Humanities & Cultures

It's pretty clear to me that you have a strong emotional reason to be replying to everyone who's talking about science in this thread with at least a healthy bit of skepticism. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I wholeheartedly agree that we should be skeptical about claims which outweigh evidence available in science. I also think that it's good and cool to talk about all the things that we can't explain with science and to revel in and appreciate their beauty.

But at the same time, you're hyper engaged here with people and pushing a really strong narrative in a way that at times feels dismissive and uses some strong language (blinded you, funny title, arrogance, self-satisfied, etc) to paint pictures that aren't necessarily reflective of the world as it exists but perhaps more reflective of the world as you've experienced it. It's not exactly good faith to treat others this way and some folks have already reported your comments as being a bit aggressive and in general not nice.

It might be a good idea for you to either disengage with this thread, or work on softening your language and asking more questions rather than making strong statements about others.

Although I think you should seriously chill with the condescending tone you used to reply to @blindsight here, this is a conversation that interests me.

The nature of objective reality, if it exists, is extremely tricky and oftentimes incomprehensible to our human minds. We are only capable of experiencing reality as filtered by our senses and limited faculties. While an individual perspective is functionally the same as all of reality from that person's point of view, it may or may not contain all of what is objective reality. Although unlikely in my opinion, it is possible that the only thing that exists in the universe is a mind (my mind from my perspective and your mind from your perspective) whose moment to moment perceptions constitute all of reality. It is similarly possible that I'm a brain in a jar stimulated to make me perceive a reality which is not occurring outside of the limits of my brain causing it to be impossible for me to ever become aware of an objective reality which exists beyond what I'm being made to experience. Although these scenarios are each possible, it is not possible for someone in either scenario to ever know for sure if those are correct explanations. Since non-disprovable claims are infinite (you can't disprove my claim that I am an undercover norse deity using a magical disguise to appear to be a regular human commenter) I don't think it is useful or productive for any of my desires if I considered them other than for entertainment purposes.

Although acknowledging that there is no possible way for me to know if what I experience has any relation to objective reality, there are things which I can learn and do which are practical to me which are consistent in my perception of “reality.” I am (actually) a human who needs things such as food, water, shelter, companionship, etc. To be comfortable, I have to do things with my community to make sure these human standards are met so we can have some degree of satisfaction. Tools help us to accommodate these practical concerns. Some tools are physical, while others are ideas. Humans have always needed plans and cutting tools.

For us to most effectively pursue our needs and desires through the use of tools, better tools yield better results. Better understanding of meteorology has had a direct practical effect on the average person's ability to survive severe weather and natural disasters. More abstractly, the study of physics has been related to advancements in safety and efficiency of tools we need to get what we need.

Because we desire better tools, a systemic approach to the pursuit of knowledge which is constantly advancing is very useful. Empirical philosophy is based on using evidence to disprove hypotheses and claims, with those which have not been disproven being considered most likely to be true. This is in contrast to earlier approaches which considered primarily direct sensory experience and intuition. Nothing in Science is assumed to be true other than as the most practical basis upon which to build further claims and hypotheses. The reason we use the scientific method instead of other historical epistemological approaches is because the scientific method yields results which are more useful to pursue our needs and desires. Ideas which are counter-intuitive to us but borne out by evidence may now possibly be applied to create tools and ideas which an intuitive approach would lack all the necessary considerations to replicate. We would not be able to use meteorology to increase our ability to survive without having used the scientific method. No faith in any claim is necessary in science, and science itself would not function without the skepticism to doubt conclusions which are considered most likely.

Although my biases are with empiricism and the scientific method because I have found these approaches to be most useful for my purposes and understanding, I also appreciate scientific anarchy. Based on my knowledge, nature, and nurture I find my epistemology to be fine by my own standards. This does not mean I can ever be certain that this approach is the "best" approach for every application.

It's likely that many things I consider true for practical purposes would be considered hopelessly primitive in a few centuries. By my own approach, it could possibly be disproven that empiricism is the most practical framework for me to know the things I need to pursue my needs and desires. While my belief system allows for no true beliefs, I believe for almost all practical purposes the empirical and scientific approach to the pursuit of knowledge is the best approach and that belief may be altered by evidence. This is not the same as faith that the claims made as a product of science are "objectively" true, or that science (or any possible approach) could ever establish "objective" truth. Although nothing we know may be considered as “fact,” in my opinion those ideas which have not been disproven by science are more useful to consider as “fact” than “facts” established through less rigorous or more traditional methods.

I'll admit I did read between the lines in your comment. I see I was incorrect that you were alluding to the supernatural in your parent post.

Regardless, all the topics you're talking about can be investigated scientifically. Human cognition is an incredibly complex system, as is human psychology. At the macro scale, economics and politics are similarly complex systems.

Regardless, the explanations for all of human psychology comes from biological origins, which can be studied scientifically. We have uncovered some (partial) "truths" about all of the above, but complex systems require complex models and detailed observations, so of course science doesn't have a definitive answer to everything.

Still, I reject that the social sciences should be dismissed as "un-scientific" just because they aren't concrete. (Not saying that's what you're saying, btw, just rejecting the absolute stance along that spectrum.)

As for all comments on my belief system, that's fine that my beliefs don't make sense to you. I am comfortable with my gnosticism and I'm not trying to convert anyone.