like labeling, so let's clarify something.  Am I saying anything here that runs contradictory to what a scientific skeptic would say?

Nope.  

All this linguistic mumbo jumbo is just contextual.  I have no problem with a member of the church in sacrament meeting standing up and saying "I know this church is true".  I say it myself all the time.

The difference is I know what they are saying.  They are saying that the church works for them in their lives, or at least that is the way I take it.  They are not speaking about epistemology, they are expressing true feelings about how glad they are to be members

But if we are going to talk epistemology, the gloves are off and we better get it right.  Sloppiness not allowed.  So I talk about "reality" all the time- the difference is what I know that means.  Others use the same words and get the entirely wrong impression.