Aya

[Cain]

Yeah, mostly his mathematical and epistemological stuff in Yudowsky's case (though most of what he said was said better, if more incomprehensibly, by Taversky.  Not that he's ever said otherwise).

[LMNO]

I should get me some Taversky.

Unless it was in the last book dump you did, in which case it's somewhere in the metric fuckton of books on my computer.

[Cain]

There might've been, I can't remember.

It also helps if I spell his name right - Tversky.  Also, unfortunately most of his books are published by academic publishers, and you know what that means...

[LMNO]

It's easier and cheaper to get earlier editions online?

[Cain]

Oh yeah.  Or you can pay $60+ dollars for his cheapest books on their current print runs.

[Dildo Argentino]

The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Really?

Because the fundamental rule at the heart of the 'Church of Science' (for someone who claims to make their living through linguistics, you sure are prone to choosing the most aggressive phrasing in any given scenario - have you considered that this may be getting in the way of any attempt to communicate in good faith?) seems to me to be the notion that there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it, but that we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic elements in your description of our natural state, I've always taken it to be that the 'metaphysic' (really, more accurately, the epistemological and ontological foundation) of scientific thinking is premised upon identifying those areas of bias - our sociological background, the influence of brain structure, our preconceptions - and then working to achieve a successful understanding of the world as it truly exists.

Now, scientists aren't always successful in that endeavour, because it is very hard. But if we accept your central premise about the state in which we exist, I do not see any other alternative way of moving forward as a species (or as individuals for that matter) than the scientific method. Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

First of all, I don't claim to make my living through linguistics. I make my living through speaking two languages and being able to translate between them. Quite different. Communication in good faith - well, you are quite right there. But I do believe in tit-for-tat. With you, for instance, I aim to be a great deal more respectful, and apologize in advance for any failure on my part to be so.

I think you are quite correct in your statement of the fundamental claims at the heart of science (I don't see how they are rules, but I put that down to sloppy phrasing). The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe. I think Wittgenstein's private language argument represents a somewhat conditional way to bootstrap ourselves out of the sceptic's pit, but I think it is pretty clear that most people, including most scientists, just accept that tenet as the best possible assumption to make. It could be otherwise, but assuming otherwise just robs us of motivation to do anything at all.

The second basic statement: "we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding" is again, an act of faith for most who believe in it, and it is probably false. As Spinoza and no doubt people before him already noted, there is every reason to believe that any understanding we do achieve is going to be partial. We are finite beings in an infinite (or much less finite) universe. Sphexishness is exhibited at all levels of cognitive development. Assuming that we are immune to it, or can work hard enough to make ourselves immune to it, is presumptuous speciesist nonsense. Not to mention the fact that we have no idea, and can have no idea, of the type of thing that would count as an indication that we got there - that we eliminated all our biases.

And yes, you are missing something. It is quite possible to continue the scientific endeavour (really, just a bunch of clever monkeys extending the marvellous curiosity they inherited from ancestors who were arboreal creatures and opportunistic feeders on most anything that didn't kill them) without naive faith in empiricism and rationalism. It is humbling. Most great scientists did get that far. Most fair-to-middling scientists don't. And the Church sure don't preach it: which may be partly responsible for all the awful shenanigans that go on at research institutions and universities and in particular corporate research facilities.

At university, I had a friend who was an excellent organic chemist. After graduation, he had no problem finding a job with a massive food conglomerate. It was only two weeks later that he rang at midnight, literally crying: that afternoon, he had been handed his first research assignment, along with the results.

Now that is not an "unfortunate mistake" (a phrase most Eastern-bloc communist parties were quite fond of when mentioning the systematic destruction of people and society that they engaged in), it is endemic. Dealing with it requires giving up the naive dream.

Another thing that internalising the limitations that are intrinsic to our condition, to our existence as unique though sadly predictable points of view is useful for is realising that science is currently acting like a cancer on human society: it seems to want to turn everything that is not science into science. Explaining, scientifically understanding to the extent possible, things like religion, art, interpersonal relationships etc. is a fine thing to do. Explaining them out of existence is awful. It is an intellectual monoculture that goes hand in hand with the consumerist ethic, and unless we stop it, it will kill us all.

[hooplala]

The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe.

That's easy to say, until you bloody your nose after walking into an objective wall. And Kant was a philosopher, not a scientist. It might be a wise move to start basing your scientific theories on... you know... scientists.

Have you read the Barstool Experiment thread? Or do you only read threads about homeopathy and ayahuaska?

[hooplala]

I just read the rest of your rant. I had forgotten how much you hated science.

Forget what I said above, please continue sniffing your own flatulence.

[LMNO]

It is quite possible to continue the scientific endeavour without naive faith in empiricism and rationalism.

wut

At university, I had a friend who was an excellent organic chemist. After graduation, he had no problem finding a job with a massive food conglomerate. It was only two weeks later that he rang at midnight, literally crying: that afternoon, he had been handed his first research assignment, along with the results.

that's not science

science is currently acting like a cancer on human society

wut

it seems to want to turn everything that is not science into science

that's not science

Explaining, scientifically understanding to the extent possible, things like religion, art, interpersonal relationships etc. is a fine thing to do. Explaining them out of existence is awful.

1. wut

2. http://lesswrong.com/lw/oo/explaining_vs_explaining_away/

In summation:

[hooplala]

Dodo, any chance we could convince you to change your screen name to Dildo?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Really?

Because the fundamental rule at the heart of the 'Church of Science' (for someone who claims to make their living through linguistics, you sure are prone to choosing the most aggressive phrasing in any given scenario - have you considered that this may be getting in the way of any attempt to communicate in good faith?) seems to me to be the notion that there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it, but that we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic elements in your description of our natural state, I've always taken it to be that the 'metaphysic' (really, more accurately, the epistemological and ontological foundation) of scientific thinking is premised upon identifying those areas of bias - our sociological background, the influence of brain structure, our preconceptions - and then working to achieve a successful understanding of the world as it truly exists.

Now, scientists aren't always successful in that endeavour, because it is very hard. But if we accept your central premise about the state in which we exist, I do not see any other alternative way of moving forward as a species (or as individuals for that matter) than the scientific method. Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

First of all, I don't claim to make my living through linguistics. I make my living through speaking two languages and being able to translate between them. Quite different. Communication in good faith - well, you are quite right there. But I do believe in tit-for-tat. With you, for instance, I aim to be a great deal more respectful, and apologize in advance for any failure on my part to be so.

I think you are quite correct in your statement of the fundamental claims at the heart of science (I don't see how they are rules, but I put that down to sloppy phrasing). The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe. I think Wittgenstein's private language argument represents a somewhat conditional way to bootstrap ourselves out of the sceptic's pit, but I think it is pretty clear that most people, including most scientists, just accept that tenet as the best possible assumption to make. It could be otherwise, but assuming otherwise just robs us of motivation to do anything at all.

The second basic statement: "we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding" is again, an act of faith for most who believe in it, and it is probably false. As Spinoza and no doubt people before him already noted, there is every reason to believe that any understanding we do achieve is going to be partial. We are finite beings in an infinite (or much less finite) universe. Sphexishness is exhibited at all levels of cognitive development. Assuming that we are immune to it, or can work hard enough to make ourselves immune to it, is presumptuous speciesist nonsense. Not to mention the fact that we have no idea, and can have no idea, of the type of thing that would count as an indication that we got there - that we eliminated all our biases.

And yes, you are missing something. It is quite possible to continue the scientific endeavour (really, just a bunch of clever monkeys extending the marvellous curiosity they inherited from ancestors who were arboreal creatures and opportunistic feeders on most anything that didn't kill them) without naive faith in empiricism and rationalism. It is humbling. Most great scientists did get that far. Most fair-to-middling scientists don't. And the Church sure don't preach it: which may be partly responsible for all the awful shenanigans that go on at research institutions and universities and in particular corporate research facilities.

At university, I had a friend who was an excellent organic chemist. After graduation, he had no problem finding a job with a massive food conglomerate. It was only two weeks later that he rang at midnight, literally crying: that afternoon, he had been handed his first research assignment, along with the results.

Now that is not an "unfortunate mistake" (a phrase most Eastern-bloc communist parties were quite fond of when mentioning the systematic destruction of people and society that they engaged in), it is endemic. Dealing with it requires giving up the naive dream.

Another thing that internalising the limitations that are intrinsic to our condition, to our existence as unique though sadly predictable points of view is useful for is realising that science is currently acting like a cancer on human society: it seems to want to turn everything that is not science into science. Explaining, scientifically understanding to the extent possible, things like religion, art, interpersonal relationships etc. is a fine thing to do. Explaining them out of existence is awful. It is an intellectual monoculture that goes hand in hand with the consumerist ethic, and unless we stop it, it will kill us all.

[EK WAFFLR]

[Ben Shapiro]

[Nephew Twiddleton]

 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.