Is science at odds with philosophy?

[durangodawood]

You may be right. My first response would be to ask for a definition of 'reality' or 'real'. If there is a claim of some influence that is significant and relevant to us, yet it has no detectable influence in the world, the claim, prima-facie, is questionable. In what sense can it be considered 'real'?

Given the long history of failed claims of this type, suggesting a human predisposition to imagining fantastical agency, the most obvious and likely explanation is that it is just imagination at work, wishful thinking.

However complete the explanations and models of our observations science might provide, some people will feel the need to invoke magical, superstitious, and supernatural influences.

That^ is my default position when thinking through this topic.

But.... I still hold the door open for some wider reality in which our material world is embedded, and which would give the whole picture a different meaning if somehow apprehended. This does not imply a divine-person-being "reaching-in" and tweaking the dials. Just something along the lines of what the mystics speak about if you try to get into their heads. Of course that could all be a trick of the brain. But before making that judgement you have to at least try to go with them as far as you can, just to remotely know what experience of theirs it is youre judging.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually I have been studying this topic for a while as well. I came across some good arguemnets that actually support the idea that metaphysical naturalism is a logical position to take under methological naturalism.

If one takes up the methodological position they must exclude anything non-physical or supernatural. It is not permitted as allowing this means allowing supernatural as a possible cause and explanation. But as the scientific method is based on evidentialism it is equating what someone believes with evidence and verification. Along with naturalism (only being about physical stuff) it is saying that only the physical will be included in those explanations and that the physical is what makes up reality.

So this position goes beyond the mere method as a tool and has attached an ontological claim and a epistemic position about how we have to explore, verify and understand reality. Thus this is also taking a metaphysical position as it supposes that reality/naturalistic causes are only physical and material.

So check out this paper and let me know what you think.

Methodological naturalism is based on the presupposition of causal isolation of the natural and the supernatural worlds. Methodological naturalism implies that only propositions supported by empirical evidence are reliable. The methodological naturalist is committed to the claim that the scientific beliefs which constitute their scientific knowledge have been justified by their perceptual beliefs and their entailments.

So the epistemological implications of methodological naturalism lead us to a version of “Evidentialism”, according to which the epistemic justification of a belief is determined by the quality of evidence that the believer has for that belief (Feldman and Conee 1985, 15).
From this point of view, being epistemically obligatory is equal to being epistemically justified (ibid., 19); and, conversely, just as relevant evidence obliges us to believe a proposition, the non-existence of any evidence compels us to deny that proposition.

Thus, evidentialism and naturalism excludes revelation and religious experience in justifying our beliefs, and admits only sense perception as the source of evidence; so it can be viewed as an expression of the epistemic basis of methodological naturalism.

“Naturalism rules out the possibility of recognizing any supernatural and non-physical cause has anything to do with the natural order of things. Hence, someone who accepts methodological naturalism has no option but to deny the existence of the sorts of supernatural entities. This worldview is exactly what at the outset we called “metaphysical naturalism”.

Methodological naturalism is the only reliable and also the most successful methodology for discovering the realities of the world; and scientific knowledge obtained using methodological naturalism expresses a naturalistic picture of the world, which among the different worldviews exclusively confirms metaphysical naturalism.
Should Methodological Naturalists Commit to Metaphysical Naturalism? - Journal for General Philosophy of Science

Well, Steve, I was surprised that this article you cite is so short--it's only five or so pages. I'm also not seeing any discussion within it's pages about the nature of experimental science and it's procedural requirements in contrast to the conceptual explorations and delineations that might be made in science on a purely conceptual level.

Did I miss something when reading? Did these authors speak about the nature of Experimental Science and its exacting boundaries (or lack thereof) in relation to phenomenal entities of causation and/or various empirical concepts of evidence?

Also, what articles have you found that argue against this article you've cited?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That^ is my default position when thinking through this topic.

But.... I still hold the door open for some wider reality in which our material world is embedded, and which would give the whole picture a different meaning if somehow apprehended. This does not imply a divine-person-being "reaching-in" and tweaking the dials. Just something along the lines of what the mystics speak about if you try to get into their heads. Of course that could all be a trick of the brain. But before making that judgement you have to at least try to go with them as far as you can, just to remotely know what experience of theirs it is youre judging.

Sure; I've been somewhere like that using psychotropics, and I go to similar places every night, although I don't always remember next day.

But having transcendent, life-changing experiences doesn't mean they are experiences of an objective external reality, they have the characteristics one would expect from unusual levels of activity and lack of cross-talk suppression between certain areas of the brain; experimental studies, the occurrence during siezures, and the major differences in such experiences between individuals and between cultures support that conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure, you wouldnt call both "ideas about objective reality". But bump up a level and you could call them both "ideas about reality".

See post #254. The meaning we assign to the word 'reality' depends on how we go about doing that. @stevevw does it by the belief way and science follows the scientific method.
Both ways are mind dependent and are objectively testable under science's mind dependent reality hypothesis.
Aka: science does in fact, recognise what @stevevw is on about.

 

[durangodawood]

...But having transcendent, life-changing experiences doesn't mean they are experiences of an objective external reality, they have the characteristics one would expect from unusual levels of activity and lack of cross-talk suppression between certain areas of the brain; experimental studies, the occurrence during siezures, and the major differences in such experiences between individuals and between cultures support that conclusion.

I did say exactly that: "Of course that could all be a trick of the brain."

Or, it could be that the psychotropics (and various spiritual disciples) permit with withdrawal of certain cognitive walls that may have shielded us from an evolutionarily unhelpful dimension of reality

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did say exactly that: "Of course that could all be a trick of the brain."

Indeed, you did, and I think that's the best explanation.

Or

, it could be that the psychotropics (and various spiritual disciples) permit with withdrawal of certain cognitive walls that may have shielded us from an evolutionarily unhelpful dimension of reality

I guess that's sufficiently vague to cover almost anything, and interpret however you like

I think it lacks the consistency one might expect from a facet of objective reality, but is consistent with a loosening of the constraints on the modelling of ordinary perceptual reality.

 

[durangodawood]

....I guess that's sufficiently vague to cover almost anything, and interpret however you like

For sure, but no more vague than: its just unconstrained modeling of reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For sure, but no more vague than: its just unconstrained modeling of reality.

I disagree; unconstrained modeling of reality is a process of brain activity; "an evolutionarily unhelpful dimension of reality" could mean pretty much anything .YMMV.

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree; unconstrained modeling of reality is a process of brain activity; "an evolutionarily unhelpful dimension of reality" could mean pretty much anything .YMMV.

Process:
YOU: Unconstrained modeling of reality
ME: Apprehension of hidden reality
These are pretty much equally vague brain mediated functions leading to equally open ended results, unless Im missing something.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Process:
YOU: Unconstrained modeling of reality
ME: Apprehension of hidden reality
These are pretty much equally vague brain mediated functions leading to equally open ended results, unless Im missing something.

My point was that there is a difference between processing the same sensory information in unusual ways to produce different perceptions of the same reality, and perceiving different sensory information (from a different 'dimension' of reality), which is what your suggestion seemed to suggest.

If I misunderstood you, I apologise, but as I said, your formulation was rather vague, resembling the kind of thing one sees on new-age mysticism sites.

 

[Ophiolite]

Process:
YOU: Unconstrained modeling of reality
ME: Apprehension of hidden reality
These are pretty much equally vague brain mediated functions leading to equally open ended results, unless Im missing something.

I'm just glad, when I read such posts, that I don't know what reality is, don't think anyone currently knows, think it may be some time before anyone does know and consequently am not too concerned as to what it is. I just work on the pragmatic basis that's it's more or less what it seems to be and I will continue on that basis until elm trees turn into kestrels in front of me, or I notice the my bedroom wall pixellating.

 

[durangodawood]

oops

 

[durangodawood]

My point was that there is a difference between processing the same sensory information in unusual ways to produce different perceptions of the same reality, and perceiving different sensory information (from a different 'dimension' of reality), which is what your suggestion seemed to suggest.

If I misunderstood you, I apologise, but as I said, your formulation was rather vague, resembling the kind of thing one sees on new-age mysticism sites.

Oh yes they are different indeed. But not in terms of vagueness. One is wrong perception of the world, the other is some correct perception of more world than we knew about. But either in principle could ostensibly result from the same brain conditions, namely the suppression of certain normal functions as you mentioned above.

And I thought about the word "dimension" with all its new age associations. Its a good word and I want to reclaim it from them.

 

[stevevw]

What sort of evidence should I be looking for?

That I think is pretty complicated and up for a lot of debate. One area where a lot of ideas and theories have come from is quantum physics. As this brings in the possibility of the observer effect it therefore opens the door to the mind creating or affecting the physical which can be classed as non-physical causes of reality. But like I said in my reading this is a can of worms involving some deep stuff ie dualism, Qbism, Transcendent mind and Theories of Consciousness ect.

Some say that as quantum physics breaks from the classical way of seeing reality in terms of solid particles like billiard balls and introduces particles as waves, qunatum vacums and virtual particles, superposition as well as Nonlocality this has undermined the materialist view of reality. So from this there has been a 10 fold increase in non-materialistic ideas about what reality is or rather what creates and affects reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh yes they are different indeed. But not in terms of vagueness. One is wrong perception of the world, the other is some correct perception of more world than we knew about. But either in principle could ostensibly result from the same brain conditions, namely the suppression of certain normal functions as you mentioned above.

And I thought about the word "dimension" with all its new age associations. Its a good word and I want to reclaim it from them.

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. For now, I can only go on my own experience and the accounts of neuroscientists like V.S. Ramachandran...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That I think is pretty complicated and up for a lot of debate. One area where a lot of ideas and theories have come from is quantum physics. As this brings in the possibility of the observer effect it therefore opens the door to the mind creating or affecting the physical which can be classed as non-physical causes of reality. But like I said in my reading this is a can of worms involving some deep stuff ie dualism, Qbism, Transcendent mind and Theories of Consciousness ect.

It really doesn't. I recommend you do some formal study of QM, learn something about it besides pop-sci articles and opinion pieces.

Some say that as quantum physics breaks from the classical way of seeing reality in terms of solid particles like billiard balls and introduces particles as waves, qunatum vacums and virtual particles, superposition as well as Nonlocality this has undermined the materialist view of reality. So from this there has been a 10 fold increase in non-materialistic ideas about what reality is or rather what creates and affects reality.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff for people to hang their quantum woo from. It turns out classical physics is emergent from a different set of mathematical rules than was expected. That doesn't mean anything goes.

 

[durangodawood]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. For now, I can only go on my own experience and the accounts of neuroscientists like V.S. Ramachandran...

My recollection of his sort of work relevant to the discussion is: when the brain is rearranged in X way then Y results happen which people call spiritual experiences.

But theres no certainty at all that those are experiences of fictions. They could be. OR it could be that the brain structures that filter out evolutionarily useless and distracting components of reality are being disabled.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My recollection of his sort of work relevant to the discussion is: when the brain is rearranged in X way then Y results happen which people call spiritual experiences.

But theres no certainty at all that those are experiences of fictions. They could be. OR it could be that the brain structures that filter out evolutionarily useless and distracting components of reality are being disabled.

There's no certainty of anything. But put it this way, the reports are consistent with being internally generated fictions rather than from extracting or not filtering out extra information from sensory data, and IMO that is a better explanation. We also have a plausible mechanism for the internal generation hypothesis, and some possible partial experimental replication in AIs (e.g. Google's Deep Dream AI).

 

[SelfSim]

My point was that there is a difference between processing the same sensory information in unusual ways to produce different perceptions of the same reality, and perceiving different sensory information (from a different 'dimension' of reality), which is what your suggestion seemed to suggest.

That might be your point .. but its flawed because there is no way to demonstrate its assumptions. So I ask:

i) How can you establish 'the same' or different 'sensory information' is present across the two cases?
A description is required from whomever does the sensing there. Whenever they do that, they'll be using some kind of language for conveying in-common (learnt) meanings and that's how we infer sameness or different-ness. (The same is required of some third party experimenter).

ii) How can you verify a 'same reality' was present across the two cases?
The same reality which you refer to there, is never being tested for. Only the sensing person's description of their perception is being tested. Whenever they do that, (or some third party does), they'll be using some kind of language for conveying in-common (learnt) meanings. Only where one description is inconsistent with those sampled from across some broader population of 'healthy' minds, can we then infer an 'unhealthy' mind may be present but that's never been about some 'absolute' reality.

iii) The role of the mind, and the role of information, are inseparable (unless you can demonstrate the test for that). They come together because the conscious mind, (or even your 'unconscious' thoughts of a mind), is where information gets assessed.

 

[durangodawood]

There's no certainty of anything. But put it this way, the reports are consistent with being internally generated fictions rather than from extracting or not filtering out extra information from sensory data, and IMO that is a better explanation. We also have a plausible mechanism for the internal generation hypothesis, and some possible partial experimental replication in AIs (e.g. Google's Deep Dream AI).

I dont think we can extrapolate from Deep Dream results or any sort of visual hallucinations to the kind of life altering experience some people have in various "mystical" states. I think you might be minimizing the experience. Have you ever read any of the mystics with a sympathetic ear, appreciating their stories with an effort to understand - before applying skeptical resistance? Just so you have a sense of what youre rejecting before you reject it, even if your conclusion ends up being totally justified.