The problem with science II

I'll contest that. It is considerably older than Darwinism.From wikipedia:

In that case I disagee with the "directly" part of "it derives directly". However, I admit to being dubious as to the scientific merits of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology.

Faith presents a list of what she sees as problems. In this post, I present my opinions related to her list. That's an illusion. Human experience has vastly expanded. I don't actually think "versus" is the right term here. There is somewhat of a difference between the two groups in what they value. There can sometimes be communication difficulties because of this. But I think the two are separated only by a fuzzy line. The terms are a bit ambiguous. The most extreme forms of behaviorism, such as the radical behaviorism of Skinner, finds many critics from within science. Milder forms of behaviorism are not opposed to humanism, and Skinner did not believe that his radical behaviorism was opposed to humanism. This is the nature of science. By putting it that way, I wonder if you read too much into it. There is a stance scientists take when doing their scientific work. But, apart from that stance, scientists are humans too. These are not opposed. Science tends to use instrumental talk because it is well defined, and thus very meaningful to scientists. Folk meanings tend to be poorly defined, and with a lot of person-to-person variation. But perhaps further research in cognitive science will show that folk meanings also have an instrumental basis, where the instrumentation in in the human sensory systems. This is mostly a misunderstanding.Humans are animals. That it clear to see. But scientists don't treat humans as just animals, so there is no such reduction. Some aspects of science have to treat humans as animals. Much of medical science depends on that. But medical science also deals with human suffering, and with other aspects of humanness. Scientists enjoy reading a good novel too. I'm not sure what you mean here. What is "true knowledge" as distinct from "knowledge"? When you use the term "careerism", I tend to think of corporate executives rather than those from the sciences or humanities. Meaning has everything to do with survival. I'm not a big fan of sociobiology either, though I wouldn't consider it to be "versus Everything Human." Science changes its theories as new knowledge is gained. The older psychology of Freud and Jung wasn't all that good, and wasn't very scientific. These are not "versus". All science indulges in speculative hypotheses, for such are the source of new ideas. It is only natural that "brain talk" will be a part of some of these hypotheses. I have no particular comments on those.

quote:

---

The shriveling of human experience

​

That's an illusion. Human experience has vastly expanded.

​

You appear to be using the word "experience" in a different sense, perhaps to refer to an increase in some collection of external things that may be experienced --? I'm using it in the sense of the shriveling of the inner life, the vocabulary for speaking of it.

---

No, I am using the term in the same sense. You don't have to go back very far to find a time where life was a struggle for existence for most people, a time where many women died in child birth, a time when infectious diseases were far more common and often deadly. Maybe you could say that the people of that time had a richer experience of pain , suffering and death, but I suggest they missed out on much of the experience that is possible today. You seem to think that there is something missing among scientists. But maybe there is something extra that you don't share. Certainly schrafinator talks about the pleasures of food and cooking, and usually does so without mentioning the evolving of behavior. Indeed, I was not at all sure what you were trying to say. Actually, I think I do have a pretty good idea of what you were trying to say. But I happen to think that it is based on misconceptions that are common on the humanities side of the divide. This isn't a humanities vs. science issue. It's a religious intolerance issue. There are many people from the humanities who are appalled at abstinence only education, with its immoral reliance on ignorance. Abstinence only education is an example of Skinner behaviorism put into practice by people who decry behaviorism. All of the scientists that I know are interested in knowledge for its own sake. Personally, I don't pay much attention to such talk, other than to occasionally criticize it.

That's mostly fantasy in my opinion. Our knowledge of the brain is certainly increasing. But a lot of that is about physiology and biochemistry. We are not making much progress in understanding mental processes (thinking, for example). Those working in the area are mostly committed to the computationalism paradigm, and this committment might be preventing them from considering other possibilities.

Actually, it is a term from philosophy. Yes, some philosophers consider themselves to be "cognitive scientists". However "qualia" is, in my opinion, a poor concept for science.

My impression is that the term "qualia" was coined by philosophers with views somewhat similar to your own. They wanted a term to express something that they thought (and argued) could never be explained by science.T. Nagel, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?", Philosophical Review 83, 435-450 (1974). I don't recall that Nagel uses the term "qualia" but he does argue for the position I have suggested.Frank Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia", The Philosophical Quarterly 32, 127-136 (1982). He argues for the position you favor. He has since then changed his mind about it.David Chalmers, "The Conscious Mind: in search of a fundamental theory", Oxford University Press 1996. Chalmers does use the term, and argues for a kind of dualism (property dualism), but you would consider him too much of a reductionist.These are well known in the literature, and I'm sure you can google them to find out more than you ever wanted to know.

I won't be counting the chickens before they have hatched. I agree that there is nothing absurd about it. It is a valid problem for scientific study. Sure. But this mostly has to do with hormones, neuro-transmitters, etc. That is, it is physiology and biochemistry. It doesn't get to the issues that trouble Faith. Perhaps not. Time will tell whether their optimism is justified.Alan Turing's famous paper on machine thinking was published in 1950. A lot of resources have been put into AI research. We still don't know how to design a machine that can think.

Don't let the term bother you. You should use it as a barometer. As long as cognitive scientists are talking about epiphenomena, you will know that they have not solved the problem of accounting for experience and are instead attempting to find a way of dismissing it (i.e. evading the problem).

That's not surprising. The boundary between the two cultures is itself far from being sharp and clear, and the degree of miscommunication varies.Perhaps the miscommunication on this thread has helped to illustrate the problem.