Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Is Science the answer?

I am responding to a quote by redwener in another thread and thought it might generate some debate.



This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism. What evidence do you have that science will unite all humanity? What evidence do you have that, in real terms, science is all that objective? To say that it is interested in objective knowledge is certainly not the same as saying it is always objective in its application. It is clearly not. Especially when you get close to the societal issues affecting humanity. It becomes a minefield of subjective belief.

Take for example the thread I started on the Narcissism test. Its veracity was immediately (and rightly so) questioned. How do you actually get at any of these issues? If we are creating a society of people that are obsessed with self and have become praise junkies, then we have an issue. Even from an evolutionary point of view, all kinds of mechanisms such as guilt, maternal/paternal drives, the need for intimate contact with others and so on, have arisen so that we can have cohesive groups that afford a better chance of survival. In a modern society it is essential that we cultivate people who are not self obsessed and are more willing to look outwards to their social responsibilities than working so they can have the latest ipod. Otherwise where do all the future scientists, philanthropists and politicians, who are willing to put themselves out for the greater good, come from.

If we have a world of scientists who are interested in personal wealth and acclaim more than the pure social good that can be achieved, then we have a real problem. We no longer have a science that will go where the issues are or even where the greater good can be done – we end up with a science that goes where there is the greatest funding and the greatest chance of getting your face on Newsweek.

Some have a concern that science has already reached this place and is therefore losing its overall objectivity as it becomes a more political and financial beast and dare I say it, prone to the curse of the modern day cult of celebrity.

Putting all of this aside, there is still the question of the prevailing paradigm that changes on an ongoing basis. For example, our understanding of the brain is going through faster changes than the H151 virus. And yet with each iteration, we think we have a good enough understanding to be prescriptive about human behaviour. We are currently seeing research that is blowing apart ideas of neurology that have been with us for the last 30 years or so. And more importantly we are going back to previous understandings in some areas – ideas that have been discarded.

So how do we know that any particular scientific thought system is correct or reliable for making proclamation about human behaviour – and it is in the realm of human behaviour that we face most problems as a species. Is the discipline of science going to solve these issues? Or are these things so very complex that they are more like art than science? Could it even be that framing humanity in scientific reductionist terms could actually exacerbate our problems? We are not robots and we do not behave in logical ways and like QT we are not entirely predictable. Unlike QT we may not even be predictable at macro levels. Managing ourselves in those terms may not get at the issues.

It surprises me when people put science on a pedestal and see it as the answer to all our problems. To say it somehow has the power to unite all humanity surprises me more. Science is in the hands of subjective people with the same needs and drives as the rest of us – they also play with things that have massive potential to destroy us or wreak havoc on whole nations. Or does science want to disown things like the motor car? Has science any more ability to see the long term effects of what it does than anyone else – did it have any idea that the car would pollute the planet until the car actually did start to pollute the planet? And if it did, what was done? Science is a mixed bag. It is best not to forget this and not get too carried away.

History tells us that we have continually seen solutions to our problems and that if those solutions are uncritically adopted then those very solutions have caused further problems. Scientism will not serve us well, but a proper understanding of what science can and cannot do will serve us greatly.

The saying ‘who polices the police’ is apt – ‘who performs objective research on science and scientists’ or do we just have faith that they will ‘unite all humanity’ and solve our problems.

Blacknad.

That's very good Blacknad. I especially liked:

"Even from an evolutionary point of view, all kinds of mechanisms such as guilt, maternal/paternal drives, the need for intimate contact with others and so on, have arisen so that we can have cohesive groups that afford a better chance of survival."

And:

"a proper understanding of what science can and cannot do will serve us greatly."

I agree with you Blacknad, but I think it depends on how one interprets the original message to which you're responding.

"Science, through its objectivity, has the potential to unify humanity. Ignorance has the potential to destroy it."

I think science is important. I think it's something we need to understand well. While I appreciate the attempted objectivity of science, I don't think that that is its greatest virtue. I'm convinced that science has the potential to help us avoid a 'lot' of needless suffering, but clearly science is not the only thing we need.

Most of what we as individuals know is not logical or scientific. Some of what we 'know' is bound to be false. Science is useful for helping us extricate ourselves from that - it doesn't guarantee that we can figure out mistakes, it only provides a potential method for recovery.

Science doesn't - and can't, using fallibilism - guarantee Truth.

But a thing - an opinion or an idea - doesn't have to be scientific or logical to be useful or desirable. But it's important to know what science is, how it works, what its limitations are (to reiterate what you said), but ALSO to understand that other kinds of 'knowledge' are also subject to error - and the errors in those kinds of knowledge cannot always be overturned so easily as those of science.

Wow, Right on; to all of this.

As I've said in many threads "Science is just a tool."

Getting cooperation to use the tool is a whole 'nother story.

re: ‘who performs objective research on science and scientists,’ Social Scientist could go a long way to helping scientist and politicians to cooperate.

In the end it is the politicians who have to cooperate if we're going to use science to say-- save the Earth from an impending asteroid hit (or GW, or....).

That would be politicians with support from religions and similar social institutions, I suppose.

What a wonderful thread, Blacknad.

~samwik

Thanks Terry - I was expecting more critiscism though - come on - let's have a healthy punch up over this

TFF, I agree with you completely - your words are very balanced.

And your last point - I presume you are talking about religion, amongst other things - I agree completely. Dogmas that are based upon nothing more than things like tradition and a subjective interpretation of ancient writings are notoriously stubborn in reacting to new knowledge and this is (just one) of their weaknesses. Scientific knowledge it much more fluid and this is its great strength - and the fact that it relieves much suffering when at it's best, i.e. it has a definable and demonstrable benefit.

I would try to balance this with the damage that I think SOME technology has done to society. It centres mainly around television and satellite and other forms of entertainment that I think have had an adverse effect upon social cohesion. People are less likely now to have strong links to their local community and even their families - to the point that we now have to pay experts to talk to us when we have problems, which was a role traditionally filled by friends and family. Incidentally studies have shown that people recover from trauma as quickly by spending quality time with family as they do by engaging mental health workers.

This whole problem is partially caused by a preoccupation with technology and gadgetry. We simply spend more time in front of a screen that face to face with real humans. Technology is both a blessing and a curse - there are more positive benefits than you can count, but we also live in an unhappier age than we did 40 years ago if depression, suicide, crime, drug abuse figures are to be believed, and one of the abiding themes of modern society seems to be loneliness and a desire for meaningful, intimate contact with others. We also have a tremendous drive to get the latest gadget and have replaced the old class system with one based upon the fashion you can afford and the products you own - this is partially driven by technological innovation.

With TV, I remember a study showed that when it was introduced into a tribal group their young females started to experience eating disorders for the first time within six months. So it opened up the world to them but also brought problems - blessing and curse.

I would ask: Who is going to grapple with these issues and provide solutions? Who is going to understand the different impacts that science is having upon society (for ill and for good)?

For example, science has had a reductionist effect upon the individual - it tells us that we are no more valuable than anything else - it tells us that we will be extinct like everything else - it tells us that we are just a bunch of evolutionary driven desires and that beauty, love, justice, mercy, evil, good, and so on are just illusionary and are simply human constructs - it tells me that the deep and seemingly noble love I feel for my daughter is no more than hormones and proteins pushing my behaviour and that the idea of a central me that is in control is simply illusory.

The upshot of this is that people are left in the position where they are prone to existential angst and nihilism. The scientific view has stripped us of real meaning – if everything I do will be forgotten and is irrelevant then what is the point?

Now this may be true, (though I suspect not) and ‘the truth shall set you free’. But what do we replace this with? When we strip away meaning and leave some (obviously not all) to think that hedonism and the serving of self is the only meaningful response, are we surprised if people become more inward looking and clamour after short term highs, living for the moment and the next PS3 game that will distract me from this hard and crappy life for the next few hours? I’m overplaying it slightly here

If scientific progress is not to inflict immense harm on us and the global psyche then we must engage our best minds to think about how we deal with the fallout from knew knowledge, and construct a new and meaningful narrative that will bring us together instead of allowing the age of the individual to continue to grow.

The problem may be that there is no profit in it.

I may be wrong.

It seems that the strength of religion is that it does try to grapple with these issues and has mainly sought after values that bring cohesion to society such as self-sacrifice, loving your neighbour, putting other's needs before your own etc. And it often uses such terms as love, charity, mercy, responsibility, duty, stewardship, forgiveness, honesty and so on. These things have been seen as concepts that help make 'good and docile little citizens, but I think that we now understand their value in the breach.

What does the modern education system do whilst it tells children that they are just a vessel for their selfish genes? How does it engender a caring and compassionate persona?

In England our children are stabbing each other to death at an alarming rate and the expulsion of children under five years of age from school is at an all time record because they are uncontrollable – drug use in under-tens is almost the norm.

What is the solution and what part can science play? It is an honest question. Science has some of our very best minds - how do we engage them in these issues that are not as super-sexy as working with particle accelerators, but just as needed. This is the problem maybe, our genius is engaged elsewhere and we are left with the dense politician to sort society.

Blacknad.

Woaaa back..."Scientism?" What hell is Scientism? I hope you are not suggesting that it is some sort of new religion.
I further hope that you are not suggesting that Goverments should place their faith in scientists to rule a country, a panacea for solving all our intractable problems. That word Scientism sounds very much like it.
Science, is able to give us the ultimate truth upon the working of physical property on this earth. Whether it be a manmade machine, or the use and final effects of a particular proccess producing a hostile enviroment.
Science may be an ongoing truth, able to predict the future, of any human process.
But that does not mean it should ever be classed as 'Scientism the ultimate answer". There are too many interactive processes that affect each other going on, to allow science to rule. The societal issues/ills affecting humanity can only be lessened, even cured by good Goverment acting upon feedback from the people. Science should be used in an advisory capacity by goverments only. Were Science to rule it would go the same way as Religion, downwards, maybe even quicker, since it holds the most complicated facts and processes of knowlege that just cannot be combined for the good of mankind, due to the way we pass laws, and rule.
Science is the ultimate truth. There maybe many ways to to achieve a certain project. But there is only one way which is the best way, in terms of efficaciousness towards the human being and our future.
Science should not govern, any more than religion should.
Goverment should be in the hands of the elected, who take note of the changes that happen around them, and act accordingly even use science where benifits are possible.
May write more later, but got to go out now.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.

What is Scientism? It is something to be avoided -that's the way I took it.
re: "This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism."

I like science and rely on it as a tool, but statements such as "Science is the ultimate truth," seem to elevate science beyond the status of tool, up to the status of a belief system, Scientism.
Saying, "Science is the ultimate truth," makes people who see ultimate truth elswhere, recoil against science.

At most, I would say 'Science seeks ultimate truth.'

~SA

Samwick,

Totally agree, and it does a very good job of it too. Again, it is about making science work for us, and not letting science become an all encompassing dogma.

Religion fails most when it becomes powerful and monolithic. Science will be no different. It is a tool to improve our lot and understand our universe and even possibly the nature of existence. It is not THE truth. Again, it has it's subjectivity, it's corruption, and all sorts of pressures that keep it from delivering ultimate objective answers.

Science is never value-free.

Blacknad.

Blacknad. I guess I should be honoured that your making such a meal of my two sentences

Your paragraph, above, about narcissism, seems misplaced here. It looks like a reply that belongs in the thread that you mentioned. However, my post in that thread, together with this one, serves as an adequate response.

Blacknad: "Scientific knowledge it much more fluid and this is its great strength..."

That, of course is very true. It's "fluidity" derives from the famous "scientific method" (though it's obviously not famous enough). The truths of science, although provisional and subject to frequent fine tuning, are universal. Because of this my statement was: "Science, through its objectivity, has the potential to unify humanity"

It isn't my intention to imply that other factors aren't involved. That much might be clear from reading my other posts. My intention is to contrast the unifying aspect of science with the divisive effects of religious dogmatism. As you said -

Blacknad: "Dogmas that are based upon nothing more than things like tradition and a subjective interpretation of ancient writings are notoriously stubborn in reacting to new knowledge and this is (just one) of their weaknesses."

Exactly. "Notoriously stubborn" because such dogma is not derived from anything like the scientific method but rather, it is claimed, derives from a "divine" source. Furthermore, and more seriously, such dogmas represent a dangerous ignorance that often finds itself in conflict with the equally dangerous ignorance of other dogmas! Because of this, my statement was: "Ignorance has the potential to destroy it [humanity].

Blacknad: "What evidence do you have that, in real terms, science is all that objective?"

Are you serious?

Blacknad: "This is where science clearly steps over into the realm of faith. This is Scientism."

Am I to take it that I struck a nerve, Blacknad? This does appear to be an extraordinarily defensive posture. No, it's not scientism, and no, I don't take offence,

From Wiki:

"Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative to describe someone of holding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations of life such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations...Today, the term is often used against vocal critics of religion"

Now that's more like it.

I think we all kind of know each other well enough now to have a spirited and lively debate without it degenerating into nastiness.

Cheers Mike - you go boy!

Blacknad.

Red,

Yes I am serious. Peer review IMO is flawed. The idea that nothing can be taken seriously until it is peer reviewed - and what gets peer reviewed is not straightforward - if you disagree with the consensus you will find it harder to get your work 'out there'.

How is this objective? This is often about editors of scientific publications and their reputations and own predilections.

You only need to look here to see what kind of reception you will get if you don't agree with certain people's take on things. How many anti-anthropomorphic global warming people have left in disgust at their treatment? How are scientists any more objective than anyone else when it comes to such matters?

In some cases 'peer review' has more to do with 'peer pressure' than anything else.

You cannot confuse the objective methodology of science with its overall subjective application within society.

Now I really do expect a kicking. Is telling scientists that peer review is flawed the same as running into a mosque and telling the Iman's that Mohammad was a pervert? Which one am I more likely to come out alive from?

Blacknad.

Scientism is the veneer of science, without the substance. It's something that has the appearance of science, uses scientific jargon, some parody of its methods, but is not science.

I'm not sure I agree with blacknad's use of the term there. (Not saying I disagree, just that I'm not sure.) I don't think the phenomenon he's talking about is scientism, so much as a misunderstanding of science.

Science,imo, is a necessary thing for human progress. It's not absolutely necessary, but it's necessary in the sense that its proper application can save us a lot of heartache. However, science is not sufficient for human progress. Other things are needed - drive, imagination, courage, balance, values, a sense of 'oughtness.'

Yes, we're confronted with politics and human nature. The point, however, is that the scientific method, per se, is objective. Dogma? Well, that's a non-starter in the objectivity race.

I stand by my original statements.

Wow - great post Blacknad. Yes a kicking might be headed your way. Not from me though.

I think the scientific method can be objective and usually is, I just don't think science is always objective. But I think the loss of objectivity has more to do with political decisions being made while the science is still ongoing.

You bring up climate change as an example. I truly do think this has left the science field entirely, and is almost a wholly political discussion now. Why? Because politicians are making decisions based on it. Canada just announced we'll be banning incandescent light bulbs by 2012 (why bother worrying about the mercury in the fluorescent ones). We have the IPCC allowing bureaucrats to wordsmith the final documents. People are ostracized for asking questions on the assumptions surrounding the CO2/temperature relationship, or even the basic question of how average global temperatures are estimated.

When things like this are occurring, it's evidence to me that the scientific method has left the building. Once the politicos start using the science in their election platforms, the topic becomes politicized, and objectivity is a thing of the past.

So to sum up - the scientific method can be objective, if the topic at hand is far enough removed from the political process.

Although there's always the bias introduced by the never-ending quest for funding dollars......

Good post Canuck,

I think your last sentence is key to the debate. Science cannot separate itself from the frailty of human nature - but it is often touted as something that is objective and strangely the only human endeavor that is trustworthy. As we have seen here - 'Science is ultimate truth'.

The use of the phrase Scientism is not about attacking science. It is about the philosophical position that is clearly held by some that science is superior to all other methods of improving human experience. Or even that it is the only viable method of enacting change.

All I am saying is that science is incredibly powerful and important, but currently it has no real involvement in sorting out the societal woes that currently beset us and may in fact have contributed to them in some way.

I am not a religious nut who cannot accept the validity of modern scientific knowledge such as evolutionary theory. I love SAGG because it attracts some great and interesting people and I enjoy the discourse, but mainly because I love science - it's triumphs and it's massive potential excites me.

I just think it should clearly understand both it's strengths and weaknesses. This can only serve us well and will also serve science because it sometimes suffers with slightly poor PR. I don't want anything to stand in the way of what it can deliver.

Blacknad.

Red,

This is exactly what I mean by scientism. The last bit about religion, well, I don't really have a big problem with scientists attacking religion. Religion has much to answer for and it will not help itself if it doesn't take criticism on the chin and respond positively to it. It must make itself open to a reasoned critique.

I will of course try to defend the idea of God and the spiritual and a universe that to me seems designed, and that is only fair - but I will defend anyones right to give religion a verbal going over.

Thank you all for some great responses. TFF, I keep going back to your first post - it is so well balanced.

I'd love to invite you all round to my house for a cuppa and a good ol' debate

Blacknad.

Blacknad, of course your comments are influenced by your position as a defender of your faith, and your use of term the 'scientism' is appropriate rhetoric. I can understand that. I don't intend to give religion "a verbal going over". You are quite aware of it's failings, not least of which is the generation of violence in thought, word, and deed throughout the world.

"In some cases 'peer review' has more to do with 'peer pressure' than anything else."
That could be true. I'm willing to accept that peer review is flawed. I'm not sure that it's quite so bad as you think. However, there is no perfect system. There are VASTLY more deserving papers that are available for publishing than there are reputable journals in which to publish them. But journals don't get to be reputable by publishing any crap that comes along. And, yes, there is probably a lot of subjectivity to the process - but without it, fellow scientists would waste a lot of time trying to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.
There are people who demonstrate repeatedly that they don't even understand the basics - and then whine about how they can't get published - guys like Dembski, for example.

Behe, I notice, has most of his publications in an Italian journal - supposedly a good one, but apparently their peer review is a little less stringent than Science or Nature. Nothing to prevent these guys from publishing in lesser journals or in coming up with their own journals - surely they could get funding for such a project. But real scientists wouldn't buy into it. They'd continue to keep Science and Nature and Cell on their shelves - and eventually the ID mag would disappear as people realized it was just a vanity press with no new developments in actual science.

"I just think it should clearly understand both it's strengths and weaknesses. "

Entirely greed.

Blacknad wrote:

"Thanks Terry - I was expecting more critiscism though - come on - let's have a healthy punch up over this".

It's because I agree with 99% of what you say.

The only argument I have with you is:

"The scientific view has stripped us of real meaning – if everything I do will be forgotten and is irrelevant then what is the point?"

You answer thatt yourself:

"we must engage our best minds to think about how we deal with the fallout from new knowledge, and construct a new and meaningful narrative that will bring us together."

A new religion?

I'll try to write more later, but one quick observation.

The objectivity/subjectivity thing started out comparing science and religion. Comparing different ways of knowing is very interesting to me and I think it is important to the topic.

This thread seems to have shifted to the object/subjectivity of the PROCESS of science itself, and not the CONCEPT of science as a way of knowing anymore. I've seen lots of discussion about the process of science and would rather avoid that road.

Later....
~~samwik

samwik: "This thread seems to have shifted to the object/subjectivity of the PROCESS of science itself, and not the CONCEPT of science as a way of knowing anymore."

Yes, Sam. Blacknad hijacked the issue. He has a religious axe to grind - hence his eagerness for a "punch up"

That effectively ends the prospects of a reasonable argument of the original point.

Tezza,

Well it's easy to say, but I suspect more difficult to do - or it probably would have been done.

The difficulty is what narrative can science give?

"We are vessels for our genes?"

"We make enough progress so that the lucky few can leave the planet after terraforming Mars and escape earth's perilous future?"

"We take on our own evolution and see how far we can go?"

"We try to discover the Theory of Everything?"

"We try to make a paradise on Earth?"


The problem with these is that they are only unifying in as much as people decide to buy in to them. My current understanding of humanity tells me that this is entirely unlikely.

The other problem is that they are global drives and seem to offer little to the individual, who is unlikely to be the beneficiary of any of them. I suspect that none of them are powerful enough to unify and will not stop us raping each other.

The other point I would make is that if the drive to take control of our own evolution was strong enough then we would be doing it. Is Richard Dawkins religiously championing DIY evolution? If he isn't who will? It is something we do anyway, but is not a unifying narrative.

I don't see any narrative that will unite humanity except fear.

Sad to say, fear always works - when the planet is suffering the worst effects of Global Warming then we will unite against the common enemy. When a major pandemic reduces the population and ruins the world economy then we will unite (or jockey even more for power in the aftermath).

Sorry for being negative - just saying it as I see it.

The question then is:

"What will unite humanity in a common purpose?"

Blacknad.

Red,

That is so unfair. I am trying to dispassionately explore the issues. People can take it where they want and I will be happy to debate the points.

I am extremely interested in exploring the concept of science as a way of knowing.

The punch up I wanted was about people defending science as a completely objective way to understand the universe and more importantly ourselves. Only Mike Kremmer seemed to have an issue, so what can I do. I'm sure that when Dan has a look in then I will get a bloodied nose, but until then...

And if you think I am dissing science's ability as a unifying force so that I can say "Oh become Christians everybody and we'll live happily ever after," then you misunderestimate me. I know that religion will never unite the planet.

Blacknad.

I am only speaking to the first page of this thread.
I reread it ~6 times (better each time) and finally I have something pithy to say (as opposed to lengthily lauding the many great points).

Applied science vs. Theoretical Science

I found that both "sides" of this thread are "right" if viewed alternatively through these 'lenses.'

Blacknad: That's some great thinking; I don't think I could have wrtten it better. I sure appreciate your effort and direction here.

As to the second page....
redewenur: I also agree with you (from a more applied sci. viewpoint). I disagree with your comment, "Yes, Sam. Blacknad hijacked the issue."
This is his thread to begin with; and I think he was only responding to others as the direction shifted from theoretical to applied science.

more soon I hope....

~SAMwik

Excellent dialogue, so far. I am all for science when it is used as a tool, a servant, and not as our master.

The title of this thread prompts me to ask: What subjects, if any, are off limits to science? What is, and what is not, a science? If science is the answer, to what is it the answer?

BTW, the Good News (modern) version of Genesis 3:6 reads: "The woman (Eve) saw how beautiful the tree (of knowledge, science) was and how good its fruit would be to eat, and she thought how wonderful it would be to become wise." Was Eve the first scientist?

Children and animals do not do science. Does this make them any less happy? Or more so?

Rev,

I would not agree that children do not do science. They experiment with their surroundings all the time. Just last week my three year old daughter came in from the garden and wanted to know what the trails left by airplanes were so I tried to explain it in terms she could understand (badly) by talking about steam from a kettle. She then wanted to know why it didn't blow away like smoke does. I was chuffed to bits. She is doing what science starts off with - questioning our surroundings and forming relationships between the behaviour of different things.

Watch out for a Nobel Prize winner in 30 years time called Natasha Stephenson

Blacknad.

yes, i would agree with Blacknad on this one. Kids like to ask questions, and learn about the things around them. Why is the sky blue? Who made God? etc.
and of course innocent children are more happy than stained adults
and i also think that there are areas that are "off-limits" to science

I probably should have said: All Children do not do science...
Curious and bright children, old enough to wonder about things obviously do. Wonder is the beginning of philosophy, the beginning of science.

BTW, Tim, what is your answer to the question: Who made God?

BTW 2, I should add: Many adults do not do science.

What's off limits? [more on that later, but for now...]
How about God. God is transendental. Science deals with the material. "Evidence for God" is an oxymoron.

Regarding Eve and the children, it is all about innocence and loss of innocence (wisdom).

Happier??
Guess it depends on which makes you happy; or maybe just getting a good balance of each, wisdom and innocence.

~SAM

p.s.
...also true for "who made God?" 'Who' is a material thing, God would be not.

What is off limits for science is a massive current debate. Dawkins certainly thinks that God is not off limits and that science clearly indicates that God is a fairy tale.

Other's such as John Polkinghorne also say that God is not off limits for science and point to fine tuning etc. and make the inference that God does exist.

Having read people from both sides of the argument, my own personal opinion is that the universe leads only to agnosticism and that anyone who finds anything else has not been doing 'value-free science' - they have brought their prior assumptions to the lab.

I hope the thread doesn't stick here though.

I am interested also in

1. The belief that scientific progress will be a panacea for all human ills.

What can we reasonably expect from science?

2. Science is the only way to understand the human animal and that an evolutionary understanding of ourselves is the best way forward.

We can take it as a foregone conclusion that evolutionary theory is correct. What I am really asking is, is it entirely helpful to see all human behaviour throught he prism of evolutionary drives? Are there aspects of behaviour that have arisen without a driver simply through the complexity of our brains (emergent properties) and through our modern environment.

I obviously know that any idea of a spiritual aspect to our behaviour is clearly off limits here.

I hope I am not hijacking this thread and will happily explore further any of the issues that have been raised, they're all interesting.

Blacknad.

What can we reasonably expect from science?

From science we expect Understanding of things (and problems) in the material, physical world.

What we do with that understanding; how it is applied, is a decidely unscientific process.

Though I suppose if you examine the sociology and psychology of decisions, they can all be explained scientifically (which is an answer to Question 2, I guess).

Well, maybe not.

RE: Q2:
Not all existing traits are a result of selection, many arise and persist randomly (but may be selected for/against if the pressures change in the future). So doesn't this mean that there could be behaviours not explained by our past evolution.

I'd also like to point out that there is a pretty big value judgement in concluding what has and hasn't been selected for during evolution. How can we be aware of all the pressures, or what traits actually mean for long term survival? How can we say what is best for the survival of any species or of all life. What's best for one species, may not be best for the whole web.
It'd sure be easy to argue that vaccines have greatly reduced our genetic robustness, but I wouldn't want to argue against vaccines with that as my "moral" viewpoint.

Hope this makes sense; it's past time for sleep....

~~SA

"The problem with these is that they are only unifying in as much as people decide to buy in to them."

...if even that far...however, I think the same could be said of any religion or philosophy.

The purpose of science isn't to give us narratives. The purpose of science is not to unify us. It has the potential to 'help' with those things, but that is not its purpose.

More importantly, science doesn't determine our purpose and it doesn't give us values. It can help us understand our values and the potential consequences of acting on them, though.

Hey TFF,
Looks as if great minds think alike.

We both answered blacknad by talking about what we do with our knowledge ("buy in") and ended by talking about values.

~SA

Are logic and science the only things that are important?

In my opinion, no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txchaIqrrV8

You did say that and you also brought in a another interesting and important idea; namely, "knowing what's best."

I was struck by Mike's comment (I hope that's right), "But there is only one way which is the best way, in terms of efficaciousness towards the human being and our future."

I know what you mean, but I can't help but think probably no two people could completely agree on what is most efficacious (for instance, on what time scale?).

Should we manage humanity to ameliorate problems, or should we celebrate the diversity/robustness that hardship engenders?

~~SA

Blacknad wrote:

"I hope I am not hijacking this thread".

Hey. It's your thread. Fill your boots.

I suspect the answer to your question 1 above (will scientific progress will be a panacea for all human ills) is "no". But it might turn out eventually to be yes.

Regarding question 2, Science is the only way to understand the human animal and that an evolutionary understanding of ourselves is the best way forward. I believe there are still many misunderstandings as to how evolution works. Many of our ideas still carry baggage from Victorian economic ideas. It's not simply "survival of the fittest". Evolution works on whole populations. It is very seldom, if ever, the product of the expansion of some small, inbred group. But try explaining that to anyone who's philosophy is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Earlier you commented:

"The problem with these is that they are only unifying in as much as people decide to buy in to them. My current understanding of humanity tells me that this is entirely unlikely".

That may be true and I agree with The FallibleFiend and Samwik's comments regarding difficulties of people buying into a single philosophy. You added:

"The other problem is that they are global drives and seem to offer little to the individual, who is unlikely to be the beneficiary of any of them. I suspect that none of them are powerful enough to unify and will not stop us raping each other."

I think if we continually educate people to understand how their beliefs are being used to gain support for enterprises unlikely to actually benefit them individually we will eventually get somewhere.

P.S. Fallible. Liked the video. It ran smoother on our system than your one on Darwin for some reason.

Terry writes:In my opinion, science is about finding answers to questions beginning with what, when, where, who and how. It is about things that have mass, volume and which occupy space and time, and move within them.

THE WHY QUESTIONS REQUIRE SOMETIME MORE
The task of finding answers to teleological questions--that is, ones having to do with the whys of life, including moral values, meaning and purpose--may be made easier if those who ask such question have a scientific attitude, but the whys of life require more than just science.

I might qualify some of the above by saying that most average individuals plot a random course thru life.
But that 'humans-beings', collectively, are on a course to the future, that is anything but random.

I believe this because the individual is expendable in the scheme of thing. I am sure that thousands of years of Evolution
has instilled within the individual an amazing will to live, and expand. However the odds are stacked.

Humans when threatened with torture, death or worse, will recant and change their outlook to agree with their tyrants views, as a last resort.
I dont think this is a sign of weakness. Since all logical thinking shuts down, becomes obsolete, its an evolutionary protective mechanism,
beyond our control.

Look at the poor wretches in the Middle Ages, who had absolutely nothing but religion for solace.
Their mind knew even while being tortured, that changing their religious beliefs would not save them, they would still be burnt at the stake. Which is why so many continued to mumble their prayers, gladly suffering the most appalling pain, until their death, in the hope that a miracle might save them.

Again I belive that was a result of the human minds protectioning mechanism, coming into play.

What I am trying to say is that, some of us collectively are going to be in the right place at the right time, and move ahead
While others, who are collectively in the wrong place at the wrong time will band together in an effort to overthrow those they consider a threat. All groupings, that might be best called the 'randomising of human movements'. Life death, wars and peace,and suffering, all come into playing out of life, probably always will.

Yet collectively the world of Human Beings is secure and mapped out for the forseable future, Our genes plus evolution will see to that.
Even tho' we cannot see the future.
Of course science will be used to help some groups along the way. But science cannot help every one, in the same way that untold wealth divided equally to all, can never help the human world.
The World needs problems, to ensure our future. Not all of our human family will ever be part of this future

"Yet collectively the world of Human Beings is secure and mapped out for the forseable future, Our genes plus evolution will see to that." -Mike K.

So, I take it you come down on the side of "celebrate the diversity/robustness that hardship engenders."

....the mind boggles!

(sorry, thinking of GW implications)

The country with the most polar coastline could exploit an active control over that pole to dramatic effect, if they were very motivated.

I'm sure between our efforts to maintain the status quo and the "randomizing," some will muddle thru, somewhere. Hopefully our efforts to maximize the numbers will work.

That's a neat concept: randomizing; it's kinda like
Social Entropy. --

~SA

This is what I am talking about and this is why an effective narrative to explain who we are is imperative.

At the core of religion is the concept that all human life is sacred, even if it does not always come out in practice. Each life has value.

Science, however, tells us that we are:

One insignificant bag of genes crawling on the surface of an insignificant ball of dirt traveling through an insignificant part of an insignificant universe.

And that bag of genes is driven to survive and that pretty much everything it does is a result of genetic drives that it does not even perceive, but mistakenly labels as love, indignation, righteous anger, compassion etc.

As Dan has said:

"We are nothing more than calculating machines."


...And we are expendable.

Can we really not see what justified horrors of social engineering we open up with all those expendable people - for the greater good?

Can we really not see what this does to the psyche?

Do we not realize why we have an ever growing army of children with behavioral issues and depression, causing us to use Ritalin and other drugs to sedate a generation?

Do we not see why we have teens now, who despairing in their existential angst, take up arms and slaughter their classmates in a desperate attempt to gain some significance (with press releases readily prepared).

If religion is wrong and science is right, then how do we respond to this?

You say, and maybe rightly so, that it is not science's place to provide any meaning to life - but I suppose I feel that as the practice of science has stripped all meaning, those engaged in it have some responsibility to realize what they have done and try to address it.

I know I'm being really dense here, but I can't help the way I feel - it is beyond my control - I have an evolutionary drive to feel significant so that I can play my part in the group and therefore maximize survival potential

Blacknad.

Revlgking wrote:

"It is about things that have mass, volume and which occupy space and time, and move within them."

In this case I'm thinking of sciences that tell us about human behaviour; such as psychology, sociology etc. and even anthropology. These sciences are already used to help manipulate populations to some extent, usually to sell such things as toothpaste. Or political parties. They will eventually tell us a great deal about how human societies work. It will be over to "The People" to tell politicians how we should use the results of those sciences.

Terry: "It will be over to "The People" to tell politicians how we should use the results of those sciences."

- Yes, I think you're right - if they have the good fortune to live in a benign and democratic state...

It looks like, as we dialogue, we are experiencing a lot of consensus here. As you put it, Terry: "I'm thinking of sciences that tell us about human behaviour; such as psychology, sociology etc. and even anthropology." These are often referred to as "soft sciences".

RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY--father and mother of the sciences
The parents of all the sciences was, of course, religion and philosophy.

Interestingly, the great psychiatrist, Carl Jung came to respect the nature and value of a philosophical (rational) approach to religion. He broke, in a civilized sort of way, with his mentor, Sigmund Freud over Freud's atheism and his cynical view of religion (Check his small book, Future of an Illusion).

Back in the early 1960's, while taking a year of Jungian studies, I remember reading Carl Jung http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
http://www.cgjungpage.org/
In his writings Jung called for the development of a "science of the spirit". At the time, knowing a little Greek, I made up the word "pneumatology" to use in my lectures and sermons on faith and healing. Not long after that I obtained an excellent dictionary published by World Book.

My two-volume WB dictionary has the word "pneumatology"--study of the spirit and an archaic word for psychology. Basically, it is the science of the human spirit, "we the people".

"RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY--father and mother of the sciences" -Revl

I'm not sure how I feel about that one. I could argue for and against.

I was struck by a comment, I think it's from Christopher Hitchens, who sees religion as the enemy of culture (I think).

He was talking about how obvious it is that our culture evolved from the chimpanzees. Then he went on to say it was equally true that our religions also obviously evolved from the chimapanzees.

~not that there's anything wrong with that!
Anyway, he's a pretty arrogant guy; but funny!

So, what does pneumatology say about the different ways of knowing? Can we hold contradictory schema of the world, and not damage ourselves?

Is Science the answer, or is science an answer?

~~Samwik

Revlgking wrote:

'These are often referred to as "soft sciences"'.

They will gain more respect as they use scientific methods of measrement and experiment more and more.

Redewenur wrote:

"if they have the good fortune to live in a benign and democratic state..."

As a skit in Monty Python said, "This is where my claim falls to the ground". Are there any such things as benign and democratic states? I believe we should definitely be supporting any that do exist.

Samwik. I'm not familiar with Chris Hitchins. I'll have to look him up.

Samwik asks: Thanks for your question, Samnwik.IMHO, as a science, pneumatology, like all sciences, does not say anything. It is simply a tool which explores things. People, as scientists, are what say things.

For example, I first heard about pneumatology in 1965. After many decades studying the subject, I now consider myself to be a beginner pneumatologist.

This means that I am a curious human spirit who is ready and willing to admit that there are many things about which I am ignorant. Therefore, I am also ready and willing to ask numerous questions, and to do experiments, having to do with how the human spirit works.

Like with all the sciences, the answers I get will be determined by how brutally honest I am ready and willing to be.

Samwik, you ask: "Can we hold contradictory schema of the world, and not damage ourselves?"

Please expand on what you mean by your qquestion.

You ask: "Is Science the answer, or is science an answer?"

I agree with those who say that science is simply a tool which we are free to use in our search for answers.

Pneumatology holds the same relation to science as astrology and theology. Its practitioners may call themselves scientists, but garbage men can call themselves sanitation "engineers." Until I see them studying PDEs and material's science, they're just playing word games.

Blacknad wrote:
Do we not realize why we have an ever growing army of children with behavioral issues and depression, causing us to use Ritalin and other drugs to sedate a generation?

Do we not see why we have teens now, who despairing in their existential angst, take up arms and slaughter their classmates in a desperate attempt to gain some significance (with press releases readily prepared).

Whilst these are undoubtedly true incidents now, I have always been extremely uneasy with the "things are SO hard for young people today" school of thought. Things weren't so ginger peachy for Anne Frank and others of her generation. They didn't sit around whining and slaughtering their friends, instead they tried hard to survive. Maybe that is what is wrong, it's just too easy when the consequence of sulking and violence is a denial of resonsibility. Then there's the gun control problem too.

Back on topic-ish. How could anyone suggest that religion and philosophy are sciences? It makes as much sense as arguing for the scientific proof of the existence of the divine, and as big a waste of time.

Pneumatology sounds like the study of car tyres. Did you make it up?

TFF: Some people are interested in the exploring new ideas and new ways of getting things done; some are not. Some fear new ideas; some do not. Some of us are curious; some are not. Some encourage the exploration of new ideas; some do not. Some are obscurants; some are not.

That is what makes exploring the nature and function of the human spirit (the pneuma) facinating for me.

BTW, my curiosity led me to do a google on "the new psychologies". Here is the first thing that came up:

http://www.socionics.com/main/welcome.html

But is it really all that new?
In 1884 John Dewey wrote about THE NEW PSYCHOLOGY:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Dewey/newpsych.htm
*****
He began his essay by acknowledging the work of the early psychologists who took a subjective approach to the subject, but he then added:

=====

Here is the concluding part of the essay:

"...the instinctive tendencies of devotion, sacrifice, faith, and idealism which are the eternal substructure of all the struggles...." -John Dewey

Sounds like they were trying to reconcile religion & psychology.

I quoted the above because if you get rid of the religious words (devotion, sacrifice, faith), and substitute:

"a drive to seek ultimate significance," I think there'd be a statement with which we could all agree.

Thus:

"...the instinctive tendencies of a drive to seek ultimate significance, and idealism which are the eternal substructure of all the struggles...." -John Dewey (coined)

Anyway, I ran across that phrase lisening to a panel discussion on religion and culture (BookTV).

As a "human" genetic trait, I thought it might explain alot:

...a drive to seek ultimate significance.

~SA

Bang on, SA. Interestingly, over the decades, Dewey, went back and forth, theologically. More than once he was accused to being an atheist, a left-wing socialist, even a communist, among other things. Perhaps he was, now and then .

Socrates, Aristotle and even Jesus received the same kind of accusations by those who used a different kind of semantics.

rev: "Some people are interested in the exploring new ideas and new ways of getting things done"

People can explore all they wish, but not every "search" is an application of science.

In the spirit of dialogue, I am interested in having an example or two of subjects which you feel are not open to research and of no interest to serious scientists.

One example that comes to my mind is the idea, taught by the traditional religions and one that is accepted by millions of people, is this: God is a person who, among other things, hears and answers, yes, to our petitions, our prayers.

I have no problem with people who say, "we believe such and such to be true". But surely, they should be challenged to demonstrate how factually true, in the scientific sense of the word, it really is.

It seems to that there is some value in using science to demonstrate that such and such is irrational nonsense. Even the traditional religions speak of certain religious practices as superstition--irrational religion. "The religion of feeble minds" as Edmund Burke called it.

" In the spirit of dialogue, I am interested in having an example or two of subjects which you feel are not open to research and of no interest to serious scientists. "

You're misunderstanding my point. I didn't say there were subjects that were not open to research and were no interest to scientists. I said that not every type of inquiry is a scientific inquiry.

Not every opinion a scientist has is a scientific and professional opinion. Not every inquiry he makes is a scientific inquiry.

You're hung up on the idea that science grew up as part of philosophy, but you seem utterly oblivious to the fact that it has broken off - and is now its own thing.

Why do you think that occurred?

"But surely, they should be challenged to demonstrate how factually true, in the scientific sense of the word, it really is."

TFF writes "... you seem utterly oblivious to the fact that it has broken off - and is now its own thing."

In what way is science on its own? Illustrate.

Science - by which I mean actual science, and not just any random thought that comes into a person's head - is an area of inquiry in its own right. It has a method, it has philosophy. It has a realm of application.

Science does not *do* god. It does not *do* supernatural. Any attempt to apply science to problems of religion is using a screwdriver to hammer a nail. It's the wrong tool.

In particular, scientists try to explain the basic scientific entities and its fundamental axioms in the clearest, least ambiguous terms possible. And when they apply their reasoning, they try to be very careful when they are talking about logical necessity and when they are talking about reasonable conclusions and when they are just stating their personal opinions. They don't conflate 20 different ideas and say, "there, i've proved it. next topic." A perfect example is when you were talking about God being everything and I asked does that include feces and you came back with the metaphor of the donut. Look, science doesn't give a rat's rear whether something is desirable. We're trying to figure out the IS, not the OUGHT or the I-wished -it-WERE.

This is not to say that philosophy and science cannot work together, but only that they are distinct. Conflating philosophy
and science is bad science. Using science to lend credibility to purely philosophical points is bad science.

The subject of God is one example. Another is that there is no scientific reason whatever to believe that "a supernatural spirit" exists. None. And even if it did exist, it's not something science can address. The very instant a person brings that subject into the conversation, we know that they are misapplying science.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.

-- F. Scott Fitzgerald, Author

Now I have to agree with TFF on the main point, "It [science] has a realm of application." -TFF
"And even if it [supernatural] did exist, it's not something science can address." -TFF

Two different realms that do not relate well to each other; do not speak the same language.

My point is that we ought to be able to use both operating systems (both realms) at our own discretion. It's like using Quantum Mechanics or Relativity to understand the universe. The fact that they differ by 120 orders of magnitude doesn't mean we still don't find them useful (at our discretion).

Now using them at the same time is an HNL (whole 'nother level).

I think that often people assume one precludes the other. That's why so many people won't admit to believing in evolution (they think it means they're admitting to not believing in God), and they don't want to do that in public (on the record).

It might be better to ask people if they 'understand' evolution, rather than if they 'believe' in evolution.

~~SA

p.s. ...and speaking of 'understanding' evolution, Thanks TFF!

"I think that often people assume one precludes the other."
I agree.

"It might be better to ask people if they 'understand' evolution, rather than if they 'believe' in evolution."

I *would* agree with this except that most creationists are absolutely convinced that they understand evolution.

Hey, I said people, not creationists.

ooops, guess I should'a said "most people," but I was thinking as if in a poll of people.

Good point though, about "convinced that they understand evolution."

I debated about using that word, 'understand.' I thought about saying 'understand the basics,' or 'somewhat understand,' and opted for brevity; but if I were composing a poll question....


~samwik

The ability to hold onto 2 ideas at once is something that humans who live in a community (ie 99%) of us) deal with each day. An example of this is that I think that I believe that absolute freedom is good, however should I decide to exercise it as my right I would be causing chaos. Also in the realm of ideas, I believe it is possible to live a moral life, not upsetting too many, and actively helping and improving the lives of others without needing to believe in a god. Others feel that only the possibility of a god checking behaviour and promising eternal life keeps people "good". I entertain both these ideas, and choose the one that appeals the most. But I do not insist that others who reach a different conclusion adopt my views. And I can see many advantages for both sides.

I have heard many people talk about evolution without the angst referred to here. They still believe believe in god and see him the Evolutionist over all of measurable time. Thinking through 2 opposing views is the human thing to do. Then consensus and cooperation can achieve a balanced result. It's cannot always be either /or.

Such certainties that do exist, confirmed after years of research make for happy scientists, and possibly Nobel Prizes. For the rest of us, we just have to keep trying to unravel the knot, as best we can.

PS-
Nobody has explained the etymology of pneumology and it's not posted anywhere as far as I can see.

The brain seems to have a peculiar ability to hold two opposing, even contradictory ideas at once. It is called 'Cognitive Dissonance'. It find it interesting that the brain can do this with no real tension. It is probably necessary.

Blacknad.

Ellis comments:The word is 'pneumatology'. I will bring up the thread, for you, which I started on it.

Rev wrote;
The word is 'pneumatology'. I will bring up the thread, for you, which I started on it.

I don't want to know everything about pneumatology, just its dictionary-type definition.

Blacknad- Is there any evidence that animals other than humans can make choices based on reasoning? Or is Cognitive Dissonance a purely human trait? It seems to me to be a very basic human specific characteristic, as without this ability wouldn't reasoning be impossible?

TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"I *would* agree with this except that most creationists are absolutely convinced that they understand evolution."

And many people who accept humans have evolved from an ape-like creature don't understand how it happened.

Ellis wrote:

"Is there any evidence that animals other than humans can make choices based on reasoning?"

It so happens I read in today's newspaper that crows do it. I'll have a look for a link, perhaps tomorrow.

Ellis wrote:

"Is there any evidence that animals other than humans can make choices based on reasoning?"

~There is this from the links on SAGG: monkey metacognition....

"The results demonstrated that there was a strong correlation between high-risk bets and correct responses, and between low-risk bets and incorrect responses. "The pattern of the monkeys' bets provided clear evidence of their ability to engage in meta-cognition, an ability that is all the more remarkable because monkeys lack language," noted Columbia's Herbert Terrace."

~sa

terry: "And many people who accept humans have evolved from an ape-like creature don't understand how it happened. "

All too true. My own understand of the subject has evolved over time. The purpose of the redux is to make the ideas more accessible to everyone - creationists and evolutionists, as well.

samik wrote:

"The results demonstrated that there was a strong correlation between high-risk bets and correct responses, and between low-risk bets and incorrect responses. "The pattern of the monkeys' bets provided clear evidence of their ability to engage in meta-cognition, an ability that is all the more remarkable because monkeys lack language," noted Columbia's Herbert Terrace."


Humans who are unable to communicate by using language can make decisions. They are unable to communicate in a meaningful way with others but are able to make considered choices. I find this research challenging as it implies that the monkeys' lack of language would be evidence of their lack of reasoning.

There are conditions that humans suffer fron that preclude them from ever aquiring language, and indeed they often do not wish to interact and commumicate, however they can reason, not always as you or I would, but it is reasoning. An example would be some people with autism, a condition that now everyone has heard of and is now (I feel) a fashionable diagnosis. Some people with severe autism have little desire to communicate and aquire little or no language of any sort, but still make decisions which show evidence of choice.

It is indeed remarkable that the results show that the monkeys were capable of making an informed choice with regard to placing their bets, and answers my question about the ability to make choices being uniquely human. It isn't!

Now all I need is the etymology of pneumatology.

And Ellis. As promised here is the good oil on crows:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1209_041209_crows_apes.html

Thanks terry. It seems that not only humans can think. What do you think about the assumption that the aquisition of language is necessary to achieve what is described as meta-cognition? I don't think it is, or actually I think that as quoted it is a flawed definition.

There is a great story about crows from an Asian city (can't remember details and have no facts to back this up!). The crows enjoyed the kernel of a hard shelled nut but they had difficulty cracking the shell. So they were dropping the nuts on a busy intersection in the city and watching as the traffic cracked the shells open, then flying quickly down to pick them up. They then had the sense to take them to the side of the road to eat them, (maybe some sad lessons learned there!). I remember seeing some great footage on TV of the whole thing.

We have come a long way in our knowledge of behaviour since I was taught that humaans were the ony tool-using animals.

"Science, through its objectivity, has the potential to unify humanity. Ignorance has the potential to destroy it".

Blacknad, Ignorance of what..science? Are you asking if science alone can unify humanity or that humanity can unite without..or in a combination of science and religion..or not religion? I suppose science on its own has no morality; rather the people behind the science have moral responsibility. Of course, I am sure, many scientists will tell me they have no moral duty; they just report the process and the facts.

Ellis asked whether "the aquisition of language is necessary to achieve what is described as meta-cognition?". I've never been sure of any definition of what meta-cognition means. The word was used often enough when I did my teacher training. I suspect we often think in language because we can. A lack of language might not alter our subsequent actions though.

I seem to remember those crows now you come to mention it.

Ah! teacher training. They taught me then that cognition was about the aquisition of knowledge through sensory perception, and therefore of itself 'cognition' would describe the use of all the available senses appropriate for the task in hand. I think Meta-cognition is a posh way of saying "lots of sensory input"--sounds brilliant, but I'm really not sure it means much, and I still question whether language, as such, is necessary for reasoned choice to take place. Language must always include communication, but communication does not need language to suceed in conveying its message. Then there are the people who do not communicate in any way and have no language ..but they can still make choices. The aquisition of language and its use in communication are things that we take for granted and we really shouldn't.

PS I am using the term language as I think the reseacher does ie written or spoken words.

Ellis. For what it's worth, I agree with all that. Language is usefull though.

Playwright, George Bernard Shaw said: "Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself."

I agree. IMO, this ability to acknowledge our unique selfhood is what makes us human, spiritual or pneumatological beings.

As a spiritual (pneuma) being I not just the product of my heredity and my environment--my nature and nurture; I am also the result of what I call pneumature. I am personally responsible for the kind of self I am now, and for the kind of self I will have tomorrow.

I think languange causes lots of problems, because of 'misunderstandings.' It's surprising how often two people think they're talking about the same thing, and yet...not (and usually, nobody ever knows).

Hey, re: "I think Meta-cognition is a posh way of saying "lots of sensory input..."

I see the term as "thinking about thinking." Could also be 'thinking about knowlege, or thinking about learning.'

I think that's why the monkeys "betting" was a good example. It requires holding many possibilities or outcomes in mind at once, and then judging risks/rewards, odds, etc.; meta-cognition.

As for language, it's useful (as ttnz says); but it sure is quicker to think in pictures.
"One picture is worth a thousand words"-?

thus the qualification re: "...the reseacher does, ie written or spoken words."-Ellis

~SLater

But doesn't thinking occur beacuse of sensory input? Or do you see thinking as sensory nput of itself? In the case of the monkeys. I agree they are a good example, they are indeed holding many ideas/inputs/outcomes at once but I am hsppy to call that thinking and/or reasoning. I do not thik we need the word 'meta-cognition'. It is a very good example of jargon, and unnessary because there are perfectly good words to describe what we assume is meant by it.

IMHO, language is one of the tools we language-using human beings use to create ourselves, agreed? No wonder that the Gospel of John begins with the words: "In the beginning was the word..."

Hiya Revl~
Well, I still stand by what I said above (including about metacognition), but I do agree that we wouldn't be what we are without language; especially it's contributions to our civilizing and socializing processes. You can't communicate using just thoughts, so language is critical. Language facilitates metacognition, like math (statistics) facilitates meta-analyses.
You can read the Bible, and be cognizant of what it says; but to think about what it means (literally, metaphorically, symbolically, etc., is a HNL (whole 'nother level) -metacognition.
I always took, "In the beginning was the word..." to mean that when words came about, it marked the beginning of civilizing and humanizing processes, and recognition of other potentialities (like religion, laws, and science). Words marked the beginning of being human, sapient.

~SA

...just fyi; and now for something only slightly different.


"I think languange causes lots of problems, because of 'misunderstandings.' It's surprising how often two people think they're talking about the same thing, and yet...not (and usually, nobody ever knows). -S.

...and I still stand by that, also.

But Science provides a great benefit by making it easier to know if you're talking about the same thing. It standardizes our thinking and makes it easier to spot misunderstandings. The language of religions does not seem to help in this area.

BOT

~SA