SCIENCE!
I'm supposed to be doing my homework, but I'd rather not (c'mon, you guys, I have a Chinese midterm, give me a break :P), so instead, I'm going to write about evolution. One of my classes this year is an upper-division biology class, Experimental Ecology & Evolution (E3, for short, and I love it more than any class ever), which is giving me uppity ( Read more... )
About gravity: it's basically geometry. Incredibly complex four-dimensional geometry, but all the same. As far as I can tell, you're not even trying to understand it, and your seeming unwillingness to do so, even as you continue to claim that its nature supports your argument, is not helping your case.
Thus the scientist presumes they can explain the way things really are to someone who is ignorant of the way things really are in order to enlighten that individual.
Yes, and? There's nothing stopping the latter individual from checking the scientist's work and determining whether the scientist's conclusions are in accord with his/her own observations. (For this reason, I would also dispute your earlier characterization of scientists as priests.) Furthermore, I'm not sure what's wrong with observing things and then communicating those observations to other people. Isn't that what writing (for instance) is all about?
I apologize for the mix-up between Heisenberg and the observer effect, but the one is really just a demonstration of the other on a micro scale.
My understanding is that this is not exactly accurate - I wasn't just trying to be pedantic - but this is far from my area of expertise, so correct me if I'm wrong.
To be honest, I would rather say "Being is because..." with the ellipse, and go investigate the world around me, even if I will never fully understand it. You say that "Being is [free will]" ... well, what is free will to you? An invisible force, the prime cause underlying everything, existing both within and without the material universe - how is that so different from the idea of a god? Your statement, and religion's statement, both end in periods. Both take as given something that is not falsifiable (there's that scientific discourse again) and is therefore impossible to argue with.
With that in mind, I don't think we're going to get very far by continuing to debate this. I would prefer at this point to just agree to disagree, and I hope that you feel the same.
Reply
I would agree to disagree, but the problem is, you are misconstruing, or at least misunderstanding, the way in which I disagree, so let me try to explain again.
First, there's no such thing as formal training in philosophy. (Unlike with science.) If you can read and think and write you can participate in philosophic discussion. However, it helps to be aware of different trends in philosophic thought before you argue something. (ie. The validity of science.) It just helps to understand how people structure and understand arguments so that you don't repeat points that have already been refuted, which unfortunately is happening here. A lot of the points I just made were missed, misunderstood, or denied through the use of the very scientific discourse that's under question, thus making your arguments self-fulfilling. It is rather frustrating attempting to refute self-fulfilling arguments, for the same reason, as I've said, that it is frustrating for you to argue with a religious fundamentalist.
But why can you say that life is complicated? Because you've observed it to be so.
Yes, true. I observe life. I experience reality through my senses. Putting aside the fact that senses are neither complete nor reliable, as Descartes went over long ago, but science goes beyond mere experience. You're effectively saying here that by virtue of the fact that one experiences reality, science is necessarily valid. I experienced something, I drew a conclusion from that something. Is that science? No. That's called perception and thought. Science is not equatable with either. However, when looking through the paradigm of Science, the scientific individual believes that to be the case. Thus while one can propose theories and counter-theories within the discourse of science, any theory, idea, or mere thought that is beyond scientific discourse is automatically discounted as false, or "silly superstition" or something to that effect. Faeries, as you put it. Don't you see why this is frustrating? Please, if you are going to argue for science, do not presume that all non-scientific arguments are automatically invalid. Please extend the same courtesy I extend to you. I posited two fundamentally different ontologies. "Being is." And "Being is because…" I did not say either was invalid. Either could be valid. I hold to "Being is." You hold to "Being is because…" Either could be true, but you cannot argue that one is true and the other is not by arguing within the ontology itself. They're mutually exclusive. You can't judge the statement "Being is." On the basis of the statement "Being is because…" If I did that to your argument, it would be unreasonable, so I simply ask for the same courtesy. Though, I guess my begging is pointless, because materialism demands that you do just that, which is where my bone of contention lies.
Reply
Furthermore, I never said some mystical force is what animates things. You are mistaking logic for magic. Just because an argument based upon logic is not a scientific argument does not make it magic. However, on that note, I must say, I have experienced things I cannot explain. Does that mean there isn't an explanation? No. But does that mean there is an experimentally reproducible explanation? No. It is for the very same reason that one can neither prove nor disprove God that you can neither prove nor disprove material reduction to causes. Ultimate causation (ie. determinism) can similarly be called reducible to 'faeries' in this manner. So don't you dare say that I'm resorting to superstition in making a carefully reasoned and self-contained argument when you are attacking it with a self-fulfilling argument that relies upon base causes that have no explanation.
saying that a theory has "greater explanatory power" means that it accords most closely with the data in all its complexity
Alright, now I'm a bit irritated, because you completely missed the refutation of this point for the third time. If you are going to counter an argument, use a new argument, don't restate the old one. (I'm saying this to help you develop better argumentative skills. I don't mean it in a malicious way.) Who gathers data? People. Sets of data are always incomplete. In fact, as we already established, there will always be an infinite amount of data that is both relevant and unaccounted for in any situation. Furthermore, the theory in question does not come from the data. This is part of the FUNDAMENTAL problem with scientific discourse. Nature does not speak to the scientist through data. The theory, as you have shown, comes from the scientist, not the data. The scientist matches an idea out of their head to an incomplete set of observations. But again, this does not get to the heart of Being itself. You are not examining nature. You are examining and theorizing on THE DATA.
To put this back into the basic ontological framework I established earlier: Science is the study of the "because" in the statement "Being is because…" Science studies causation. Science does not study Being itself. There. It’s right there. Don't dismiss this off the cuff. Sit down for a good hour and seriously think about what this means. "Being is because…" The scientist studies the "because". You want to talk to me about faeries, well guess what? The scientist makes up his/her own fairies. See, to me, this seems as mystical as you claim my argument to be. How can you make up the cause of Being and then attempt to match it with Being? You're not even comparing the same thing. My problem is not with Science but with when science assumes that "Being" is the "because" of Being. Much of Science confuses the "because" with "Being" itself. They are not the same thing. Science does not ever get closer to explaining "Being" because science is not explaining "Being". Science is explaining the "because".
Reply
You apparently had no problem conceiving of your preferred framework (free will, et cetera). By your own logic, if you could conceive of it, you ought to be able to communicate it in a way that shows it to be valid, which would preclude invoking concepts that are completely incompatible with the basic premise. But, even though you can't, you're basically just asking me to take your word for it because it's way over my language-enslaved head. I don't see any compelling reason for me to accept or agree with this.
Let me also put straight, this is not a matter of philosophy versus science. There is plenty of philosophy that endorses science. There is no such thing as 'my' logic. There is logic. Logic doesn't belong to anyone. Logic, however, is as flawed as anything. It's flaw as I was arguing lies in language. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I'm saying that's the way it is, whether or not you are a materialist, religious, or an existential philosopher. I was not at all saying "if you can conceive of it, you ought to be able to communicate it in a way that shows it to be valid". You're putting words in my mouth. I said much the opposite, actually. I said that the way we communicate things is the way we conceive of things. If you had no language, you would not be able to think. And when I say language, Rachel, I mean language in a broad sense: that is, one thing is used to express another thing. Attaching meaning to perception. Language in its primitive form could just be images. One can think in images. Prior to language, a baby is basically just a ball of Desire. When the baby enters the world, it enters a world of pre-established meanings into which it is indoctrinated. Yes, you can make up new words and languages, Rachel. You almost have the idea grasped, but you're missing just one little bit, which is my fault, because I didn't talk about it. Basically, creation of new symbols with which to express oneself is just a broadening of the cage. You can renovate the prison of words, but there will always be an infinite number of meanings that are, by virtue of being inexpressible, inconceivable. Here we could also get into how language functions in relation to the unconscious mind, which further complicates matters, as we also repress meaning, but that would require way too much work on my part and I have things to do and I think it would be better if you just took some Lacan out of the library.
And as for new ideas, I think Shakespeare once said something about there being no such thing as a new idea, but I don't want to get into that. We'll just leave it at another renovation to the prison. I'd also like to say, this is not incompatible with Science. It might benefit you to learn more about it.
Reply
Oh, please, a quote from maybe-Shakespeare does not constitute evidence, and if you want to make that exceedingly foolish claim, I would greatly appreciate it if you would deign to support it.
Reply
Under an ontology of "Being is." an idea is a different thing entirely. This is where Hegel's dialectic comes in, but that would take forever to explain. I'll leave it at this: if effect is already latent in being, ideas are already latent in Being, so one does not create new ideas, one brings out ideas that were always there just not consciously conceived.
I would further like to note that even if I had the quote, you would claim that it does not constitute evidence, correct me if I am wrong. But you see, there is the self-fulfilling prophecy of science. Only a scientific argument constitutes evidence. What does it matter that some man once said something? According to science, that means squat. (And in my opinion, Shakespeare has contributed more to human understanding than Science ever could, and he was only one little man.)
Reply
Well, yes, because people can say things that are dead wrong. But let's take an actual Shakespeare quote - Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy, for instance. Someone who has never had occasion to contemplate suicide, nor known anyone driven to that level of despair, will not understand it. But to everyone else, it resonates, because it accords with their own observations about life.
So, Shakespeare's statements are not evidence for their own truth (and really, how could they be?); rather, the truth of his statements is a conclusion that the reader draws, using his/her observations as the evidence. Just because a statement isn't considered evidence for the purposes of a particular type of discussion, it doesn't follow that it is meaningless.
At any rate, if the original idea does not accord with Rachel's observations, I don't quite understand how a quote that essentially restates what you're trying to argue ought to be taken as proof - however brilliantly it may phrase the idea.
(If Shakespeare expressed an idea similar to what you were originally saying [which is entirely possible], I cannot think of it off the top of my head. However, you might have been thinking of Ecclesiastes 1:9, "There is nothing new under the sun." And given that Ecclesiastes is basically Solomon drowning in his own angst, if I were you, I would hesitate to put forth any line from its early chapters as a truth about human existence, or evidence thereof.)
Reply
Did you perhaps mean the quote: "there is nothing new under the sun"?
Cause it's not Shakespeare. It's from the Bible.
Reply
Reply
That's very offensive. I could say the same to you with regards to my arguments, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you just haven't understood them yet. What you said just there is like saying, as far as I can tell, you're not even trying to believe in God. It's like saying that in order to understand your argument I have to already believe your argument to be true. I understand the basic mechanics of gravity as it is explained by science. My understanding may be limited, but even if I fully understood how Science describes gravity, down to the numbers etc., that's beside the point. I'm not debating whether or not the current Scientific theory of gravity is valid or not. I'm debating the idea of Scientific theory. Please, again, take a moment to put into perspective what is being argued here. I'm unwilling to abide by a materialistic conception of Being. That doesn't necessitate that I don't understand a materialistic conception of Being. You seem to forget, I used to hold to a materialistic conception of Being myself. I understood what I held to. Agreeing and understanding are two different beasts. Please don't demean anyone by saying that just because they don't believe they therefore don't understand. That's again what people say about their religious beliefs.
There's nothing stopping the latter individual from checking the scientist's work and determining whether the scientist's conclusions are in accord with his/her own observations. (For this reason, I would also dispute your earlier characterization of scientists as priests.) Furthermore, I'm not sure what's wrong with observing things and then communicating those observations to other people. Isn't that what writing (for instance) is all about?
Um, I'm sorry, but are you capable of disputing the theories of a theoretical physicist within scientific discourse? Only another scientist is assumed capable of disputing another scientist with science. Only a priest has the power to dispute the views of another priest. The comparison holds. And again, communicating observations is not the same as Science. This is to assume a universal Scientific world view, which I already disputed above.
Reply
Reply
You say that "Being is [free will]" ... well, what is free will to you? An invisible force, the prime cause underlying everything, existing both within and without the material universe - how is that so different from the idea of a god?
The problem is not with my punctuation. Let me elaborate.
"Being is because of God." Religion locates meaning in God. Period.
"Being is because…" Science locates meaning in the "because" having cut God out of the equation.
"Being is." Yeah, it ends with a period, because it's a complete statement. Being just is. It isn't caused by anything.
So you see, I'm not the one assuming magical causation. Science assumes causation. I'm disputing precisely that: causation. I'm saying there is no such thing as causation except in our heads. Causation is made up. It’s a fiction. It's a fantasy. A delusion. And I did NOT say Being is free will. You can't just insert that term there. Again, putting words in my mouth. I said "Being is." As for free will, it isn't a prime cause. WTF? Again, words in my mouth. I don't know how to make myself any more clear. According to the ontology of "Being is.", THERE IS NO PRIME CAUSE. THERE IS NO CAUSE. Free will can only exist if there is no cause. As soon as there is a cause, something is causing my action. Free will means that nothing causes my action. I AM my actions. Being is what it is. Being is what it does. Being is effect. Being is. There is no cause. There are no faeries. Effects are latent in being. Nothing made me brush my teeth this morning. Even to say that 'I' made me brush my teeth is problematic, because as soon as 'I' refer to myself, I am objectifying myself, thus the 'I' that I refer to is no longer me. I don't make me brush my teeth. I just do it. I brush my teeth. I choose to brush my teeth.
And determinism leads to some pretty wacky conclusions, too. If all is determined, who does the ultimate determining? And how can we have justice systems if nobody really chooses to do anything. I mean, it’s not that poor man's fault he raped that woman. An infinite chain of causes made him do it. That is ridiculous! Assuming a materialist point of view makes a complete joke of morality.
Reply
Your previous post seemed to set free will as equivalent to being, which is why I characterized your paradigm as "Being is [free will]" rather than "Being is [because of free will]." It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth. Similarly, if effects are latent in being, and if free will is also (latent in?) being, it did not seem entirely unfair to characterize it as a cause, albeit the only cause of any action. Would calling it something like a necessary and sufficient condition be more accurate?
I do apologize for insulting you regarding gravity. I was just getting frustrated because you said we don't know what gravity is (and mischaracterized it as a force, which it really isn't), I told you what gravity is, and you responded, we don't know what gravity is. But I think I understand what you were getting at a little bit better now - to you, it is that (and here I may be misunderstanding you again) we can't know what gravity is.
I would contend that if we can say that something exists, it is because we have observed it, and its definition is the sum total of our observations regarding it. The scientific theory, while not necessarily perfect, functions as a sort of shorthand for that definition, much as I would say "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" rather than showing you data regarding every right triangle that has been observed.
And I would have to show you data, for the simple reason that I can't show you every right triangle. Even if I could, the moment you make an observation about those triangles, you've separated it from the things being observed, because now it's taken the form of electrical signals in your brain. So, gathering and transmitting data is the only way we have of communicating our observations to others, and to draw conclusions from an observation is to do so by examining data.
Of course the data isn't the thing itself. Of course it's an approximation. But as I said earlier (the bit about solving for x and all) when we go and do further observation, the conclusions we have drawn from those approximations hold true. Thus, they are useful for understanding the world around us.
So, the scientific paradigm might be more like "That which we can observe exists." Science describes the things observed, and the manner in which they exist, which, according to observation, includes causation. If cause/effect was not strongly implied by the data - if any apple in the history of falling apples had ever fallen up - science would not assume causation. Observation comes first. The only thing science assumes is that we can draw conclusions from our observations, which I don't think you're disputing.
With the statement "Being is," there's nowhere to go from there, but maybe that's your point. (On a related note, how is "Being is" not a tautology? I'm not trying to insult you, I'm honestly curious.)
I guess my main question at this point is, if you reject causation, how can you accept evolution, as you said earlier that you do? How can you accept any scientific discovery that has ever been made?
Re. materialism and morality: just as you may find the cause/effect paradigm to be useful, even while rejecting it (did I just answer my own question?), so it is with materialists and the idea of free will. And morality is not a joke, if only because it acts as one of the constraints I mentioned previously. I don't deny that pain and suffering exist, nor do I consider my belief in determinism to be sufficient reason to ignore them, or not to attempt to ameliorate them.
Reply
I'm just trying to say, existentialism is not magic, as Rachel seems to have construed it again. (And frankly, I don't want to get into that argument with Rachel. We'll just both end up calling each other lunatics and yelling a lot, as we seem to have done already. It's not constructive.) I am willing to accept materialism as a possible and internally valid ontology, however, I also believe existentialism is a possible and internally valid ontology. Thus for me, it's a choice. Do I want to live assuming free will or not? And seeing as that very choice is a choice, the choice for me is clear.
As to why "Being is." is not a tautology, you've in fact come close to the matter, you just need to take it a step further. It's a dialectic. Dialectic functions on the formula of thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Then the synthesis becomes a new thesis. etc. Now, this is different from a scientific hypothesis because the synthesis still contains the thesis and antithesis within itself. They form a whole. The best way I can depict this is graphically, so I wish I could draw it for you, because it's easier to understand that way. I'll try to describe the drawing. You have 2 small circles. One is thesis and the other is antithesis. Connect their centers with a line. The line represents the relation between them, when one meets the other and they fight it out to be valid. Now, draw two more lines from the center of each circle that meet at a point outside the circle, so that the 3 lines form a triangle with 2 corners at the center of each circle, and one corner outside it. Now, the connection of those two points outside thesis and antithesis is the center of a larger circle that contains both circles and the triangle. That bigger circle is synthesis. It's the result of the conflict between thesis and antithesis. Now, you can continue this process forever outward and forever inward. The big circle becomes a new thesis. Draw yourself a new antithesis circle beside the big circle etc.
The best way I can explain dialectic is with the idea of self-consciousness as an example.
Now, the following is how Hegel explains self-consciousness.
Ask yourself what happens when the self becomes aware of itself? You, the self as subject, reflect upon yourself as an object. Thus you artificially separate yourself into subject and object, but keep in mind, both are the same self. Now, think of subject as thesis and object as antithesis. Self is the synthesis. When the subject reflects upon the object, for an infinitely small instant they are separate before the subject realizes that it IS the object it perceives, and thus they collapse back into each other as 'self'. But, in order to be self-conscious, you must reflect upon the self, therefore an instant later, they separate again. In this same way, you perceive other beings and come into conflict with them. In this same way, you perceive Being and come into conflict with it. And you are constantly forming ever expanding syntheses.
Thus the statement "Being is." isn't tautological. It isn't a circle. It's more like a spiral.
Reply
Reply
I also want to clarify that I didn't come to these conclusions overnight. In highschool, I was a materialist. I remember the first encounter I had with existentialism was in a grade 12 philosophy course. I wrote an essay refuting Jean-Paul Sartre's idea of free will with an argument supporting determinism. I used all the arguments that both of you have used.
It was only after another 3 years of reading dozens of books and a few hundred essays from a myriad of perspectives that I slowly came around to existentialism as my world view. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything overnight. In fact, I guarantee I can't. But once again, I would beg of you to read some philosophy. You don't necessarily have to agree with any of it, but I think it's important to understand a range of views beyond the one you or I take for granted as our own. I would ask that you dismiss nothing offhand and that you don't condemn logic as superstitious nonsense.
Reply
Leave a comment