Is science at odds with philosophy?

[durangodawood]

I've read some stuff that might be considered mystical - by people like Burroughs, Huxley, Castaneda, Jung, Crowley, McKenna...

I'm not rejecting the experiences - as I said, I've had memorable experiences of that kind myself, but I find the idea that they are experiences of the objectively real to be no more convincing than the claim that dreams are experiences of the objectively real. YMMV.

Some of those presentations seem a bit more like just tripping on drugs documents. I'm thinking more of people like the religious mystics - or even people whove had similar experiences on psychedelics. Meister Eckhart or St Teresa of Avila. Or.... I dont have great examples to hand. Not that I know their experiences "are real". But they are simply better test cases for seeing how deep meaning can be found in the world.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, there is a range of interesting 'spurious salience' experiences that are also reported in dream experiences (the dream kind tend to take the form of waking up with the secret of the universe or some great wisdom, and either forgetting it in short order or writing it down before going back to sleep, only to find later that it's gibberish or completely mundane).

But they range from significant personal messages from events or objects (Casteneda's 'affirmations from the world around us', or the schizophrenic's personal messages from car number plates) - possibly a form of superstitious or magical thinking, through the gamut to sensations of being [at one with] the universe, knowing or understanding everything, communicating with the collective or universal unconscious (e.g. Jung), and so on.

One of the reasons that psilocybin (magic mushrooms) is beginning to be used for treatment-resistant depression is that it can trigger intense sensations of salience and relevance in the world, feelings of deep interest or love for the things in the world. This seems to reset their worldview at a deep level. I found some of my experiences with it to be similar (but without the initial depression!). But the emotional response depends on the context - some seriously negative emotions (fear, anxiety) can also be triggered.

As previously mentioned, many of these effects can be connected to a reduction in suppression and increase in cross-talk among brain areas associated with the emotions, and similar changes in areas associated with the construction of self, e.g. sense of identity, unity, bounds, location, agency, body ownership, perspective or viewpoint, etc. These areas have been identified from the effects of brain damage in those areas and/or stimulation during brain surgery.

It's also worth noting that the content of such experiences is often related to particular cultural memes or beliefs.

I dont see brain action correlates as definitive about the reality of the experienced thing. I mean, regular "correct" apprehension of things has all kinds of brain action correlates. Are we supposed to go all selfsim and conclude its all internal and projected?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some of those presentations seem a bit more like just tripping on drugs documents. I'm thinking more of people like the religious mystics - or even people whove had similar experiences on psychedelics. Meister Eckhart or St Teresa of Avila. Or.... I dont have great examples to hand. Not that I know their experiences "are real". But they are simply better test cases for seeing how deep meaning can be found in the world.

I'm certainly not suggesting that deep meaning can't be found in the world. But meaning isn't inherent in the world, it's a subjective thing - you could say we project meaning into or onto the world.

Basically, the meaning of something inheres in the associations it triggers in your mind; it accumulates with experience and it's unique to each individual (although we can share meanings through shared experience, or indirect reference to shared experience, e.g. other meanings).

The experiences are real, but, like dream experiences, the evidence suggests that they are not of objectively real events.

 

[SelfSim]

Are we supposed to go all selfsim and conclude its all internal and projected?

There goes my identity of self!
And gets replaced by SelfSimilarity!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I dont see brain action correlates as definitive about the reality of the experienced thing. I mean, regular "correct" apprehension of things has all kinds of brain action correlates. Are we supposed to go all selfsim and conclude its all internal and projected?

I haven't suggested that brain action is definitive about anything, let alone reality. I'm suggesting that we should take account of the extensive evidence available when assigning our credences for whether the content of such experiences may represent some otherwise inaccessible objective reality or is internally generated.

 

[SelfSim]

I haven't suggested that brain action is definitive about anything, let alone reality. I'm suggesting that we should take account of the extensive evidence available when assigning our credences for whether the content of such experiences may represent some otherwise inaccessible objective reality or is internally generated.

I think the contrast with our everyday experiences of coherency, consistency and rationality of our normal, more enduring 'operating state', (of being), might be what leads us towards our respective concepts of what's real and what's illusion/delusion, etc(?)

 

[durangodawood]

There goes my identity of self!
And gets replaced by SelfSimilarity!

Sorry man! No offense intended at all. Feel free to delete me from your mind if it helps.

 

[durangodawood]

I haven't suggested that brain action is definitive about anything, let alone reality. I'm suggesting that we should take account of the extensive evidence available when assigning our credences for whether the content of such experiences may represent some otherwise inaccessible objective reality or is internally generated.

And I'm questioning that false apprehensions being associated with the suppression of crosstalk among the brain hemispheres means that all apprehensions in such a state must be false.

If all the tales were of trees with hands or voices saying to jump, then OK. But they arent. Many people seem to discriminate quite clearly, for themselves, between sheer hallucination and lasting insight.

And as evidence of brain correlates to various states piles up, none of it seems to solidly answer the question of how real are the objects of these subjective experiences. We always seem to impose that from outside as a matter of "common sense" about what reality includes or doesnt.

 

[SelfSim]

We always seem to impose that from outside as a matter of "common sense" about what reality includes or doesnt.

The objectivity of scientific models is the common sense which we can all use as the practical basis for reality. We can then all go on to experience that for ourselves, by following its well defined steps.

 

[durangodawood]

The objectivity of scientific models is the common sense which we can all use as the practical basis for reality. We can then all go on to experience that for ourselves, by following its well defined steps.

Practical, sure. Eat. Produce. Procreate. Teach. Die.

But the topic is about the possibility of a bunch of impractical but very satisfying stuff. The sheer impractical-ness of it may be exactly why evolution has selected against our capacity to apprehend it.

Eyes? Advantageous? Heck yes. So we have eyes.
Third eyes (so to speak)? To much gazing through that and youre dead. At least until we invented tribal security.

 

[stevevw]

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?

Yes as far as I understand it they did.
According to the paper methodological naturalism takes what they call the “Stringently Pure Closure” (only physical causes are allowed) ones and nonphysical/supernatural entities are not allowed. The only propositions regarded as reliable are those supported by empirical evidence.

So therefore the methodological naturalist is committed to the position that the scientific beliefs which constitute their scientific knowledge have been justified by their perceptual beliefs about reality. As the paper states the epistemological implications of methodological naturalism is that it dictates beliefs about reality and the natural world.

So methodological naturalism is not just about being open to search for any possible causes of natural phenomena and reality but only particular causes and justifications about how we should see and know reality and nature and therefore as the papers conclusion says

Our purpose in this paper was to prove that commitment to methodological naturalism necessitates the adoption of metaphysical naturalism.

I used this particular paper as you mentioned that methodological naturalism did not lead to metaphysical naturalism so I was just pointing out how the paper made a good reasoned and logical case that it does.

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

The main arguments for rejecting methodological naturalism leading to metaphysical naturalism are that science cannot investigate the supernatural because it is a different type of cause and should be kept separate. Another is science includes the supernatural and finds it’s something that is impossible to determine or there’s no way to distinguish the physical/natural from the non-physical/non-natural and thus ruled out.

There is some debate over what methodological naturalism represents for which some claim it is being misrepresented and is only about method. Another argument is that science is seen as something that has proven itself over time and therefore is a justified basis for determining things.

Methodological naturalism and its misconceptions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313267955_Methodological_naturalism_and_its_misconceptions
“Grist to the Mill of Anti-Evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat.”
Grist to the Mill of Anti-evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat - Science & Education
Methodological naturalism in the sciences
Methodological naturalism in the sciences - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

These positions have problems though. As the paper I linked said science claims realism so any open investigation of finding reality/nature has to include all possibilities and not what it thinks is real. Supernaturalism and the nonphysical have often been misrepresented when there is a lot more to it and there are ways to determine things indirectly.

Science is in control of the determining the mothodological criteria for which they contradict by allowing non-verifiable and nonphysical ideas themselves. They are restricting things to evidence, how to investigate and what is classed as evidence and what is classed as physical and non-physical. By doing this methodlogical naturalism is more than a method and is also a metaphysical position.

As another paper I linked earlier in this thread explains all this. It gives examples of how science already includes nonphysical and unobservable causes and influences yet rules out certain types arbitrarily. How the verification method is not what people think and that if applied would rule out many theories already accepted by science but can also include many nonphysical ideas science chooses to reject. The supernatural and nonphysical doesn’t have a chance as it is not allowed a priori. That’s the metaphysical position taken by methodological naturalism.

Replacing Methodological Naturalism
Replacing Methodological Naturalism - Metanexus

 

[SelfSim]

As another paper I linked earlier in this thread explains all this. It gives examples of how science already includes nonphysical and unobservable causes and influences yet rules out certain types arbitrarily. How the verification method is not what people think and that if applied would rule out many theories already accepted by science but can also include many nonphysical ideas science chooses to reject. The supernatural and nonphysical doesn’t have a chance as it is not allowed a priori. That’s the metaphysical position taken by methodological naturalism.

Replacing Methodological Naturalism
Replacing Methodological Naturalism - Metanexus

Is this the section you're referring to there from that linked paper?:

Another reason for excluding the supernatural from science is the argument that claims concerning supernatural causes are not testable. One understanding of testability is controllability. Scott makes this point by saying, “you can’t put God in a test tube.”[34] But, as Ratzsch remarks, by this logic we should also exclude things like supernovas and the Big Bang from science, since we cannot produce and control them in a lab.[35]

Are you/they serious?

Supernova measurements aren't testable 'since we cannot produce and control them in a lab'?! What a joke!
The LCDM model (ie: the Big Bang) cannot be tested because it can't be produced or controlled in a lab?
Hilarious!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And I'm questioning that false apprehensions being associated with the suppression of crosstalk among the brain hemispheres means that all apprehensions in such a state must be false.

Of course; and by similar reasoning, we can't be sure that dreams don't involve travel to other dimensions, phantom limbs aren't still there in another reality, some illusionists don't really have paranormal powers, some psychics can't read minds, and so-on. But until there is good reason to suppose the content of such experiences is real, the default should be scepticism - because we know the brain can construct vivid and realistic experiences that aren't objectively real (I've had some excellent levitation dreams!).

For example, if someone returned from a revelatory or transcendent experience with novel information they could not have obtained in any other way - such as a cure for a serious disease, the key to stable fusion power, a way to communicate with whales, the exact location of historically important artefacts, that Deepak Chopra is a BS artist, etc., [no, scratch that last one] that would be compelling evidence of some significant external input to their experience. But as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened.

As the saying goes, we should keep our minds open, but not so open our brains fall out.

There's an excellent book that goes into lots of detail, with examples, of the ways to assess and reason about unusual claims and ideas, called "How to Think about Weird Things - Critical Thinking for a New Age", by T. Schick Jr. & L. Vaughn. It's pricey new, but you can get it cheap on sites like AbeBooks
You might not agree with all their analysis (I didn't) but there's a lot of really good stuff there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes as far as I understand it they did.
According to the paper methodological naturalism takes what they call the “Stringently Pure Closure” (only physical causes are allowed) ones and nonphysical/supernatural entities are not allowed. The only propositions regarded as reliable are those supported by empirical evidence.

So therefore the methodological naturalist is committed to the position that the scientific beliefs which constitute their scientific knowledge have been justified by their perceptual beliefs about reality. As the paper states the epistemological implications of methodological naturalism is that it dictates beliefs about reality and the natural world.

So methodological naturalism is not just about being open to search for any possible causes of natural phenomena and reality but only particular causes and justifications about how we should see and know reality and nature and therefore as the papers conclusion says

Our purpose in this paper was to prove that commitment to methodological naturalism necessitates the adoption of metaphysical naturalism.

I used this particular paper as you mentioned that methodological naturalism did not lead to metaphysical naturalism so I was just pointing out how the paper made a good reasoned and logical case that it does.

The main arguments for rejecting methodological naturalism leading to metaphysical naturalism are that science cannot investigate the supernatural because it is a different type of cause and should be kept separate. Another is science includes the supernatural and finds it’s something that is impossible to determine or there’s no way to distinguish the physical/natural from the non-physical/non-natural and thus ruled out.

There is some debate over what methodological naturalism represents for which some claim it is being misrepresented and is only about method. Another argument is that science is seen as something that has proven itself over time and therefore is a justified basis for determining things.

Methodological naturalism and its misconceptions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313267955_Methodological_naturalism_and_its_misconceptions
“Grist to the Mill of Anti-Evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat.”
Grist to the Mill of Anti-evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat - Science & Education
Methodological naturalism in the sciences
Methodological naturalism in the sciences - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

These positions have problems though. As the paper I linked said science claims realism so any open investigation of finding reality/nature has to include all possibilities and not what it thinks is real. Supernaturalism and the nonphysical have often been misrepresented when there is a lot more to it and there are ways to determine things indirectly.

Science is in control of the determining the mothodological criteria for which they contradict by allowing non-verifiable and nonphysical ideas themselves. They are restricting things to evidence, how to investigate and what is classed as evidence and what is classed as physical and non-physical. By doing this methodlogical naturalism is more than a method and is also a metaphysical position.

As another paper I linked earlier in this thread explains all this. It gives examples of how science already includes nonphysical and unobservable causes and influences yet rules out certain types arbitrarily. How the verification method is not what people think and that if applied would rule out many theories already accepted by science but can also include many nonphysical ideas science chooses to reject. The supernatural and nonphysical doesn’t have a chance as it is not allowed a priori. That’s the metaphysical position taken by methodological naturalism.

Replacing Methodological Naturalism
Replacing Methodological Naturalism - Metanexus

Well, all of this is debatable. There are also different conceptualizations on what "Methodological Naturalism" actually is and how and when it applies. Also, I think we need to be clear that when we simply refer to the concept of 'empirical evidence,' that is not perfectly synonymous with the term 'experimental science.' Empirical evidence is a entailed in experimental science, but simply saying one has empirical evidence isn't the same as saying that he/she has been doing experimental science in order to acquire that evidence.

The paper you posted for me to read earlier on does not actually address this distinction pertaining to various issues in the Nature of Science (aka. NOS) as well as withn the general field of the Philosophy of Science. So, you might keep this in mind. Otherwise, while you have a few points by which I, even as a fellow Christian, might say "alright, I can see some of what your saying," this wouldn't also be to say that I think everyone is on the same page when they're talking about Methodological Naturalism.

At best, what your article does is all too briefly suggest another angle of analysis. It doesn't "prove" anything, especially not in the space of just 5 short pages.

I notice you also didn't find our equally scholarly articles that counter the position of your 5 page article. Balanced research requires that you find that too and address it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Scientific angel?

Hush! That was a typo. I can correct it if you like.

 

[stevevw]

Is this the section you're referring to there from that linked paper?:
Are you/they serious?

Supernova measurements aren't testable 'since we cannot produce and control them in a lab'?! What a joke!
The LCDM model (ie: the Big Bang) cannot be tested because it can't be produced or controlled in a lab?
Hilarious!

I can’t see how it is so funny. It’s a good point. I'm no astrophysicist but isn’t science supposed to be about observation, experimentation and verification? If you see something directly and then test it you can be more confident about its verification. But if you can’t then you have to rely on certain assumptions being correct which also cannot be verified. Case in point dark matter and energy and despite over 40 years of testing has not be verified. When I say testing thats in labs.

As far as I have read the LCDM model (ie: the Big Bang) has several problems as a model and may not be supported. There may be other ideas that are just as good if not better. Even Wiki supports the articles claim that the LCDM model cannot be verified directly and good science should be able to directly test and to verify things.

It has been argued that the ΛCDM model is built upon a foundation of conventionalist stratagems, rendering it unfalsifiable in the sense defined by Karl Popper.[17]
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

Another paper supports this point as well
‘because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks, it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate.’ Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown.
$Λ$CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?
Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?
Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?

In fact the same paper lists several problems with the LCDM model and that scientists invent unknowns to explain the other unknown of the model which have no direct scientific testing and verfication like 1) redshift of light from galaxies, explained by expansion of space and 2) rotation curves of spiral galaxies, explained by dark matter to name a couple.

Another paper says the Standard model has a measuremnet problem.
'Standard model' of cosmology called into question by new measurements
'Standard model' of cosmology called into question by new measurements

Others say there is no Dark Matter at all or its affect is inconsistent and this would undermine the Standard model as well. Another astrophysicist has this to say about the Big Bang Theory in general.

A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

So the point being made is that some hypothesis in science are based on assumptions and indirect support which have never been verified directly and yet are widely accepted and promoted as science fact. So why should the science method and/or scientists act as the gatekeeper always ensuring things fit their predetermined ideas and determining which ideas should be allowed and which should not.

But for all they know other ideas that are also not directly supported but may also have good fit and explanatory power could also provide other possibilities.

 

[stevevw]

Well, all of this is debatable. There are also different conceptualizations on what "Methodological Naturalism" actually is and how and when it applies. Also, I think we need to be clear that when we simply refer to the concept of 'empirical evidence,' that is not perfectly synonymous with the term 'experimental science.' Empirical evidence is a entailed in experimental science, but simply saying one has empirical evidence isn't the same as saying that he/she has been doing experimental science in order to acquire that evidence.

The paper you posted for me to read earlier on does not actually address this distinction pertaining to various issues in the Nature of Science (aka. NOS) as well as withn the general field of the Philosophy of Science. So, you might keep this in mind. Otherwise, while you have a few points by which I, even as a fellow Christian, might say "alright, I can see some of what your saying," this wouldn't also be to say that I think everyone is on the same page when they're talking about Methodological Naturalism.

At best, what your article does is all too briefly suggest another angle of analysis. It doesn't "prove" anything, especially not in the space of just 5 short pages.

I notice you also didn't find our equally scholarly articles that counter the position of your 5 page article. Balanced research requires that you find that too and address it.

OK thanks for your input and insights. Like I said I think the article I linked made a good reasoned arguement why methodological naturalism as they say necessitates the adoption of metaphysical naturalism.

I just think their arguemnet stands up to scrutiny because methodlogical naturalism restricts investigation based on a priori which is naturalism. This takes methodlogical naturalism from solely a tool based method of investigation to include an epistemological and ontological position in how we should learn and understand the world and reality. Thus this is an adoption of metaphysical naturalism.

I don't make the point because of my belief but because there are other possibilities that are not related to religion that I think need to be included even within science itself especially associated with quantum physics. This is important as today people want openness and inclusiveness in all areas and we are realizing that there is more than one way to see things which can be a positive way to understand our world and others.

I thought I had included the opposing view on this, at least from my perspective the opposing papers were even more detailed then the pro one I linked. But I will take on board your advice.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course; and by similar reasoning, we can't be sure that dreams don't involve travel to other dimensions, phantom limbs aren't still there in another reality, some illusionists don't really have paranormal powers, some psychics can't read minds, and so-on. But until there is good reason to suppose the content of such experiences is real, the default should be scepticism - because we know the brain can construct vivid and realistic experiences that aren't objectively real (I've had some excellent levitation dreams!).

For example, if someone returned from a revelatory or transcendent experience with novel information they could not have obtained in any other way - such as a cure for a serious disease, the key to stable fusion power, a way to communicate with whales, the exact location of historically important artefacts, that Deepak Chopra is a BS artist, etc., [no, scratch that last one] that would be compelling evidence of some significant external input to their experience. But as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened.

As the saying goes, we should keep our minds open, but not so open our brains fall out.

There's an excellent book that goes into lots of detail, with examples, of the ways to assess and reason about unusual claims and ideas, called "How to Think about Weird Things - Critical Thinking for a New Age", by T. Schick Jr. & L. Vaughn. It's pricey new, but you can get it cheap on sites like AbeBooks
You might not agree with all their analysis (I didn't) but there's a lot of really good stuff there.

Looks interesting. But I'm already hyper skeptical of new agey claims or reification of religious mythology. I'm a skeptic by disposition as well as somewhat by discipline.

But... there's something in the cross cultural ubiquity and practical happiness value of the mystics' experiences that warrants looking into, I think. And the essence of their claims is quite different than all the hypotheticals you propose above, in which real other-realms are on the table, or where factual knowledge resides in an extra dimensional library of sorts. Thats all goofy channeling-Ramtha sort of stuff.

As for what the mystics claims are and how they deserve to be in a dfferent category, I'll have to come back later as its time for a long bike ride.

 

[Ophiolite]

As for what the mystics claims are and how they deserve to be in a dfferent category, I'll have to come back later as its time for a long bike ride.

Off topic thought: I always wanted to go on a long bike ride, but the only long bikes I could find were tandems.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Looks interesting. But I'm already hyper skeptical of new agey claims or reification of religious mythology. I'm a skeptic by disposition as well as somewhat by discipline.

But... there's something in the cross cultural ubiquity and practical happiness value of the mystics' experiences that warrants looking into, I think. And the essence of their claims is quite different than all the hypotheticals you propose above, in which real other-realms are on the table, or where factual knowledge resides in an extra dimensional library of sorts. Thats all goofy channeling-Ramtha sort of stuff.

As for what the mystics claims are and how they deserve to be in a dfferent category, I'll have to come back later as its time for a long bike ride.

OK. Mind how you go...