# Scientism, good or bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558 "2003-06-26T17:19:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/141 "2003-07-07T11:57:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*What you stated has nothing to do with the research, I guess you didn’t read it either. These researchers were not mystics, very funny, but sad that you talk as if you know when you don’t. > > Read the research, please, then comment on it. \*\* I _have_ read it, and I stand by my initial assessment. The conclusion you’re drawing (that a spritual world exists) is actually not one supported by the research, which hints that it’s possible some kind of transcendence _might_ exist. The paper throws around the term “out-of-body experience” pretty freely, apparantly believing that people near death really _are_ outside of their bodies, instead of just _thinking_ they are. The paper wraps up with the suggestion that further NDE research should be pursued (which is understandable) while maintaining “the theory and background of transcendence should be included as part of an explanatory framework” (which isn’t). The fact that poeople can form impressions even when showing a flatline EEG doesn’t prove transcendance is occuring. It suggests the more plausible answer that a flatline EEG doesn’t prove a human brain is completely dead. So I have to decide if someone who reports an NDE: [ul][li]Had really moved his consciousness outside of his body, or[/li][li]Still ahd brain function _in_ his body, but that medical instruments weren’t able to detect it (or the doctors on hand didn’t read them properly).[/li][/ul] The first answer requires I disregard some of the laws of physics, while the second is covered neatly by the limitations of technology and human error. The onus is lower on the second choice, so that’s where I’ll put my money _until such time as someone can prove otherwise_. The paper you cite suggests in vague terms what you apparantly want to hear, but it fail to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/142 "2003-07-07T13:42:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*I _have_ read it, and I stand by my initial assessment. The conclusion you’re drawing (that a spritual world exists) is actually not one supported by the research, which hints that it’s possible some kind of transcendence _might_ exist. The paper throws around the term “out-of-body experience” pretty freely, apparantly believing that people near death really _are_ outside of their bodies, instead of just _thinking_ they are. The paper wraps up with the suggestion that further NDE research should be pursued (which is understandable) while maintaining “the theory and background of transcendence should be included as part of an explanatory framework” (which isn’t). The fact that poeople can form impressions even when showing a flatline EEG doesn’t prove transcendance is occuring. It suggests the more plausible answer that a flatline EEG doesn’t prove a human brain is completely dead. > > So I have to decide if someone who reports an NDE: > [ul][li]Had really moved his consciousness outside of his body, or[/li][li]Still ahd brain function _in_ his body, but that medical instruments weren’t able to detect it (or the doctors on hand didn’t read them properly).[/li][/ul] > > The first answer requires I disregard some of the laws of physics, while the second is covered neatly by the limitations of technology and human error. The onus is lower on the second choice, so that’s where I’ll put my money _until such time as someone can prove otherwise_. The paper you cite suggests in vague terms what you apparantly want to hear, but it fail to convince me. \*\* The research was only a small part of the evidence available. What you are waiting for has already been proved in hundreds of experiences. I realize that some will never believe no matter how good the proof. I understand some still think the earth is flat. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/143 "2003-07-07T14:40:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*The research was only a small part of the evidence available. What you are waiting for has already been proved in hundreds of experiences. I realize that some will never believe no matter how good the proof. I understand some still think the earth is flat. \*\* Hey, if that article was just one part of a larger body of knowledge, feel free to smother us in links. If your “proof” _was_ good, I’d consider it. So far, though, you always seem to be assuming the thing you want to prove; i.e. something that appears to involve an out-of-body experience proves the existence of out-of-body experiences. I’m saying that the brain is a very complex and little-understood object (it’s had a billion or so years to evolve, after all) so if something apparantly miraculous occurs, it could just be due to some aspect of the brain we don’t yet understand, but which is still within the realm of the laws of physics. Making up more complicated explanations involving the soul strikes me as uneccessary. I’d like to see a rigourous NDE test, myself. Put a person in a room with a bed against one wall and a table against the other. On the table, put a tall box with an open top, such that the patient, lying on the bed, cannot see what is in the box, but someone suspended from the ceiling could. Then use whatever drugs or oxygen deprivation is necesary to cause the patient to go “out of body” (while monitoring for safety, of course). See how many times the patient can identify the colour, shape etc. of the object in the box. Conduct numerous trials. Get me proof like _that_ and I’ll start to buy into the reality of an out-of-body experience. Of course, if you insist on using worn-out catty metaphors, like implying people who disagree with you think the world is flat, you’ll never convince anyone except the foolish, who already _want_ to believe what you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/144 "2003-07-07T19:55:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > I don’t understand - did you expect us to divorce that last sentence from the rest of the paragraph, and assume it was a complete non-sequitur, not talking about Occam’s Razor at all? You’ve got to admit you could have been a teensy bit more clear there. Sure, I could have been more clear, and I did clarify as soon as I realized where the misunderstanding came from. I still don’t understand how you reached that conclusion though. Assuming it was a non-sequitur doesn’t invite the correct interpretation of what I said either. > [@](#): > > Because it was clear the first time, and you didn’t tell me what it was you didn’t understand. It’s not a matter of understanding, but a lack of support for your contentions. I’ve made it clear what I was expecting from you re: falsifiabilty which I will address later in this post. > [@](#): > > WHAAAAAT?! After you took me to task for conflating your opinion with erislover’s, you NOW contend that it is acceptable to do so, so long as the person never explicitly disagreed with the other person? I don’t recall you explicitly disagreeing with erislover, so I guess my apology at the top of the post was unneccesary. > > At any rate, I do not give you permission to implictly assume any argument on my behalf, whether I explicitly disagreed with the argument or not. Aw, c’mon. I didn’t take you to task. I didn’t demand an apology or get offended. I duly noted the source of the comment. If you want to continue talking about it, I can find out if my assumptions were incorrect or not. > [@](#): > > That all sounds suspiciously like solipsism. And I am not merely reluctant to falsify it, I am _unable_ to falsify it. Which is precisely my objection to such a philosophy; I believe it is by its nature unfalsifyable. You are quite correct that “the material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough to divine its nature through reason and direct observation” is an assumption on my part. And I cannot _disprove_ other initial assumptions. I wasn’t decribing solipsism. Although one who ascribed to those views, might say similar things. I didn’t ask you to falsify solipsism, but to explain how your own assumptions could be falsifiable. You still haven’t done this. So far, you seem to hold that all other assumptions must be falsifiable other than your own. This would be little more than “bible” thumping. You have at least acknowledged that it is an assumption though. Still you appear make more assumptions: > [@](#): > > Yes, we _could_ all be bodies in pods a la The Matrix, and life could be but a dream, etc., but assuming as much does not increase our knowledge in any way. Can you show this statement to be falsifiable as well? Even if one accepts that “the material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough to divine its nature through reason and direct observation”, it does not obviously follow that alternative assumptions to that do not increase our knowledge. Alternative assumptions may assume less as opposed to being in direct opposition. Solipsism in particular, has little to do with the natural world, but can provide insight to the workings of our mind. You may not have any interest in this knowledge, but it appears to be a matter of preference. I’d like to bring up another alternative to deism and solipsism. Suppose that instead of doubting the material world, we doubt the observer or what is called the self. Just as the universe’s existence does not imply a creator, the existence of thought or observation does not imply a creator of thought or an observer. Perhaps the self is merely a metaphor which the mind uses to order the world for survival purposes. So maybe you do believe in an unfalsifiable entity: your self. This concept is not necessarily in contradiction with the scientific studies of consciousness as one could formulate theories about consciousness without positing a self. Nor does it negate the possibility of an ordered natural world. However, it could cause a radical shift in the sort of knowledge that is considered useful or what direct, objective observation of the natural world really is. If one’s concept of obervation involves an explicit “I” and if one’s motivation’s for understanding the natural world come from this “I”, then scientific studies may seem less relevant. One instead may be motivated to achieve direct experience of the world without the filter of the self. This is more or less the object of Buddhism, and is purportedly achievable through the practice of the specific mental discipline of meditation. I’m not trying to “convert” you Buddhism as I’m neither qualified nor inclined. I’m trying to show how alternative assumptions do not necessarily imply irrationality, impede understanding, or imply that discussion of them is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/145 "2003-07-07T22:16:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > I duly noted the source of the comment. If you want to continue talking about it, I can find out if my assumptions were incorrect or not. Fine, if you insist on dragging the matter out, I will point out that “taking exception to your taking exception to Godless’ statement” is not equivalent to my making the same statement as Godless. Here’s an example: Person A: Blue is my favorite color. Person B: No, blue is the color of the Devil. Person C: No, blue is _not_ the color of the Devil. Person B: Aha! So blue is your favorite color, isn’t it, Person C? [unwarranted assumption] In other words, just because Person C disagrees with Person B, who disagrees with Person A, does not mean Person C _agrees_ with Person A. > [@](#): > > I didn’t ask you to falsify solipsism, but to explain how your own assumptions could be falsifiable. You seem to be forgetting that other assumptions such as “God exists” are stacked _on top of_ the assumption that there is a consistent external reality. God-belief does not allow us to dispense with the assumption that the universe exists, it merely adds a superfluous element to the assumption, i.e. “the universe exists, and God is in it”. > [@](#): > > ## You have at least acknowledged that it is an assumption though. Still you appear make more assumptions: quote: > > ## Yes, we could all be bodies in pods a la The Matrix, and life could be but a dream, etc., but assuming as much does not increase our knowledge in any way. > > Can you show this statement to be falsifiable as well? Not sure what you’re after here. You want me to falsify my belief that assuming unknowables does not increase our knowledge? It sounds like you are confusing reason itself with assertions of supposed factual matters. Can reason itself be falsified? How would one do that? Would you use reason to falsify itself? I feel as if we are caught in an inward spiral of philosophical bullshit. [quote] Even if one accepts that “the material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough to divine its nature through reason and direct observation”, it does not obviously follow that alternative assumptions to that do not increase our knowledge. Alternative assumptions may assume less as opposed to being in direct opposition. > [@](#): > > Solipsism in particular, has little to do with the natural world, but can provide insight to the workings of our mind. You may not have any interest in this knowledge, but it appears to be a matter of preference. Can you give an example of knowledge obtained through solipsism? > [@](#): > > I’d like to bring up another alternative to deism and solipsism. Suppose that instead of doubting the material world, we doubt the observer or what is called the self. Just as the universe’s existence does not imply a creator, the existence of thought or observation does not imply a creator of thought or an observer. Perhaps the self is merely a metaphor which the mind uses to order the world for survival purposes. It’s interesting you bring this up, because I happen to find it an intriguing idea. However, I disagree that it is an unsupportable assumption; there happens to be objective evidence for that proposition. For example, back when cutting the corpus collosum was a standard treatment for epilepsy, it was discovered that post-operative “split brain” patients would actually behave as two different “selves”, as if one half of the body had a “mind of its own”. Whispering a command in the right ear might result in the left hand drawing a picture, but a conflicting command in the other ear might make the patient invent some sort of haphazard explanation as to why he did it. It seemed that without the “hard wiring” between the 2 hemispheres of the brain, a person would go to great effort to concoct ways to integrate their disparate behavior after the fact. Such evidence tends to support the supposition that what we experience as a cohesive “self” is merely a construct of the mind. > [@](#): > > So maybe you do believe in an unfalsifiable entity: your self. No, actually I don’t believe in such a thing. > [@](#): > > This concept is not necessarily in contradiction with the scientific studies of consciousness as one could formulate theories about consciousness without positing a self. Nor does it negate the possibility of an ordered natural world. > > However, it could cause a radical shift in the sort of knowledge that is considered useful or what direct, objective observation of the natural world really is. If one’s concept of obervation involves an explicit “I” and if one’s motivation’s for understanding the natural world come from this “I”, then scientific studies may seem less relevant. I don’t see why that would be the case. > [@](#): > > One instead may be motivated to achieve direct experience of the world without the filter of the self. This is more or less the object of Buddhism, and is purportedly achievable through the practice of the specific mental discipline of meditation. I’m not disputing that such alteration of one’s state of mind is useful to that person, but I don’t think it tells us anything objective about the physical universe. > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to “convert” you Buddhism as I’m neither qualified nor inclined. I’m trying to show how alternative assumptions do not necessarily imply irrationality, impede understanding, or imply that discussion of them is meaningless. Well, “irrational” is a loaded word. The tenets of Buddhism are certainly _non_-rational, though. And I don’t think religion necessarily _impedes_ understanding, unless it supplants reason. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558/146 "2003-07-08T02:14:48Z")
Let me simplify this a bit as for my part in this discussion.I am what has been called a “Divorced materialist”.SPooks, boogetmen, spirits, philosophical idealism adn solopsism are of absolutely no use to me and I have no way to engage in any meaningful discussion with someone who assumes any of those things as a priori fact.Bringing idealism and solopsism into an existentiual debate is like bringing a fishing rod to a billiards tournament.You can do it but I, having shown up to play some pool, will not be chalking up a fishing rod, nor attaching a reel to my pool cue. What I DO take issue with is the inherent hypocrisy of the idealist or solopsist who goes on and on about **my** “materialist assumptions” and does this by typing away at a keyboard, fully expecting another carbon based lifeform to read this and respond in kind.In short both you and I will walk AROUND the same walls but YOU will then turn around and chastise me for assuming the wall is there. In any case I am not interested in Idealism or solopsism.Completely useless, mental masturbation IMO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientism-good-or-bad/184558.md?page=7)