Are we beginning to see a major paradigm shift, steadily moving away from the prevailing physicalist, materialist.mechanistic mindset?
Integral theory is one attempt to move beyond any narrow,exclusive views of reality proclaimed by representives of science, religion, philosophy, spiritual traditions or whatever. Jennifer Gidley writes about integral thinking and the evolution of consciousness here
There are periods in human and cultural evolution when humanity passes through such fundamental transformations that our reality shifts and new patterns of thought are required to make sense of the unfolding human drama . . . The profound transformation we are now witnessing has been emerging on a global scale over millennia and has matured to a tipping point and rate of acceleration that has radically altered and will continue to alter our human condition in every aspect. We must therefore expand our perspective and call forth unprecedented narrative powers to name, diagnose, and articulate this shift… Integral philosopher Ashok Gangadean in the opening quotation encapsulates what many integral theorists have been voicing over the past decade. It is this integral research on emergent movement(s) of consciousness that I am referring to as the evolution of consciousness discourse This research points to the emergence of a new structure,stage(s) or movement of consciousness that has been referred to by various terms, most notably, post-formal integral and planetary.
Jude Currivan says that instead of big bang we have the big breath. The “outbreath” that gives rise to the physical unverse. Matter and energy are the products of information. The physical universe is in-formed as she puts it.
She discusses her views here in “Restating and reunifying reality: Our in-formed and holographic universe”.
This is part of an annual Mystics and Scientists conference promoted by The Scientific & Medical Network
The metaphor of the big bang conjures up images of a destructive explosion leading to chaos. But we should imagine the universe as a birth of order and organisation and this is more in keeping with a breathing process by which we communicate compositions of song, poetry and prose. Evolution is the creation of order out of chaos.
So are we seeing a movement to a more integrated, holistic understanding of reality where, rather than being a mere by product of a particular arrangement of matter, consciousness plays a primal, central role? The cosmos is breathed into existence, the out-breathing Word, the Logos, creates the living universe. Consciousness is the alpha and omega.
A science that views life as being reduced to physics and chemistry, where life can be explained fully in these terms.
I would not describe it that way. It is more about creating patterns.
I’m not really interested in mystical speculation and I don’t believe Steiner was either.
In the book “A Scientist of the Invisible”, A.P. Shepherd writes about Steiner:
Steiner himself from An Outline of Occult Science had this to say:
He followed a path, made observations, and reported on these observations. And I have no doubt about his sincerity and commitment to the truth.
Far from abandoning science, Steiner wished to carry it further, and I would say that Goethe did the same thing in his investigations into the living world.
Yes Genesis did some good stuff.
Thank you. Clearly, based on that definition, I am not a reductionist.
Some of this morning’s posts in this thread seem to be concerned with the question of how conscious experience arises from physics. But I look at it the other way. The more important question is how physics arises from experience.
It is a popular (= widely held) view that modern science is reductionist but that does not mean that it is.
Some scientists and philosophers have hoped that reductionism could be vindicated; others have hoped that it will not be.
I don’t think there’s any really clear understanding of what reductionism is, and I’m skeptical that the very idea makes sense.
That sounds about right.
The concept that matter at its fundamental level can be reduced to exceedingly minute particles is an example of reductionism. The quantum potential of Bohm gives us an aspect of fundamental particles which is non-local and holistic which means that they are fundamentally as big as the universe.
I have discussed the polarity of point and plane before and this is in accord with that. In science it is usually just the one-sided point-wise forces which are emphasised.
Taking on its own, that sentence mixes issues which should be kept separate:
1. Is there a single, unified definition of reductionism?
No. There are, for example, different dimensions for defining the nature of the reduction: epistemological versus ontological, local versus universal, diachronic versus synchronic, vertical versus horizontal.
2. Can one provide a coherent, testable/falsifiable definition of a form of reductionism from one of the types in 1?
Yes. See
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/
3. Will any coherent concept of reduction survive the testing of 2?
That’s an ongoing research program in philosophy, not a closed issue. My personal intuition favours structural, pluralistic, local,. I think epistemological/ontological may be a difference that makes no difference. May be.
Good point: we need to separate math platonism and some form of nominalism.
I like structuralism as a philosophy of math and feel better about structures being something evolved human cognition needs for math and not something that exists in some world of abstractions.
So I feel you are right in saying “creating” rather than “finding” patterns.
But I am also uneasy about whether math anti-realism is consistent with my acceptance of scientific structural realism when that realism is combined with the unreasonable success of math in helping to generate novel, unexpected predictions. That unreasonable success is used to argue that math realism is a necessary part of any scientific realism.
Here is one possible way to reconcile nominalism and that argument about success:
Mathematics and Explanatory Generality: Nothing but Cognitive Salience
From reply to KN:
When I say you have to do science to change the paradigm and the practices of science, I mean you have to express your concerns using the languages and theories that are now seen as scientific by the communities of scientists working in the appropriate domain.
Quoting the historical views of individuals working many years ago does not meet my criteria.
In the case of the reply to KN I quoted, when you talk of points and planes and forces I take you to be talking about the domain of physics covered by Newtonian mechanics. Of course, that has now been replaced by QM.
But Newtonian mechanics is still of practical value, eg for building bridges. However, if you want to express views of Newtonian mechanics including its limitations, I say one has to to express those views using the mathematical language that modern science uses to express them.
In general, I read your posts as starting with a metaphysics and then trying to build a science based on that metaphysics.
I reject that type of approach. For me, it is science first, then a metaphysics that is constrained by science. And science means the practices and theories of current, successful communities of practitioners.
I never did like the Quine-Putnam indispensibility thesis. It does not make sense to me.
In order for platonism to explain the success of mathematics in the sciences, you would need to believe that scientific measurements are actually platonic entities. And that seems pretty close to a Berkeley style of idealism.
My preference for fictionalism, is that it requires no commitment as to what measurements are.
As for the “unreasonable success” argument — I see that as a huge misunderstanding of how mathematics is used in the sciences. Once you understand how mathematics is actually used, its effectiveness becomes very reasonable (or even obvious).
Whatever its merits, I think the argument runs the other way based on Quinean approach to ontology
“A theory is committed to those and only those entities to which the bound variables of the theory must be capable of referring in order that the affirmations made in the theory be true.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-commitment/#QuiCriPre
– math entities, specifically sets, are part of those commitments and hence sets are real
As for fictionalism, AFAIK the attempts to apply it alone to math and science, Field’s work on Newtonian mechanics in particular, have not fared well. See 4.3 and 4.5 here
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics.
I do agree with you that anti-realism is better for math, but I am not sure if fictionalism alone is the best form of it. I have to read the paper I linked in the other post in more detail.
I like explanations that rely on our evolved cognition to maintain empiricism, rather than resort to eg platonism in math or a realist approach to modality in science. But I suspect there is a tension with scientific realism about quantum theory and anit-realism about modality, especially for entanglement. MWIs might answer that concern. But I have meandered around enough, so I will stop now.
I’m under no illusion that I could have a real effect on any paradigm change. I know that change must come from within. Those who influence research and education will be the ones who make the difference. People such as physicist Arthur Zajonc and like minded scientists who come after him will contribute.
I am simply observing what I think may be the beginnings of a shift. The internet is allowing anyone and everyone to have their say and this makes it easier to get a feel for the general mood.
We can study points, planes and forces from the point of view of what we actually observe before trying to fit these observations into any framework, either Newtonian, relativistic or quantum. So it dependent neither on physics or metaphysics. Like Newton I too can observe an apple falling under the influence of gravity. And I can also observe a plant spiralling upwards or the blood returning to the heart via the inferior vena cava against the force of gravity. I can witness radial movements, helical movements, systems developing in the form of a plane.
Goethe made no assumptions when he studied plant metamorphosis, he observed. Show me any plant that does not exhibit some stage of expansion and contraction.
Science should not be about believing what we are told, no matter who tells it. It should be about observing and thinking for oneself. Practical successes can and has been achieved without an understanding of how they worked.
There we differ completely.
Successful human inquiry can only be done individuals working in communities, sharing and building on each other’s work according to proven norms, such as the Mertonian norms,. and acting as appropriate to the domain of inquiry.to test hypotheses
Critical thinking about what and who to believe is something else. But if it is a domain of knowledge addressed by science, I start with current, active research programs in successful scientific communities.
ETA: So I don’t give much credence to scientists, mathematicians, or philosophers with idiosyncratic ideas who are not in ongoing engagement with the relevant community to challenge these views.
Interesting. I agree with CharlieM on this.
By itself, this cannot work.
Much good science starts with the initiative of one person. And sure, it won’t be seen as successful if that one person cannot persuade others to join. What Kuhn called “normal science” might be able to start as a communal effort. But what he termed “revolutionary science” doesn’t usually start that way.
Of course it starts that way in many cases. The point is, how does it become scientific knowledge and not just someone’s speculation?
Have you forgotten the motto of this site? Or as Feynman put it.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Fair enough. But wasn’t that what CharlieM was arguing for?
Maybe I misread him.
I should say that is the first sentence of the quote about doing things on one’s own that concerns me the most. The second about creating new scientific knowledge solely through practical demonstrations without understanding is trickier for me to engage with. Faraday’s work comes to mind as a possible example of Charlie’s thesis. That second sentence needs more unpacking and study of actual work.
With regards to the first sentence:
I take him as arguing anyone can do science by thinking about the issues.
I think that is wrong on two counts:
First, I think it confuses critical thinking with doing science: everyone get think critically (not that they always do!) but only someone skilled in science can be part of a community doing science. I further think being skilled normally requires a scientific apprenticeship (eg post-doc), but that is more controversial, although maybe not for you, based on your view that the only knowledge is knowledge-how.
The second concern, and the one we exchange views on I think, is that an individual scientist’s unreviewed hypotheses could be knowledge.
We must be reading differently.
I took that first sentence as saying to not automatically believe something, without first thinking it through. And, to me, that’s just good practice.
I’ll grant that CharlieM has some weird ways of thinking things through. But, even so, it seems to be good skeptical practice.
I agree that everyone should be a critical thinker. I’d add that part of participating in a scientific community is being a scientifically-skilled critical thinker in that domain of science.
But few are scientifically skilled. I took CharlieM as saying, in effect, that everyone had equal claim on being scientifically-skilled. I also thought he said that scientific knowledge could be achieved solely be individual work.
Topics of explanation and paradigms have come up in thread. Here is as short YT video on a new paradigm for explanation in fundamental physics, namely constructor theory (brief intro to it only)
Bonus: She asks three why questions.
Bonus 2: Her philosophy is scientific realism but she understands that being a scientific realist is not a prerequisite for doing good science.
Bonus 3: She enjoys interdisciplinary work involving philosophers for these types of questions (eg nature of explanatory paradigms).
I didn’t take it that way. I took him as talking about people taking personal responsibility for what they believe.
I.m having trouble finding the time to participate as much as I would like in this thread. You have provided lots of links and I think this is a good thing but it takes me quite a bit of time to give them the attention they deserve.
I’ll just say a few things and as time allows give more detailed replies to what people have written.
Neil has understood what I was trying to say.
Nobody of reasonable intelligence should be barred from having a voice. The way things are going only specialist experts in their narrow domain of a particular science will be able to understand that speciality and everyone else, including other scientists will be lay people.
I’ve watched the video you linked to. Starting a project such as The Institute of Art and Ideas sounds like a worthwhile undertaking, I’ll need to have a closer look. I could say quite a bit about all that Dr Marletto says in the video if I had more time. I think she is a bit naive in thinking that there is no dogmatism in science. She says that scientific endeavours should be tentative and it is good to make mistakes which will soon be rectified through further research. Although if anyone tries to argue that Darwinian evolution is very limited, or that the current ideas on cosmology such as the big bang is mistaken then we see rigid belief and dogmatism raising its ugly head.
Must dash:)
Enjoy your holidays.
Another YT channel for you:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMsF3abDjJK9yrGJ6GgBqeg
Looks like I misread him. Though I am still not sure, given his latest: [ETA] For example, I do think that it true and appropriate that untrained individuals have no say in whether the results of the LHC demonstrate that standard model predictions about Higgs boson were correct. Only appropriately-trained scientists do have such a say,
But I won’t be dogmatic about that.
Yes, everyone can have a voice. But nobody, other than you, is required to listen to your voice.
There is an appearance of dogmatism. But that appearance tends to disappear once you understand the science.
Is it dogmatism?
If you tell people that they are wrong, expect a reaction. That’s normal human behavior.
If you disagree with the science, it isn’t sufficient to say that you disagree. You have to present a persuasive argument before people will change their beliefs. And an argument that seems persuasive to you might not be persuasive to the other person.
I’m not sure, either. But I try to follow the principle of charity.
After your holidays, I’d like to understand how you can believe this is true.
Evolutionary biology and cosmology are rife with controversy:
Some examples in biology:
– role of epigenetics;
– is extended evolutionary synthesis radical break from standard contemporary synthesis or just an enhancement of it
– is there kin selection
– what is role of neutral theory
– when talking of DNA processing in the cell, how should we understand “function” and how much of the genome is functional
Some examples in cosmology
– is inflation as currently understood correct (Sean C says chances are 50-50, IIRC)
– what is nature of dark matter; should we modify GR instead of postulating dark matter?
– is the evolution of the universe cyclic?
– are multiverses real or even science at all?
I would not want to repeatedly cross a modern bridge that had not been designed by a qualified civil engineer with cross-checks by other engineers. Why should I accept biological theories or cosmological theories from unqualified people?
How closely do you think the scientific establishment actually adheres to the norms you approve of? How do things stand in the real world? I found this video: How closely do we conform to Merton’s norms?
Even the research into this needs funding, so everything boils down to money. Those with the most financial clout get to determine the direction research takes. Do you think this is healthy for objectivity?
Yes, we have to try to be honest with ourselves. “Know thyself”.
Can you provide the exact quotes you are referring to here? Where did I say science should be done on one’s own? And I have not said that understanding should be left out. I am saying that practical application does not necessarily come with understanding.
It is complicated.
You have to first ask what “objectivity” actually means.
It is common for people to think of objectivity as implying something lik a “god’s eye view” of reality, though they might not use that terminology. But objectivity, in that sense, does not exist.
Alternatively, by “objectivity” we could just mean removing individual biases, and depending on community consensus. And, with that meaning, objectivity can exist.
As far as I can see, most successful efforts are purpose driven. Having money to fund research is part of that. The trick is to have a diversity of purposes, rather than a too narrow purpose.
I do criticize the universities here. They have become too dependent of research grants. So they have made winning research grants part of their requirement for promotion and tenure. And that’s a mistake, in my opinion. For it allows those making research grants to have too much control over the direction of research. I would prefer a system where an individual faculty member can decide to go it alone on his own research project, and still expect promotion and tenure even if granting agencies don’t like his/her choice of project.
Image below from the video Who’s Not Looking Through The Telescope Now? by David Lorimer All scientific endeavours begin with suppositions. And to determine if the suppositions are on firm ground we have to philosophize. So we should start with epistemology.
IMO it is unjustified for any natural science researcher to begins with the assumption that the physical world is all there is. It is totally justified to begin from a position that believes natural science should restrict itself to investigating physical reality and to make no pronouncements about what may or may not lie outside this domain.But science in general should not be limited to the narrower field of natural science.
I disagree already. They may begin with some “what if?” questions, but those are not the same as suppositions. Good science depends on the ability to question suppositions.
And I disagree with that, too. Feyerabend’s book “Against Method” makes a pretty good case against starting with epistemology.
This quote I read as implying that it is not right that only skilled scientists should have a say in doing science. But maybe I misunderstood what you mean by “having a voice” and why you seemed to be concerned that not everyone could have the skills needed to do science in some domain.
Two things seem to me to be mixed here:
1. methodological naturalism, which I have said plenty about in other threads and won’t speak further about here
2. Science restricting itself to domains where it can be successfully applied. I see nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, science isn’t all only way of understanding our world. For example, I don’t think science is the way to understand how humans should live a meaningful, fulfilled, moral life, although scientific knowledge may help in that type of inquiry, it is not sufficient or primary.
I’m off for the holidays .. enjoy yours.
Pretty closely over the long run. Yes, there is competition and people are self-interested. But that is a good thing, just like is it a good thing to have markets where all act in their own interest.
But you need regulation to avoid problems with market deficiency.
The scientific community as a whole provides this, as is demonstrated by the exposure of frauds and the existence of studies like the one you found. Science is self-regulating, and as the survey demonstrates, scientists believe in that the norms are the right regulative ideal. [ETA] Competition among individuals is one means of ensuring effective self-regulation.
It is true that some scientists at times will hide information that should be public once they have published. But we see growing movements today being championed by scientists to counteract this behavior, like the open data access and pre-registration of studies.
You are mixing lack of objectivity in promoting your research program over others with lack of objectivity in carrying out a research program.
The first issue — who gets funded — is the role of elected representatives if it is taxpayer money, as most is. It is a shame the US has elected fools to positions which set climate change and environmental policy and other funding for other scientific issues, but that is a issue with democracy, not science.
There is also a smaller amount of funding from private individuals, which is another issue: why should eg techno-billionaires determine a society’s research priorities? But, again, that is not an issue for science.
The second issue is an objective process in science. That’s we I am discussing from where I sit.
I am definitely out till the New Year now.
Have a good holiday and I look forward to our continued conversations in the New Year. 🙂
When I say we start with suppositions I am not advocating a method of doing science. I am saying that we cannot help but bring certain assumptions due to the world view we have formed. We cannot avoid this starting position. Nobody begins to practice science from a position in which they have formed no previous opinions about the world.
I’m not advocating that scientists are required to make a specific supposition about what may be the case and then to attempt a confirmation of the said supposition. Rather I think that scientists just like everyone else come with their own preformed assumptions.
This is what I mean by beginning with suppositions.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Feyerbend.
According to Feyerabend there is no universal scientific method, no rigid rules of how science should be conducted. So from this perspective Goethean science is a legitimate method of conducting science. Obviously I agree with this.
In the video Post-Kuhnian Philosophy of Science: Paul Feyerabend, (I’ve provided a still below) Feyerbend is shown to have compared science to religion. He is known to have said things just to invoke a reaction. The narrator believes that Feyerband did not actually think that science was like this. He thought that science is in danger of becoming like this. I think that there are already branches of science in which the participants act as though it is their religion. They treat theory as fact and cannot bear to see them criticised.
I meant to put this image in the previous post:
You should drop that word “certain” from there.
Yes, everyone starts with assumptions. But a good scientist should be willing to question those assumptions when the evidence suggest a problem with them.
Yes, and I agree with that.
No, that does not follow. That there are no rigid rules does not mean there are no constraints at all. Yes, Feyerabend did argue that “Anything Goes”, but that was pushing his ideas too far.
Perhaps if I had used “particular” instead of “certain” my meaning would have been more clear.
Good.
In order for you to convince me that Goethean science should not be thought of as science you will need to make an argument from the point of view of knowing what Goethean science actually is and knowing how it is practised. Can you do that? I am interested in hearing justified reasons, not just personal opinions.
My comment was not actually about Goethean science. It was about the reasoning that you gave.
I don’t know anything about Goethean science. So I don’t have an opinion on whether it should be considered to be science. My point was simple — that there is no universal scientific method does not constitute an argument either for or against Goethean science.
I do know something about Goethean science and from that vantage point I say that it is legitimate science.
Goethe called his science gentle empiricism. His view was that if nature was treated with respect and studied carefully enough, she would reveal her secrets. There is no need for speculation.
This is completely different from the Baconian Method. Bacon thought that nature’s secrets could be obtained by force.
:
You are entitled to your opinion.
I say “show me the results”. And I think that was the point Feyerabend was making. We should judge what is science by the results, not by the method.
The results are sustainable farming methods, working with nature, not against nature, treating the earth with respect and not as a treasure trove of commodities to be thoughtlessly plundered for short term gain. Modern science has brought us many benefits but it’s high time we started thinking more about the cost of these benefits. You only have to see the effects of hydrocarbon use, pesticides, plastics and such like to understand what is happening to the planet.
It’s not the sciences themselves but the way scientific knowledge is used that should concern us. Knowledge alone, without the wisdom needed to use this knowledge, is a dangerous possession.
I can agree with that. But this is politics, rather than science. It is about controlling the excesses of capitalism.
The blurred borderland between science and religion:
From the book,
Underland: A Deep Time Journey by Robert Macfarlane, in a conversation with a young physicist named Christopher, who works in a laboratory deep underground searching for signs of the ever illusive dark matter, Macfarlane writes:
ROFL. A laboratory isn’t a “worship site” any more than a garage workshop, operating room, or even a toilet is.
This desperate need to render other people’s lives and behaviors through a religious lens to try to say “see you’re religious too” is among the most feeble and pathetic, and does not provide an excuse for having imaginary invisible friends.
Yes — if they can be controlled. Recent history confirms Marx’s claim that capitalism will always work to undermine any controls placed upon it.
CharlieM,
Some physicists clearly admit that our account of gravity might be wrong. That does not look like religion.