Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

You are essentially exemplifying the dogmatic views of materialists, believing our system of inquiry is infallible. They have delivered the goods, it's been shown, and yet still ignored by the mainstream because it contradicts our cultural ethos. Because we don't take in the importance of energy and the fact that we exist in a field, we do not understand the importance of our architecture. We think it exists on top of the planet, but it exists inside the planet because the field is part of the planet as well. Egyptians didn't learn this by having a superior system of inquiry, they learned this by have a different cultural perspective--one that modern materialists take for inferior by fact that predates the current one which coincides with an empirical method of inquiry. There's a lack of respect in the materialist community for ethos outside of materialism, they are considered superstition and circular inherently.

And by virtue of the fact that you are attempting to argue that our culture's system of inquiry is infallible, you've essentially proved my claim (and Sheldrake's) that Scientism is an ideology. The ideology, in analogy, is that our means of categorizing colors is more accurate than another culture's because it rests upon empirical inquiry. But it doesn't, it's just a random categorization and colors could be categorized a thousands different ways. But because we have an empirical method of inquiry, we, as a culture, take for granted that not every aspect of our model of reality emerged through empirical inquiry. We confuse our map for reality. We confuse a belief for truth, and this is dogmatism.

Just to throw in this definition of dogmatism from thefreedictionary.com:

dogmatism:

1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.


Based on this definition of the word, every theory that has one or more assumptions at its base, must necessarily be dogmatic. This includes of course all of "science" - especially to the extent that it makes inherent use of mathematics.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You are essentially exemplifying the dogmatic views of materialists, believing our system of inquiry is infallible. They have delivered the goods, it's been shown, and yet still ignored by the mainstream because it contradicts our cultural ethos. Because we don't take in the importance of energy and the fact that we exist in a field, we do not understand the importance of our architecture. We think it exists on top of the planet, but it exists inside the planet because the field is part of the planet as well. Egyptians didn't learn this by having a superior system of inquiry, they learned this by have a different cultural perspective--one that modern materialists take for inferior by fact that predates the current one which coincides with an empirical method of inquiry. There's a lack of respect in the materialist community for ethos outside of materialism, they are considered superstition and circular inherently.

And by virtue of the fact that you are attempting to argue that our culture's system of inquiry is infallible, you've essentially proved my claim (and Sheldrake's) that Scientism is an ideology. The ideology, in analogy, is that our means of categorizing colors is more accurate than another culture's because it rests upon empirical inquiry. But it doesn't, it's just a random categorization and colors could be categorized a thousands different ways. But because we have an empirical method of inquiry, we, as a culture, take for granted that not every aspect of our model of reality emerged through empirical inquiry. We confuse our map for reality. We confuse a belief for truth, and this is dogmatism.

The next strawman - I didn't claim, the system of inquiry is infallible.
To make sure, that you understand this, I gave you an example of a piece of doctrine, which turned out to not be useful - even dangerous.
That would be to leave patients in bed after every surgery instead of going about an early mobilization.
Nobody left them in bed, because they wanted to cling to a doctrine - they genuinely thought, it would be a good idea and surely had some sort of "scientific" basis on which to believe that.
But being human - it surely was not easy to convince the proponents of the old doctrine of being wrong - it never is.
There was a lot of resistance and doubt involved - but eventually the positive evidence for the new method won.

So why do you say this, after me having provided a real example of doctrine gone wrong on the last page?



Denying, that Sheldrake fails to deliver the goods is ridiculous.
Do you seriously claim he does deliver? Please answer this simple yes/no question!!
I was under the impression, that you paddled back from such a claim, stating the purpose of presenting him, was more meant as a general appeal to question doctrine.
And if that were the case - I got to tell you, you did your message a severe disservice with associating yourself with Sheldrake - blatantly discrediting himself.
So - which shall it be?


And the Egyptian goods - namely healing properties of pyramidal geometric arrangements - nobody delivered the goods there either.
People have been trying to show, that it works, for a very long time - but it just doesn't.
How come you believe in this energy-field of unclear description - what sort of energy? - permeating the earth and being in resonance with pyramids? To my knowledge, not even the Egyptians themselves claimed such things.



Then - you must have a really short memory span, since it was actually me, who first mentioned the fact, that the colour-spectrum is a child of our nervous system, not a representation of some sort of different qualities arising in the outer world, one colour distinct from the next one. Sure - and it's interesting - how you can throw that back at me as counterargument is really beyond me.
I even mentioned something more striking - that from a certain frequency onwards - we perceive warmth instead of light - so not only a subcategory of sight isn't analogue to nature - a whole quality of sensation gets crossed there.

And why would we know this?
Right - scientific inquiry - nothing else.



It is also far from correct, that current thinking denies respect to older cultures - take as example the Maya calender, about which you can find a lot of praise, also the pyramids and mummification techniques of the Egyptians - no doubt.
But they for example took the brain out, because they thought, it had no importance for the functioning of a person. Riight.
It is absolutely astonishing what our elders did - lacking modern means - but there is nothing, which we couldn't do and better today.
Except maybe things depending on huge forces of slave-labour - but we have machines for such endeavours.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Just to throw in this definition of dogmatism from thefreedictionary.com:

dogmatism:

1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.


Based on this definition of the word, every theory that has one or more assumptions at its base, must necessarily be dogmatic. This includes of course all of "science" - especially to the extent that it makes inherent use of mathematics.

What you want to express here, is that there is a doctrine in the scientific community - and there has to be.
I had to look it up coming from the German "Lehrmeinung" - that means, the current opinion, based on the body of knowledge we have, which is being taught. Something has to be taught, right?
And would you want to be taught in university that these 10 things - the ones of them, which are actually held, and not just straw-man points - are exactly the other way round, than all the valid evidence suggests, just because a nutter like Sheldrake has his doubts, but comes along with utterly empty hands, when asked to deliver the goods?
Do you want to get taught, that certain points are controversial - that there is no means to discern, which version is supported, and which is not - if it isn't actually true?
If there is positive evidence for something and a lack of contrary evidence - you want to learn that, and move on, being able to draw on this knowledge for your further work.


Doctrine should be, what makes the most sense at the moment.
A doctrine is not a dogma - and it is also not just a point of view - it is the shared opinion of the scientific community, after taking into account the fruits of scientific inquiry - evidence. It is not at all being written down in stone and not ever changeable.
It is also not laid down by dictum of a distinct authority - it is something, on which a world-wide agreement is reached.
It holds up exactly as long, as nobody comes along and falsifies it.
If somebody in Guatemala throws over with valid evidence one of the current opinions, arrived at such - first of all a big excitement breaks out, secondly people fall over themselves to be the ones to find the explanation.

Let's see, what the meaning of dogma really is, without holding back the more salient points:

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Nope, not applicable - see above - doctrine is made to hold up until falsification and not for all time - and it is product of worldwide cooperation and consent.

It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology, nationalism or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Lets see - if the speed of light would start to change suddenly - how exactly would that bring down Science?
Same with the other things on Sheldrake's list - none of them would make obsolete the scientific method and Science as a whole, if they were to be shown incorrect.
It is a complete misnomer.

Shall I tell you, where you are most likely to be dogmatic yourself?
Together with the vast majority of believers in the spiritual.
For you, it is indeed the basis of your whole belief-system, that there is something spiritual to human nature, that the mind is not dependent and stemming from the brain alone.
Has it ever occurred to you, to honestly doubt that?
Not to Sheldrake - all his "we should be open-minded and question what we are taught" - for him it is laughable to not believe in a soul - where is his questioning spirit there?
Would you be fine with leaving this belief behind you, if all evidence speaks against it, and there is no positive evidence in it's favour?
Oh - hold on - you do already, don't you?

And why - right - because otherwise your whole world-view comes crashing down - which is of considerable emotional importance to you. While I would be thrilled to see something being discovered, which overthrows a lot of my beliefs.
But I find it reasonable to not expect it, or waste my time searching for evidence, where generations upon generations and hundreds of thousands of others have failed to find something.
Despite this, I call myself agnostic by the way - I feel, I have to repeat that, to pre-empt getting this smacked right back in the face.
My points for this stance can be found in different places - we could be a simulation for example - nothing speaks against it based on current doctrine - but there is also nothing in it's favour.
I have to acknowledge, that I can't know, if it is so - but I can refrain from believing in it anyway, without being irrational there. I guess, the belief in a soul is held so deeply and often people feel justified by a sort of illusory subjective a priori knowledge - it's not possible to throw them away without considerable pain and confusion.

That's the funny thing - often the accusation goes - we are afraid to find something, which contradicts our beliefs - why on earth should we? For us it is not about if we cease to exist after death, and if we truly are a psychic and thus something special. For us it is about having something new to do research on - and if it's something revolutionary - that means party-time and Nobel Prizes.

So what about you? This is the other question, I'd like a clear answer to from the both of you, maybe Dthoughts as well.
Are you able to throw away your personal beliefs in a soul even theoretically?



What everybody can agree upon, is that there is a doctrine being taught in academia, pertaining to explanations of certain phenomena.
It is put up following from the best we can do - collecting data, detecting patterns and finding explanations for those, which then put us in the position to make valid predictions.
Doctrine is changeable, and has changed over the history of science a myriad times, without threatening to bring down the whole scientific method.

To the contrary - something is only then scientific in the first place, if it is theoretically falsifiable - and that's how science works - trying to falsify current theories.

A dogma would be something like the pope is infallible.
Has been shot down so many times - even popes apologizing - and they still can't leave it be.

Sure there is doctrine in science, but that is not really relevant here, since it is the word "dogma", which is being investigated.

But, just the same, since you brought doctrine up (and wrote rather glorifyingly about it), I'll comment on it.

Originally Posted by StephL

It is also not laid down by dictum of a distinct authority - it is something, on which a world-wide agreement is reached.
It holds up exactly as long, as nobody comes along and falsifies it.

This is actually wrong on several points (doctrine is often laid down by dictum of a distinct authority - namely the prominent professors. There is often not world-wide agreement, because young researchers often question the old stuff. And sometimes you can falsify something till you get blue in the face, and still the doctrine persists), but all this is not important to the question of dogma.


I've got to ask you this, Steph: if, from your perspective, finding faults in the central theories of science does not invalidate Science, have you not yourself, then, made Science unfalsifiable?

Well first of all Voldmer - please answer my question from the last post - once more:
Are you personally convinced, there is a spiritual essence to human nature?
Could anything persuade you otherwise?
If so - what could?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Sure there is doctrine in science, but that is not really relevant here, since it is the word "dogma", which is being investigated.

Precisely.
And I told you, that it is doctrine which is systematically inherent in Science, and not dogma.
It is not sufficient to throw out one sentence from a dictionary and claim thereby to have given an adequate definition of the term.
That is why I went to the extreme measure of citing Wikipedia on the matter.

To the piece of definition you brought:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

dogmatism: 1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.

So what on earth would the term "established fact" mean then, if not the combined results of inquiry with the scientific method?
Established fact is what results from our best knowledge at the moment - even if it might some day be substituted with an even broader or deeper understanding. Established fact does not mean, that all and everything about it is understood without a shred of a doubt.

So dogmatic would be Sheldrake here - stating his mere points of view - there is nothing more - go show me if you disagree - but he states his views, as if he had actual evidence, but he doesn't.
What makes it into scientific doctrine these days is underfooted - repeatedly and worldwide shown to work.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Based on this definition of the word, every theory that has one or more assumptions at its base, must necessarily be dogmatic. This includes of course all of "science" - especially to the extent that it makes inherent use of mathematics.

It doesn't follow from the above, because you misinterpret "established fact".
That is not the same as "absolute truth".
How you would go about establishing facts without mathematics is beyond me by the way.
I find this a pretty absurd manoeuvre - first cutting out a piece of definition, then misinterpreting the terms, then applying that misinterpretation wantonly - and then declaring the whole scientific method for dogmatic for reasons like science's use of something as intangible as maths.

That's a new one, actually - to which end did you do that?
One could almost think, you want to hollow out the term dogma, so that nothing is left in terms of meaning.

What is essential to it's definition, is that it is officially meant to be held and to hold true for all time. While the concept of scientific theories is systematically to be open to falsification.

Furthermore - a dogma is something, on which the foundation of a belief-system stands - so if it falls - the whole system should fall.
So again - how is Science damageable by any of it's theories being falsified?
It happens - and science as a method is not discredited by that - because it says from the beginning - this is as best as we know and reasoned it through at this time.
I don't know how many time this needs to be repeated.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

But, just the same, since you brought doctrine up (and wrote rather glorifyingly about it), I'll comment on it.

This is actually wrong on several points (doctrine is often laid down by dictum of a distinct authority - namely the prominent professors. There is often not world-wide agreement, because young researchers often question the old stuff. And sometimes you can falsify something till you get blue in the face, and still the doctrine persists), but all this is not important to the question of dogma.

What you say there is that people are people and stuff takes time - well, that is nothing new.
In principle, though - theories become more and more refined and the blue-faced heroes their recognition - only if they are very unlucky, they don't live to see it. Due to the internet and free worldwide communication, such a fate gets more and more unlikely.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I've got to ask you this, Steph: if, from your perspective, finding faults in the central theories of science does not invalidate Science, have you not yourself, then, made Science unfalsifiable?

Now this is seriously strange.
Science as such is a method and not an assumption. Falsification is not applicable, not even semantically.
A method can not be established as a fact.
I hope you understand this.

This is in reply to Stephs post no. 181.

First a bit of moan: Why, oh why Steph, must you expand a tiny point into a massive slew of text? Less is more! Now I feel compelled to answer you on a lot of points that really have nothing to do with the issue of dogmatism. This is frustrating!


As to your question, I was not aware that you were talking to me. I find it highly curious that you would ask me about my view on spirits, since this has nothing whatsoever to do with the logical consequences of using a particular definition of the word "dogma". But, okay, you asked, and here is my answer:

I see a human being as composed of three elements: a body, a soul, and a spirit - the spirit being the part concerned with the higher mental faculties. Therefore, yes I am convinced that human beings have a spirit. For me, we have by definition a spirit, and "having a spirit" is quite similar to "having a nose".

Nothing seems at the moment to be able to persuade me otherwise (but, as an engineer and a scientist, I am always open to, and mindful of, better ideas).

Please note, however, that I'm unsure what you mean by spiritual "essence".

Originally Posted by StephL

It is not sufficient to throw out one sentence from a dictionary and claim thereby to have given an adequate definition of the term.

And I didn't. What you're so up in arms about, I really don't know. Maybe you inferred lots of things from my post about the definition of dogma, and you went on to attack those things. Just stick to what I wrote - that'll serve you better!

Originally Posted by StephL

So what on earth would the term "established fact" mean then, if not the combined results of inquiry with the scientific method?

Steph, the scientific method is a very recent idea. Do you think "established facts" is an equally recent idea? Or, to make it even more plain: when you first realised that you - for a fact - existed, was it the result of you "combining the results of inquiry with the scientific method"?



I'm not going to comment on all your stuff about Sheldrake; I know very little about the guy, and I have no interest in him (which I pointed out earlier in the thread).



You claim that I misinterpret the concept "established fact" with "absolute truth". However, I don't, and I do not see why you would choose to suggest that I do. Let me illustrate my point from post no. 178 in order to illuminate you:

Science claims that the speed of light has a particular given value everywhere in space. This is presented as an "established fact" in all corresponding text books on physics. Nonetheless, this claim is based on several assumptions, and therefore is merely a point of view. Hence, it is a dogma (according to that particular definition of that word).

Originally Posted by StephL

How you would go about establishing facts without mathematics is beyond me by the way.

Fine, I won't go into it any further then. (I wouldn't under any circumstances have done so here - it certainly deserves a bigger venue).

Originally Posted by StephL

I find this a pretty absurd manoeuvre - first cutting out a piece of definition, then misinterpreting the terms, then applying that misinterpretation wantonly - and then declaring the whole scientific method for dogmatic for reasons like science's use of something as intangible as maths.

Do calm down, Steph! I did not mention the scientific method anywhere: I talked about Science. It's best if you don't infer things, that I did not write.

But you seem to use the terms "science" and "the scientific method" interchangeably. Of course that is your right. But to me "science" is a field of human activity with millions of people doing lots of stuff. The purpose of science is to understand nature (as a german you have the benefit of knowing the word science as "Naturwissenschaft", which essentially means "nature knowledge").

When I asked you whether you had made science unfalsifiable, I implied that it seems as if - from your perspective - there is nothing that can happen in the name of science, which would make you doubt science at all. But I'll rephrase the question: could anything make you loose faith in science?

Seeing how this is a trend with diction behind dogma, history of the scientific method, and such (and this isn't referring to anyone in particular):

• It's agreeable that the Hypothetico-deductive model is recent (around early 19th century), however, it doesn't mean that a method of inquiry in the past was nonexistent. It was merely more on the lines of inductive reasoning with experimentation (which would probably be way before the 19th century obviously, so for any generalities on claims of a method of inquiry just being recent (and presuming anything before that was nonexistent) is pretty much debatable now). It's just that this recent proposed method of inquiry (Hypothetico-deductive) conflates inductive and deductive methods (since inductive methods of inquiry without some combination of deductive had many controversies and skepticism in the past). So anything about pyramid people, or their harmonic resonance may have fall in the previous inductive reasoning with experimentation (e.g. architecture to make magnificent pyramids and what have you). This is why compared to now, anything before would be a bit more rudimentary, but not necessarily inferior if it helped build upon the integration of inductive and deductive experimentation.

• If dogma is an ideology/point of view(s), or a set of ideologies that are considered to be irrefutable, that seems to contradict the means of falsification with the hypothetico-deductive model. Having inductive reasoning integrated into that now offers the chance for other future theories that could also have a sound framework to challenge claims that are, within the context in this thread, apparently "irrefutable"; they (new theorems, or ones left in the dust, or just didn't get much recognition) just have to go through the same standard of repeatability and experimentation like any other theorem proposed. There are all sorts of terms to describe ideology, but the distinctions is to what degree does that ideology/ideologies is open or intolerant to for falsification and fallibility (and dogma is clearly one fitting the camp of "irrefutable," or with absolute certainty).
  
  Now, it's one thing for people to eventually build trust and reliance on collective points of views (whether done with a method of inquiry, or just from a priori and experiential truths that don't need empirical evidence), but the word dogma does imply where it gets to the point where its seemingly an authoritative claim that such collective points of views that stood the standard of repeatability and experimentation (and vice versa for those that didn't) are now irrefutable (absolute certainty). This still brings back to how even though there are theories and such that people attach themselves to, no one can really know with absolute certainty, it's just based on patterns, and all of the major constituents behind the integration with the hypothetico-deductive model that previous models that were also considered a method of inquiry in the past lacked (e.g. the deductive-nomological model that went into a steep decline, and the obvious inductive reasoning with experimentation).

Thank you Linkzelda - your above post contains the essence, of what I have to say to the rest of Voldmer's post!
I have a nagging feeling, though, some people will make it easy for themselves by refusing to honestly follow your sophisticated reasoning.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Now I feel compelled to answer you on a lot of points that really have nothing to do with the issue of dogmatism. This is frustrating!

I find it highly curious that you would ask me about my view on spirits, since this has nothing whatsoever to do with the logical consequences of using a particular definition of the word "dogma".

I see a human being as composed of three elements: a body, a soul, and a spirit - the spirit being the part concerned with the higher mental faculties.

Therefore, yes I am convinced that human beings have a spirit. For me, we have by definition a spirit, and "having a spirit" is quite similar to "having a nose".

Nothing seems at the moment to be able to persuade me otherwise (but, as an engineer and a scientist, I am always open to, and mindful of, better ideas).

Please note, however, that I'm unsure what you mean by spiritual "essence".

Especially my questions to you are highly relevant – I will explain this to you, if I get a serious answer.

Unfortunately you pretend not to – or you really don’t understand - that what I meant by “spiritual essence” is equivalent to your concept of soul.
That is a bit curious to say the least.
Have you ever seen somebody use “belief in spirits” pertaining to acknowledging, that humans have higher mental faculties?
I haven’t.
But okay – then we go into the second round – please answer the questions once more for your concept of soul.




Just at the side - "Naturwissenschaft" does not mean "nature knowledge" - it is not a specification of a sort of knowledge, namely pertaining to nature - it means "the establishing of knowledge of nature". Knowledge is "Wissen" - but there is a "-schaft" attached - just in case you doubt me.
And there we are again at "established facts".

First of all, thanks for keeping your post at a smaller size than you normally do!

Originally Posted by StephL

Unfortunately you pretend not to – or you really don’t understand - that what I meant by “spiritual essence” is equivalent to your concept of soul.

How on earth do you know what my concept of soul amounts to - I have not described it anywhere? Please stop this pretending!

Originally Posted by StephL

Have you ever seen somebody use “belief in spirits” pertaining to acknowledging, that humans have higher mental faculties?

Yes, it is rather standard practice in the western esoteric tradition to use that particular three-fold break-down of human beings into body, soul, and spirit. But I have a distinct feeling that you want me to believe, that spirits are free-floating ghosts that may appear anywhere - even though you yourself definitely do not hold that belief. Maybe you have me confused with somebody else ...

Originally Posted by StephL

But okay – then we go into the second round – please answer the questions once more for your concept of soul.

Your demands are really strange; why do you want to know my view of "the soul"? Weren't we talking about dogma in science? My definition of "soul" has precious little to do with that!

But, okay, again I'll indulge you: I view the soul as the seat of the lower mental faculties (emotions, feelings, and instincts).

Having now provided you with this (almost certainly underwhelming) answer, might you feel tempted to answer my question of whether something could conceivably lower your confidence in science?

Originally Posted by StephL

Just at the side - "Naturwissenschaft" does not mean "nature knowledge" - it is not a specification of a sort of knowledge, namely pertaining to nature - it means "the establishing of knowledge of nature". Knowledge is "Wissen" - but there is a "-schaft" attached - just in case you doubt me.

You're of course absolutely correct about this. (But it hardly changes much of anything, given the context. Science is about understanding nature, as opposed to understanding that which is artificial).

With all this talk about Sheldrake, I finally took the bait and watched the "banned TED talk", and subsequently also heard a radio-interview in which Sheldrake talked about the banning of said talk.

Apart from his spending time on "morphic fields" and "consciousness reaching out of the body", neither of which I buy into, I thought his talk was good and appropriate. His example with the political fixing of the gravitational constant was especially thought-provoking.

Right - you evade me.
And that is so obvious to anybody reading this exchange - you could just as well have answered honestly to the exact same effect.

I am yet to meet somebody*, who is not dogmatic in his or her conviction of the concept of mind transcending mere matter, and basically being something other than brain-derived functions.
Your evasion confirms to me, that you fall in that category yourself.

You are wording your views here, as if you wouldn't believe in anything other than mind originating from and being bound to a physical brain - same as me. Which takes them out of reach for being denominated dogmatic following your reduced definition. You are not an authority and don't impose your views on others - so you wouldn't fall under my extended definition anyway.

But I don't believe it.
And I don't think anybody else does either.

Or is it really the case - you have a materialistic view of human nature - despite using esoteric nomenclature??
If so - I have to apologize and wonder about cognitive dissonance on your side.



To Science and your question:

I said so before - if you define it as the millions of people doing stuff - like you did - of course there are a myriad possibilities of how I could loose faith in them - not only individually, but in bunches.

So - if I take the scientific method then - yes - I could loose faith in it.
If for example you do the exact same experiment over and over and get out completely different and nonsensical results, without any flaws in procedure - that would shake up my understanding of how the scientific method works and it's reliability - plus it would also shake up my belief in nature itself, in a way.
Even more so, if it would occur all over the place to millions of people, no matter the topic and procedures.

If such a thing happened - a possible explanation would be for example - we are a mere simulation, and the rules of our artificial nature caught themselves a bug.



*Ah - hold on - I think I do know somebody - maybe Sageous could qualify - cheers!

I am actually offended by your insinuations that I am being disingenuous in my answers to you; I have been completely precise and honest. My views on soul and spirit are exactly as I wrote. You may of course believe what you wish.

If you really mean that a materialistic view of the mind cannot be dogmatic, then you are obviously dogmatic yourself about this. I emphasize this because I don't think you see it yourself, although it screams to high heavens.

What your mind seems incapable of grasping in this discussion, is that the view I hold on soul and spirit is an entirely pragmatic and functional view (typical for an engineer - which I also am). It in itself is neither materialistic, in the traditional sense, nor "spiritual" in the sense you like to hate.

I have answered you before on the question of whether I believe in "more than the ordinary physical" (or words to rather similar effect), and my answer to that is one of indecision; I am to about 60% convinced that there is more "to it" than the ordinary physical world, but to 40% I do share your view. However, the view held by the 60% of me is still a scientific view, since I believe there are scientific principles that apply to all of nature - whether ordinary physical, or "spiritual". So the "spiritual" would simply be a part of the physical, which science has yet to discover.

Originally Posted by StephL

So - if I take the scientific method then - yes - I could loose faith in it.

Good! There is still hope for you then.

Originally Posted by StephL

If for example you do the exact same experiment over and over and get out completely different and nonsensical results, without any flaws in procedure - that would shake up my understanding of how the scientific method works and it's reliability

I have bad news for you then, I'm afraid. They involve the excitation of electrons, and the time needed for reoccupying their old energy levels. But I'm not sure I have the heart to break the details to you.

Originally Posted by StephL

*Ah - hold on - I think I do know somebody - maybe Sageous could qualify - cheers!

Is that a good thing?

... I guess I'll take it as such because, well, I guess I do qualify and don't mind at all!

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I have answered you before on the question of whether I believe in "more than the ordinary physical" (or words to rather similar effect), and my answer to that is one of indecision;

I am to about 60% convinced that there is more "to it" than the ordinary physical world, but to 40% I do share your view.

However, the view held by the 60% of me is still a scientific view, since I believe there are scientific principles that apply to all of nature - whether ordinary physical, or "spiritual". So the "spiritual" would simply be a part of the physical, which science has yet to discover.

You answered this before??
But not on the last pages.
Why did you not answer that, when I asked you, if you are completely convinced of there being "more than the ordinary physical to human nature" - if that is your phrase of choice?
We would have been over and done with a long while ago, and I would be reconstructing my view on dogmatism with people holding such beliefs. As I said - it's a new one to me - esp. from real life - and I was astounded about Sageous leaving open a window of doubt for eventual future reference.
Now you come and have a 60/40 stance - congratulation!

But do me the favour and consider, why I came to my impression:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I am actually offended by your insinuations that I am being disingenuous in my answers to you; I have been completely precise and honest. My views on soul and spirit are exactly as I wrote. You may of course believe what you wish.

What your mind seems incapable of grasping in this discussion, is that the view I hold on soul and spirit is an entirely pragmatic and functional view (typical for an engineer - which I also am).

It in itself is neither materialistic, in the traditional sense, nor "spiritual" in the sense you like to hate.

"I see a human being as composed of three elements: a body, a soul, and a spirit - the spirit being the part concerned with the higher mental faculties.
Therefore, yes I am convinced that human beings have a spirit. For me, we have by definition a spirit, and "having a spirit" is quite similar to "having a nose"".

"I view the soul as the seat of the lower mental faculties (emotions, feelings, and instincts)."

Come on - do you really claim, you have elucidated your views on "spirit" and "soul" with these two passages?
Spirit=higher mental faculties and soul=lower mental faculties - and that is all you got?
Why take on this terminology, if you are on about functional faculties?
Indeed everybody can agree on humans having higher and lower mental faculties - absolutely everybody from atheist to fanatic Muslim - so you have said exactly nothing about your personal stance and beliefs.

But you were not evading me?
I could feel offended right back - but it's more exasperation.
And I'm tired hunting down your terminology for essence - like asking, who or what survives physical death in your 60% version - spirit and soul together? Or only one of them?
If together - why the separation of terms in the first place - on which grounds?
But yeah - got to stop this.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

If you really mean that a materialistic view of the mind cannot be dogmatic, then you are obviously dogmatic yourself about this. I emphasize this because I don't think you see it yourself, although it screams to high heavens.

Oh no - you must have missed my repeated mention of being agnostic myself - my percentage looks quite different from yours - and the content, too - but there is one.
I am an atheist too - other topic.
You misinterpret - what I said was:

If you would hold a purely materialistic view on human nature -then I could not accuse you of being dogmatic in your reduced definition.
Since you would then be basing your views on established facts only.

You made a hash of answering my initial questions, which were essentially easy to grasp - and I think, it was obvious, what I was driving at.
So my intuition told me, that you would - at least privately - be absolutely sure of *insert supernatural phrase at your leisure* and having a hard time denying it.
As I said above - why not say I'm agnostic and even have sussed out a personal percentage?
So - the accusation is back in the closet, fellow agnostic - nice to find, you're indeed not dogmatic!

I'm still not in the picture, really, but I will relent now.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I have bad news for you then, I'm afraid. They involve the excitation of electrons, and the time needed for reoccupying their old energy levels. But I'm not sure I have the heart to break the details to you.

Oh - do by all means!
Looking forward to an example in physics, where the scientific method is inadequate!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Is that a good thing?

... I guess I'll take it as such because, well, I guess I do qualify and don't mind at all!

Definitively a good thing!
Being absolutely sure of something is a hallmark of delusion (and religion) after all! wink.gif

Originally Posted by StephL

Come on - do you really claim, you have elucidated your views on "spirit" and "soul" with these two passages?

Yes.

Originally Posted by StephL

Why take on this terminology, if you are on about functional faculties?

Because it makes sense to me, and because it has already been used by others for centuries.

Originally Posted by StephL

Indeed everybody can agree on humans having higher and lower mental faculties - absolutely everybody from atheist to fanatic Muslim - so you have said exactly nothing about your personal stance and beliefs.

But you were not evading me?
I could feel offended right back - but it's more exasperation.

I'm rather convinced that your exasperation stems from so far not being able to put me into the category "tree-hugging new age hippies". But if you really want me there, you will have to ask other questions than about soul and spirit, because these I have given my truthful engineering answer to.

Originally Posted by StephL

And I'm tired hunting down your terminology for essence - like asking, who or what survives physical death in your 60% version - spirit and soul together? Or only one of them?
If together - why the separation of terms in the first place - on which grounds?

In all fairness: why do you take an interest in my view on this at all? All I did was back up OP's post (#177) up with a definition of dogma taken from an online dictionary; my views on souls, spirits, and the here-after are not relevant in any way!

But, to answer specifically your latest questions: in the 60% version the answer would probably be "both soul and spirit survive physical death". But this is not something, that I have contemplated a lot, so maybe my confidence in this is lower than 60%. Please note: I do not have a clear grip on what a soul and a spirit is (from a physics point of view) - only on what they do!

Why the separation in terms - I am an engineer, and a physicist, and I like to break things down into their components - and preferably in a sensible way. Using lower and higher mental faculties seems to fit with my experience of human behaviour. Plus, as mentioned, it's traditional (and, in that tradition souls survive bodies, but spirits survive souls).

Originally Posted by StephL

If you would hold a purely materialistic view on human nature -then I could not accuse you of being dogmatic in your reduced definition.
Since you would then be basing your views on established facts only.

See, that's where you loose me: how does someone with a materialistic view on human nature necessarily base this view on established facts only?

A materialist would for example claim boldly, that there is no afterlife. But this is not an established fact - it is merely an assumption.

Originally Posted by StephL

Oh - do by all means!
Looking forward to an example in physics, where the scientific method is inadequate!

Okay, since you ask for it: bound electrons from time to time get "excited" and move into a more highly energized state. But they remain there for only so long, after which they fall back into their old energy state. The time required before falling back seems random to those who have studied it. No matter how many times they do the experiment, the result comes out different every time.

The official doctrine (which is highly dogmatic, by the way) is that this is inherent randomness in nature, and no theory can ever be proposed that would succesfully predict the time required for the decay back into the low energy state.

Consciousness seems pretty random at times. Just look at this random comment.

Well - the whole "are you absolutely convinced" business was directed at you, OP and Dthoughts - and I did it, to make at least some of the people reading this here aware of the fact, that many, many people - and some readers, too, surely - are at least extremely reluctant to admit, that the world could indeed be purely materialistic. And that holding such a view does not exactly qualify one to accuse others of dogma.
It took an inordinate time to determine, that you are indeed an agnostic - so long, that I wonder, if this was even clear to yourself.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Okay, since you ask for it: bound electrons from time to time get "excited" and move into a more highly energized state. But they remain there for only so long, after which they fall back into their old energy state. The time required before falling back seems random to those who have studied it. No matter how many times they do the experiment, the result comes out different every time.

The official doctrine (which is highly dogmatic, by the way) is that this is inherent randomness in nature, and no theory can ever be proposed that would succesfully predict the time required for the decay back into the low energy state.

What this shows, is that we don't live in a completely deterministic universe - there are here and there cases, where we don't find a clear-cut answer - in this case to predict, when a certain electron will fall back to the lower energy state.
This conundrum was discovered by Science - and do tell me, with what other method you think, one should go about analysing it.
Despite this uncertainty - what you can always do is measure a lot of examples - determine the range - the shortest and longest time it needs for this in etwa, and then throw up a mathematical analysis on the probabilities for the times needed.

If it is as you say - that's not showing that the scientific method is inadequate - just that we can't predict this, at least not at the moment.

I know, that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about there being a limit to the precision, with which you can measure two complementary characteristics of a particle - like position and momentum - simultaneously.
That is quantum mechanics - and your electron should also be on that playground.
Is there a connection, maybe?
And as far as I know - Heisenberg could show mathematically, that this is really a limit, and so the uncertainty concerning these measurements is doctrine (aka - "as best as we know at the moment" - so that is, what is being taught).

Such a thing - same as not (yet) being able to grasp a phenomenon with hypotheses and experiments at all - shows us the limits of the procedure for the time being - maybe forever in certain cases. Oh - and our cognitive limits of course.
It does not show, that the scientific method is invalid.

What would show that, would be if experiments, which have been giving reliable results in the past, which make sense in our current understanding, would suddenly produce random and nonsensical results.
And actually - one scientist - or a group of them - getting such results would first of all always have to check extensively for flaws in their procedure - it would only then be significant, if this happened all over the world for various scientists.

If it was only about one topic - say the measure of the speed of light - I would first of all loose confidence in the constancy of the speed of light, and that it affects the universe, as it is believed it does.
Not yet the whole method.
But as I said - if this happened all over the world and with diverse topics - then it would follow, that we better cease relying on it, and try to figure out how that can be.


A shot in the dark - does observational/experimental science being something other than historical science ring a bell?
Not as in trying to reconstruct human history - like how a battle unfolded.
I mean it as in - we can measure something here and now - but that tells us nothing about how it was in the past, or how it is somewhere, where we can't directly measure?

I hope we can wrap this up soon; this takes time away from more interesting stuff ...

Originally Posted by StephL

It took an inordinate time to determine, that you are indeed an agnostic - so long, that I wonder, if this was even clear to yourself.

But my point throughout this thread has been that all of science, all of religion, and all of philosophical traditions are based on assumptions, and therefore no certainty can exist. I am a strong proponent of the Bayesian theorem, which implies perpetual uncertainty, unless you started from a point of perfect knowledge.

Originally Posted by StephL

What this shows, is that we don't live in a completely deterministic universe

But this is exactly the dogmatic position! These experiments do not show anything at all about determinism, but the arrogant claim of the quantum theorists is that "there cannot be a model predicting the outcome - not now, and not ever!" And that is dogmatic.

Originally Posted by StephL

This conundrum was discovered by Science - and do tell me, with what other method you think, one should go about analysing it.

I don't have a better one than contemplating the matter more deeply, and working out a better scientific model. I am a scientist, you know ...

Originally Posted by StephL

If it is as you say - that's not showing that the scientific method is inadequate - just that we can't predict this, at least not at the moment.

Well, to quote yourself:

Originally Posted by StephL

If for example you do the exact same experiment over and over and get out completely different and nonsensical results, without any flaws in procedure - that would shake up my understanding of how the scientific method works and it's reliability

and these results do indeed come out completely differently and nonsensical ... But please let us not belabour this point; it's not that important. I'm not trying to shake your confidence in science.

Originally Posted by StephL

I know, this is not the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is about there being a limit to the precision, with which you can measure two complementary characteristics of a particle - like position and momentum - simultaneously.
That is quantum mechanics - and your electron should also be on that playground.
And as far as I know - Heisenberg could show mathematically, that this is really a limit, and so the uncertainty concerning these measurements is doctrine.
Is there a connection, maybe?

As you say, it's not the same thing, although there is a connection. The electrons are quite elusive however, and we never know where they are, nor where they are moving with any meaningful kind of precision.

Originally Posted by StephL

Such a thing - same as not (yet) being able to grasp a phenomenon with hypotheses and experiments at all - shows us the limits of the procedure for the time being - maybe forever in certain cases. Oh - and our cognitive limits of course.
It does not show, that the scientific method is invalid.

I'm not attacking the "scientific method" as such. I'm just pointing out that science is dogmatic (which was the original topic of the thread, and also the point of Sheldrake, whose banned talk I have finally watched).

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I hope we can wrap this up soon; this takes time away from more interesting stuff ...

Well yeah - so be it.
Finally we agree on something!

Originally Posted by StephL

Well - the whole "are you absolutely convinced" business was directed at you, OP and Dthoughts - and I did it, to make at least some of the people reading this here aware of the fact, that many, many people - and some readers, too, surely - are at least extremely reluctant to admit, that the world could indeed be purely materialistic. And that holding such a view does not exactly qualify one to accuse others of dogma.

Well.. You asked earlier. I don't actually believe the soul is Immaterial. I actually hold a strictly Materialistic world-view. And I even boldly disagree with a commonly propogated QM claim that Higgs Boson is the only candidate for antimatter. If you must know (and i certainly love to ramble about it), I believe Higgs Boson is the smallest example of soul/spirit/matter that we know exists in the universe.

I'm pretty confident that OP does not hold a dualistic view of consciousness either. So in effect, it does not seem that your motivation for conversation in this thread was based on us as human beings. Rather it looks more like a show to imaginary readers. Who I think are perfectly capable of forming their own opinion theirselves. And really don't need confirmation from the high-horse of science that all is well. And that the universe is being investigated rationally by scientists in the mists of crackpot theorists looking to destroy everything that science has emperically gathered.

Scientists can be a little dogmatic about emperically gathered evidence. The evidence is there and it is reproducable. The theories are what scientists are dogmatic about. But that's okay, dogma fuels the soul to investigate further. Dogma and a need to provide evidence for a dogma is a recipe for scientific discovery. Just to expand on my perspective a little bit; I heared that René Descartes actually had a dream that helped shape modern science. To quote Terence Mckenna: "Modern science was founded by an angel". Rene Descartes had a dream in which an angel came to him and said: "The conquest of nature is to be achieved by numbers and measurement".

I'm sure he was pretty dogmatic about it. And he went on and founded modern science on his own. Which (science) was basically a branch of modern philosophy in my opinion.

Here's the recording if anybody is interested Science was Founded by an Angel - T Mckenna . Somewhere close in this part of youtube you will also find conversations of Rupert Sheldrake and Terence Mckenna that are quite interesting. But very hard to grasp when not familiair with the Esoteric content of the dialogues. Especially Sheldrake is hard to understand in my opinion. T Mckenna is more straight to the point (sorry for thread hijack btw).

Hope we can wrap this up StephL and Link. There where many points I wanted to go further into but I feel this post will suffice.

Yeah - you are right, Dthoughts - guilty of getting carried away as pointed out.
I'll look into that video - I rather enjoy listening to McKenna on his own sometimes.
smile.gif

And I found something with electron and probabilities, which I posted before in my little collection thread, because I find it beautiful:

The below animation shows the quantum mechanical probability distribution of an electron as it passes through two narrow slits.
The electron itself is much smaller than its probability distribution cloud, which is dispersed over a large area, creating an interference pattern. However, as soon as the electron binds itself to an atom, then its probability distribution cloud will become small again:

No arguments from me Dthoughts, the only thing that I was fixated on discussing about after a bit was that a Scientific materialist paradigm wouldn't necessarily have a decent model, or set of models to make presumptions of what consciousness is (excluding what it may be at a functional level). At best, a materialist may declare that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon, which is why an impasse is set up for this particular view, and encroaching dualism in some way is inevitable. Combined with other perspectives such as reductionism, monism, objectivism, and even physicalism, it's understandable that they're merely ideologies if individuals were to subscribe to their set of paradigms being the proper, or pragmatic study of science (e.g. a Scientist who may harbor materialistic views may consider consciousness irrelevant because of the presumption of the totality of chemical reactions in the brain).

If they don't consider it being the example mentioned for instance, then it may present the probability of panpsychism (i.e. neurons that would be considered non-experiential matter to them could suddenly turn into experiential matter, and presumably have some "consciousness," or "sentience," which is why having a Scientific materialistic view has its limits before metaphysical breaking points in logic), or something else encroaching a bit of subjectivity there.

It's not so much as aiming to attack a person's personal set of dispositions of what reality is, rather the concepts, and it's just when there are some aspects that can't reconcile with themselves metaphysically, the Scientific materialistic interpretation of consciousness is a bit shaky. Not stating you're harboring only Scientific materialism, since I'm presuming that from before, you're open-minded to concepts that would be considered immaterial and such. Of course, dualism can be just as vague at times, and people can easily go with a monism implication alone while introducing other metaphysics and all that for their presumptive models of reality.


In short, explaining "I" with just a materialistic view can be very difficult, which is why I personally don't hold such strict attachments to it. I'm more of just being in the middle with metaphysical realism when it comes to circumstances like this, but not something I subscribe to militantly. Of course, there's no denying that there's skepticism, criticism, and even dogma against realists, anti-realists, direct realists (i.e. common sense realism), and such.

Sorry I haven't replied in a while, I had to travel for a snowboard race. It was amazing. I'll be sure to read the responses eventually, but in the mean time while I was traveling I remembered a thread that almost perfectly validates my argument, bearing in mind my argument is not against science itself but only to establish that dogmatic thinking is being mislabeled at scientific or empirical by a controlling portion of the scientific community.

http://www.dreamviews.com/inner-sanc...our-brain.html

If you read the responses to this thread about clicking the amygdalae forward, you'll notice dogmatism being paraded as skepticism. The dogmatic belief is that we cannot control our brain, and that this sensation therefore must be a placebo effect. However, the technique is actually kind of tricky, and I felt nothing at first because I was doing it incorrectly. If it were a placebo effect, then doing the technique incorrectly would have generated the same results as it did when I finally succeeded. However, the dogmatists rebutting the OP in that thread presented an unwillingness to entertain the possibility that one could click their amygdalae forward, so this sentiment did not matter. My experience was black or white, if you execute the technique properly you cannot deny its existence, but skeptics that responded to this thread were unwilling to do the the work in order to replicate the experiment. They dismissed it and confused their dismissal as healthy skepticism rather than rigid attachment to their model of reality and how the brain works. Argument validated, your move.

One may be inclined to presume it may be ignorance, or just how they viewed OP in the thread. But if the audience in that thread (at least in the initial stages) are people that probably mostly have menial jobs, or average lives I should say where they're not probing something in a microscope, it's not really a matter of dogmatic individuals in Science anymore, but hey, I'm not bothered by this change in premises for this thread.

However, it's not really individuals stating their views are irrefutable compared to OP in that thread, it was just a curb stomp festival where people figured they could enjoy comedy hour in that thread. Maybe you made a valid argument within the context for that thread, but for here, I don't think individuals in Dream Views in that scenario would be relevant for the set of circumstances in this thread. Of course, I'm aware that when there are phenomenon that we develop experiential truths from that we can't demonstrate through others (except through anecdotal cases and testimonies), it's often best to not really try to portray them anything.

Just like I'm sure there are individuals in this forum that have their own personal metaphysical attributions of what goes on in their natural sleep, and anything beyond that (e.g. spirit guides, alternate realities), wanting others to be open-minded in this circumstance is like persuading them to lose the last remnant of their quotidian lifestyle that may be broken if they ever experience something so gargantuan and abnormal where denying it (especially if it may be of benefit) would be absurd.

I empathize for you, I honestly do, but when it comes to people being skeptical of things that may very well strip their quotidian lifestyle little by little (not necessarily the link you provided mind you), it would be natural for them to be skeptical, and maybe sarcastic.