[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I miss that absurd non-sense of Skyli though haha

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@  dlorde :
Lost your tongue ? Guess so , very predictable indeed.

[alancalverd]

the core true assumption of science  is

Wrong! Science is a process, wholly devoid of assumptions, which are human artefacts.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

the core true assumption of science  is

Wrong! Science is a process, wholly devoid of assumptions, which are human artefacts.

What are you talking about ?
Science is practiced by scientists humans , dude :
See that materialist  dogmatic belief system and materialist meta-paradigm dominating in science .
But , i was talking about somethingelse , about the core scientific assumption that the universe is intelligible , an assumption without which there would be no point in trying to explain or understand the universe via science , if the universe is not ...intelligible : the universe is thus .

See this concerning the presumed objectivity in science as well, while you are at it :

Quote : "
Illusions of Objectivity
For those who idealize science, scientists are the epitome of objectivity, rising above the sectarian
divisions and illusions that afflict the rest of humanity. Scientific minds are freed from the normal
limitations of bodies, emotions and social obligations, and can travel beyond the earthbound realm of
the senses to see all nature as if from outside, stripped of subjective qualities. They have godlike,
mathematical knowledge of the vast reaches of space and time, and even of countless universes
beyond our own. Unlike religion, locked in endless conflicts and disputes, science offers a true
understanding of material nature, the only reality there is. Scientists constitute a priesthood superior
to the priesthoods of religions, which maintain their prestige and power by playing on human
ignorance and fear. Scientists stand in the vanguard of human progress, leading humanity onward and
upward to a better and brighter world.
Most scientists are unconscious of the myths, allegories and assumptions that shape their social
roles and political power. These beliefs are implicit rather than explicit. But they are more powerful
because they are so habitual. If they are unconscious, they cannot be questioned; and in so far as they
are collective, shared by the scientific community, there is no incentive to question them.
In the course of this book, I have shown that the materialist philosophy or “the scientific
worldview” is not a vision of undeniable, objective truth. It is a questionable belief system superseded
by the development of the sciences themselves. In this chapter I look at the myths of disembodied
knowledge and scientific objectivity and the ways in which they conflict with the obvious fact that
scientists are people. Sciences are human activities. The assumption that the sciences are uniquely
objective not only distorts the public perception of scientists, but affects scientists’ perception of
themselves. The illusion of objectivity makes scientists prone to deception and self-deception. It
works against the noble ideal of seeking truth."  End Quote :
Source : "Science set free ,10 paths to new discovery " By Rupert Sheldrake : Chapter 11 : The illusions of objectivity .

[dlorde]

@  dlorde :
Lost your tongue ? Guess so , very predictable indeed.

You've said nothing worth responding to. 

[cheryl j]

Facts are , per definition, indeniable .

Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.

I said that Nagel did prove that obvious indeniable fact to be true in that book of his, didn't i ?

I think you are confusing the definition of a factual statement with what you believe to be a truthful statement. They are not the same. Factual means something that is verifiable by others. The average distance of the moon from Earth is 900 miles. The average distance of the moon from Earth is  252,088 miles. They are both factual statements, but one is definitely more accurate. I can measure it. You can measure it. You brother Bob can measure it.

There are probably "facts" in Nagel's book but I would argue that his proposition in total falls outside of being a verifiable fact.

Ironically, despite Nagel's critique of reductionism or materialism (which admittedly I don't agree with), I don't find anything in his other propositions terribly objectionable or alarming. His "natural teleology," or looking for higher order relationships to explain or  describe phenomena, is not all that revolutionary. They've been doing that in the mathematics of probability and statistics since the 1800s. Pascal's triangle. Gaussian distribution. You don't always have to reduce every part to its most fundamental components, to make predictions or learn something significant about how objects behave en masse.  The weird thing about people in probability and statistics, is they never seem to freak out about why certain mathematical relationships exist, even among random events, or why they pop up again and again in totally unrelated areas. They just say "Oh, good! Now we can make predictions!"

Unfortunately, I don't think you will find Nagel quite the ally you were hoping for. To me at least, these higher order relationships sound suspiciously like emergent properties that you are so scornful of. And I say this because I don't know how one would distinguish between a property that emerges from the interactions between objects, and a property that is somehow imposed on them by the universe in which they inhabit. At anyrate, he does not sound like a supporter of your kind of mystical insight into the nature of reality as a scientific method to learn about consciousness, despite his comments about what it is to be a bat. You better stick with Sheldrake.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to be as derisive as usual.

[alancalverd]

Science is practiced by scientists humans , dude :

Exactly. Don't confuse the singer with the song. I've played some beautiful songs for some rubbish singers in my time, but I wouldn't blame Kern or Handel for their mistakes.   

But , i was talking about somethingelse , about the core scientific assumption that the universe is intelligible

It appears to be, at least to the intelligent. But it wouldn't matter much it it wasn't. The "core assumption" is made by philosophers, not practitioners, of science, i.e. by people with no required knowledge or understanding of the subject. 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Facts are , per definition, indeniable

Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.

I said that Nagel did prove that obvious indeniable fact to be true in that book of his, didn't i ?

I think you are confusing the definition of a factual statement with what you believe to be a truthful statement. They are not the same. Factual means something that is verifiable by others. The average distance of the moon from Earth is 900 miles. The average distance of the moon from Earth is  252,088 miles. They are both factual statements, but one is definitely more accurate. I can measure it. You can measure it. You brother Bob can measure it.

There are probably "facts" in Nagel's book but I would argue that his proposition in total falls outside of being a verifiable fact.

Ironically, despite Nagel's critique of reductionism or materialism (which admittedly I don't agree with), I don't find anything in his other propositions terribly objectionable or alarming. His "natural teleology," or looking for higher order relationships to explain or  describe phenomena, is not all that revolutionary. They've been doing that in the mathematics of probability and statistics since the 1800s. Pascal's triangle. Gaussian distribution. You don't always have to reduce every part to its most fundamental components, to make predictions or learn something significant about how objects behave en masse.  The weird thing about people in probability and statistics, is they never seem to freak out about why certain mathematical relationships exist, even among random events, or why they pop up again and again in totally unrelated areas. They just say "Oh, good! Now we can make predictions!"

Unfortunately, I don't think you will find Nagel quite the ally you were hoping for. To me at least, these higher order relationships sound suspiciously like emergent properties that you are so scornful of. And I say this because I don't know how one would distinguish between a property that emerges from the interactions between objects, and a property that is somehow imposed on them by the universe in which they inhabit. At anyrate, he does not sound like a supporter of your kind of mystical insight into the nature of reality as a scientific method to learn about consciousness, despite his comments about what it is to be a bat. You better stick with Sheldrake.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to be as derisive as usual.

[/quote]

Too much side irrelevant talk and silly denials that say absolutely nothing : an obvious insult to the obvious undeniable  facts on the subject :

I did say , on many occasions  here ,that atheist Nagel's proposed alternative to reductionism is also a false conception of nature , that's obviously doomed to fail as well ,didn't i ?.

Besides , it is an obvious and an undeniable fact that reductionism in science is a false conception of nature that has been superseded even by the physical sciences, modern physics  themselves  ...
See what Sheldrake said here above on the subject .
An obvious and undeniable fact that has been proven to be true by many scientists , thinkers , philosophers , by the physical sciences themselves , by Nagel, by Sheldrake ....
That's not just a statement ,honey : to try to prove to you this fact as being true , is like trying to prove to you that the sun rises from the East ...come on, be serious .
Once again, has science proper even proved the "fact " to be true that reality is exclusively biological physical ? come on, don't be an idiot, sorry = absolutely not= never = ever ,simply because nature or reality cannot be a matter of exclusively biological physical processes or physics and chemistry , otherwise they absolutely cannot account for such processes such as life , consciousness, human cognition .....let alone their origins evolution and emergence = exclusive reductionist or even non-reductionist naturalism can certainly not explain consciousness, life , human cognition ...no way .
Science proper itself will therefore reject materialism as untrue and untenable ...no doubt about that .
Quantum physics , for example, have already been challenging materialism as being untrue and untenable since the 1920's ...
I can elaborate some more on this , and can even provide you with some relevant quotes from prominent scientists '. thinkers' work on the subject  ...concerning the obvious undeniable evidence that proves materialism to be false , beyond  any shadow of a doubt :
But , that's so an obvious and an undeniable fact that it would be an utter waste of time to try to discuss it any further , simply because it's so obvious that materialism is false , and is therefore challenged by the mental side of nature , by consciousness, life ...their emergence origins and evolution ..............
If you cannot see all that , if you cannot see obvious things and facts as such , there is no point in going any further with this discussion,for obvious reasons,  i am afraid .
Just try to read that Nagel's book, that Sheldrake's book at least then :
I am not gonna waste my time to try to make you get rid of your denials , that's neither my job to do , nor a relevant to this discussion thing to do  either  , that's your job and responsibility you gotta deal with , not mine .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Science is practiced by scientists humans , dude :

Exactly. Don't confuse the singer with the song. I've played some beautiful songs for some rubbish singers in my time, but I wouldn't blame Kern or Handel for their mistakes.   

Don't be a naive childish silly  idiot :
There is no such a thing as "science " , not in the sense that it is an alleged independent 'totally objective entity " out there : science is a human activity , a human social activity, a form of culture ...practiced by scientists humans : there is no science without scientists ....
"Science " does not exist independently : that's just a metaphor word used to refer to the work of scientists ...
Did you read or understand what Sheldrake was saying about the illusion of objectivity in science ?
You obviously did not understand that quote , assuming you read it , in the first place to begin with :
Here is another quote from that great book of Sheldrake "Science set free ..." , on the subject , concerning the fact that scientists are just humans  with shortcomings , flaws ...pretty much like any other humans , no super humans :

"Science"  approaches  relative degrees of objectivity or otherwise via scientists : the first cannot exist without the latter , science cannot exist without humans that practice it :

Quote :
"The humanity of scientists
Among the many scientists I have known, some are ruthlessly ambitious, others kind and generous;
some boringly pedantic, others excitingly speculative; some narrow-minded, others visionary; some
cowardly, others brave; some meticulous, others careless; some honest, others deceptive; some
secretive, others open; some original, others unoriginal. In other words, they are people. They vary,
just as other kinds of people vary.
Through studying scientists in action, sociologists of science have revealed that scientists are
indeed like other people. They are subject to social forces and peer-group pressures, and they need
acceptance, funding and, if possible, political influence. Their success does not depend simply on the
ingenuity of their theories or the facts they discover. The facts do not speak for themselves. To be
successful, scientists need rhetorical skills, to build up alliances and win the support of others.10
The historian of science Thomas Kuhn has shown that “normal science” is practiced within a shared
framework of assumptions and agreed practices, a paradigm. Phenomena that do not fit—anomalies—
are routinely dismissed or explained away. Scientists are often dogmatic and prejudiced when
confronted with evidence or ideas that go against their beliefs. They usually ignore what they do not
want to deal with. “Turning a blind eye is the no-nonsense way to deal with potentially troublesome
ideas,” observed the sociologists of science, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch.11 “The meaning of an
experimental result does not … depend only on the care with which it was designed and carried out, it
depends on what people are ready to believe.”12
In disputes between rival scientists, experimental results are rarely decisive on their own. The facts
do not speak for themselves because there is no agreement about the facts. Maybe the method was
flawed, or the apparatus faulty, or the data wrongly interpreted. When a new consensus builds up,
these disputes recede into the background, and the “correct” results are accepted, making it easier for
similar results to be correct.
The determination of the fundamental constants is a case in point. When the speed of light, c,
apparently dropped by 20 kilometers per second from 1928 to 1945, laboratories all around the world
reported measurements close to the consensus value. But when c went up again, laboratories duly
agreed closely with the new consensus (see Chapter 3). Did the speed of light really change? The data
say that it did. But for theoretical reasons it could not really have changed, because it is believed to be
a fundamental constant. Therefore the consensus data must have been flawed. The scientists probably
discarded measurements that didn’t fit, and “corrected” the remaining data until they converged on the
expected value as a result of “intellectual phase locking” (see this page–this page).
An international committee fixed the speed of light by definition in 1972, putting an end to
embarrassing variations. But other constants have continued to vary, especially the Universal
Gravitational Constant, G. So does G really vary? The facts cannot speak for themselves because most
of the measurements are not published. Within individual laboratories, researchers discard unsuitable
data, arriving at the final value by averaging selected measurements. Then an international committee
of experts selects, adjusts and averages the data from different laboratories to arrive at the
internationally recognized “best value” of G. Previous “best values” are consigned to the archives of
science, where they gather dust.13
Anyone who has actually carried out scientific research knows that data are uncertain, that much
depends on the way they are interpreted and that all methods have their limitations. Scientists are used
to having their data and interpretations scrutinized and criticized by anonymous peer reviewers. They
are usually well aware of the uncertainties and limitations of knowledge in their own field.
The illusion of objectivity gains in strength through distance. Biologists, psychologists and social
scientists are notorious for physics envy, seeing physics as far more objective and precise than their
own rather messy fields, where there is so much uncertainty. From the outside, metrology, the branch
of physics concerned with fundamental constants, seems an oasis of certainty. But metrologists
themselves make no such claim: they are preoccupied with variations in measurements, arguments
about the reliability of different methods, and disputes between different laboratories. They achieve a
higher level of precision than scientists studying plants, rats or minds, but their “best values” are still
consensus figures arrived at through processes of subjective evaluation.
The further the distance, the stronger the illusion. Those who are most prone to idealize the
objectivity of scientists are people who know almost nothing about science, people for whom it has
become a kind of religion, their hope of salvation." End Quote .

But , i was talking about somethingelse , about the core scientific assumption that the universe is intelligible

It appears to be, at least to the intelligent. But it wouldn't matter much it it wasn't. The "core assumption" is made by philosophers, not practitioners, of science, i.e. by people with no required knowledge or understanding of the subject.

What are you talking out again ?

I presumed that you were more intelligent than this , come on : unbelievable :

Intelligible  means comprehensible understandable .....that makes sense ...that can be easily understood ...
If the universe was not intelligible , there would be no science , no knowledge in the broader sense , no cognition logic to approach it , no life , no action, no nothing = a paradox = the universe is intelligible ,that's why science tries to understand explain it , but materialism cripples that wonderful capacity of science ...

God ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What's going on with you today , people ?
You are  way below the required level today : you also were all along   in fact , but in lesser degrees than today , how come ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@  dlorde :
Lost your tongue ? Guess so , very predictable indeed.

You've said nothing worth responding to.

This is the most stupid statement you have ever uttered   here so far : way to go, man .
Are you blind or just dumb ?
Oh, how could i miss this unbelievable non-sense : tragic-hilarious .
Really ? haha :
Your own definition of "worth " is staggering : it made me laugh to the point that it brought tears to my eyes ...hahah
God ...
Thank you for confirming my "pic " of you indeed : just have the decency to remain silent then : you , obviously , have nothing interesting to offer , i see .
Your abscence or silence were  more eloquent though ...but, not in the way you might interpret or rather misinterpret  the latter .
Just keep it that way then.
Byyyyeeee

[alancalverd]

There is no such a thing as "science "

Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money.

If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

There is no such a thing as "science "

Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money.

If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)

Don't take my words out of context , please : read what Sheldrake had to say about all that ,i did quote for you, just for your blue eyes .
Your understanding or rather misinderstanding of what science is , how it works , and by whom it is actually practiced  , is simply ...staggering though : i pity your clients in that regard .

[cheryl j]

There is no such a thing as "science "

Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money.

If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)

Don't take my words out of context , please : read what Sheldrake had to say about all that ,i did quote for you, just for your blue eyes .
Your understanding or rather misinderstanding of what science is , how it works , and by whom it is actually practiced  , is simply ...staggering though : i pity your clients in that regard .

What makes you think he has blue eyes?

[alancalverd]

...or that I don't understand what I do for a living?

As I thought, DonQ is a philosopher, that is, a person whose mission is to infect others with his ignorance - a sort of intellectual Munchausen by Proxy. A miserable calling, doomed forever to tell other people that they "just don't understand", but unlike teenagers, philosophers never grow up or acquire the humility and wisdom that science - or even normal life - confer on others.

[cheryl j]

Too much side irrelevant talk and silly denials that say absolutely nothing : an obvious insult to the obvious undeniable  facts on the subject:

I did say , on many occasions  here ,that atheist Nagel's proposed alternative to reductionism is also a false conception of nature , that's obviously doomed to fail as well ,didn't i ?.

Besides , it is an obvious and an undeniable fact that reductionism in science is a false conception of nature that has been superseded even by the physical sciences, modern physics  themselves  ...
See what Sheldrake said here above on the subject .
An obvious and undeniable fact that has been proven to be true by many scientists , thinkers , philosophers , by the physical sciences themselves , by Nagel, by Sheldrake ....
That's not just a statement ,honey : to try to prove to you this fact as being true , is like trying to prove to you that the sun rises from the East ...come on, be serious .
Once again, has science proper even proved the "fact " to be true that reality is exclusively biological physical ? come on, don't be an idiot, sorry = absolutely not= never = ever ,simply because nature or reality cannot be a matter of exclusively biological physical processes or physics and chemistry , otherwise they absolutely cannot account for such processes such as life , consciousness, human cognition .....let alone their origins evolution and emergence = exclusive reductionist or even non-reductionist naturalism can certainly not explain consciousness, life , human cognition ...no way .
Science proper itself will therefore reject materialism as untrue and untenable ...no doubt about that .
Quantum physics , for example, have already been challenging materialism as being untrue and untenable since the 1920's ...
I can elaborate some more on this , and can even provide you with some relevant quotes from prominent scientists '. thinkers' work on the subject  ...concerning the obvious undeniable evidence that proves materialism to be false , beyond  any shadow of a doubt :
But , that's so an obvious and an undeniable fact that it would be an utter waste of time to try to discuss it any further , simply because it's so obvious that materialism is false , and is therefore challenged by the mental side of nature , by consciousness, life ...their emergence origins and evolution ..............
If you cannot see all that , if you cannot see obvious things and facts as such , there is no point in going any further with this discussion,for obvious reasons,  i am afraid .
Just try to read that Nagel's book, that Sheldrake's book at least then :
I am not gonna waste my time to try to make you get rid of your denials , that's neither my job to do , nor a relevant to this discussion thing to do  either  , that's your job and responsibility you gotta deal with , not mine .

Don't worry your pretty little head about it, Don. I'll be fine if the Complete Works of Rupert Sheldrake are missing from my science library. But I'm glad you realize the atheist, Nagel, is not really your boy. He might be cranky when it comes to science, but he's almost rational. I would suggest Deepak Chopra but, dang it, he's the wrong religion.

I can't help but  notice a pattern with you. People actually think about what you say and try to respond in some logical way. I recall several interesting responses, for example, to your frequent comments regarding what physics has proved regarding consciousness. And you never address comments like that directly. There's never any counter argument that specifically addresses assertions point by point, or even one you feel worth pursuing. You either totally ignore it, or just restate your original argument that materialism is a false misconception of nature which has hijacked science proper and so on. Or you respond by saying they are "confused"  "don't get it" "irrelevant" "stupid"  or "childish" (and the best!) "twisting your words." I suspect you do this when you are backed into a corner, or are just too lazy to come up with a response - "I cannot be bothered by people who do not accept my brilliance without question!" 

[alancalverd]

"I cannot be bothered by people who do not accept my brilliance without question!"

Just like every other philosopher it has ever been my displeasure to meet!

However, much as I despise philosphers, I admire successful soldiers, so in the true spirit of cut and paste, here's a quickie from Mao Tse Tung (1957)

....the metaphysical method should not be used, but efforts should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scienmtific analysis and convincing argument

I think on a majority vote, Mao with a billion followers and a major revolutionary war to show for his efforts, trumps Sheldrake. 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

There is no such a thing as "science "

Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money.

If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)

Don't take my words out of context , please : read what Sheldrake had to say about all that ,i did quote for you, just for your blue eyes .
Your understanding or rather misinderstanding of what science is , how it works , and by whom it is actually practiced  , is simply ...staggering though : i pity your clients in that regard .

What makes you think he has blue eyes?

That was just a metaphor , a figure of speech ,you mechanic silly sis .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

...or that I don't understand what I do for a living?

As I thought, DonQ is a philosopher, that is, a person whose mission is to infect others with his ignorance - a sort of intellectual Munchausen by Proxy. A miserable calling, doomed forever to tell other people that they "just don't understand", but unlike teenagers, philosophers never grow up or acquire the humility and wisdom that science - or even normal life - confer on others.

I am no philsopher ,dude , and i was just correcting your errors of understanding and judgement , that's all : you do not have to take it like this : we all make errors , we are all relatively ignorant ....
Nobody is perfect .
But, when one pretends to know this or that  about something , one gotta prove that to be true : in your case , you do not seem to know much about what science is , what its limitations are , its role or function ...
Science is not about wisdom either ...

[alancalverd]

Please try to be consistent. On the one hand you say there is no such thing as science, and on the other you tell a professional scientist that he doesn't know what it is, or what it can be used for.

Only a priest, philosopher or a politician would consider such selfcontradiction to be normal or acceptable, but since you claim not to be a philosopher I must conclude that you are either a member of one of the other two despicable professions, or insane.  I will not insult you by suggesting that you are a priest or a politician.