Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:28 pm I agree with Wiki’s definition of reductionism. I have responded in your “Humans are programmed for evil” with a defense of Physics, you may read it there, and outlined the reasons it is not reductionist but explanatory of the origin of phenomena.

Reductionism as “associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simple or more fundamental phenomena.” What is more fundamental than virtual particles that are arising in space-time. It is not possible to get more fundamental than that, other than peering into interior space which so far is not an option. What is fundamental cannot be reduced precisely because it is fundamental.

The other definition “that interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts” is done all the time. The brain being a prime example as causal to intelligence, individuality, mind etc. I would not be too sure about neuro-psychology, cognitive sciences etc. It appears to me that they too consider biology as fundamental.

The East whose culture goes back to the rishis (sages) of higher ages interprets evolution differently than does the West. They do not base it on biology which reductively “interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts.” What is unsheathed or liberated from biology is viewed not as a product of biology but foundational to biology. Physics in studying origins rather than outcomes can have a better perspective on which view is valid.

I did not mean to imply that you promoted the idea of a deity or believed in one. It appeared that your overseeing CEO type system was reminiscent of that concept. In your other post you said that the Buddha was theist and I refuted that assumption there.
I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:48 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:28 pm I agree with Wiki’s definition of reductionism. I have responded in your “Humans are programmed for evil” with a defense of Physics, you may read it there, and outlined the reasons it is not reductionist but explanatory of the origin of phenomena.

Reductionism as “associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simple or more fundamental phenomena.” What is more fundamental than virtual particles that are arising in space-time. It is not possible to get more fundamental than that, other than peering into interior space which so far is not an option. What is fundamental cannot be reduced precisely because it is fundamental.

The other definition “that interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts” is done all the time. The brain being a prime example as causal to intelligence, individuality, mind etc. I would not be too sure about neuro-psychology, cognitive sciences etc. It appears to me that they too consider biology as fundamental.

The East whose culture goes back to the rishis (sages) of higher ages interprets evolution differently than does the West. They do not base it on biology which reductively “interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts.” What is unsheathed or liberated from biology is viewed not as a product of biology but foundational to biology. Physics in studying origins rather than outcomes can have a better perspective on which view is valid.

I did not mean to imply that you promoted the idea of a deity or believed in one. It appeared that your overseeing CEO type system was reminiscent of that concept. In your other post you said that the Buddha was theist and I refuted that assumption there.
Veritas Aequites wrote:

I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.


owl of Minerva response:

It is not a matter of what we think of the Eastern or Western views on evolution. Both require research and investigation to be either validated or invalidated under the searchlight of reason. It requires more than personal opinion.

Physic’s research moved the origin of life from a soup of organic molecules and other theories to life’s emergence being set as soon as, not just the planet, but the universe was born; particles and atoms did not begin with molecules. Physics has found that for events to become things they have to be observed. As a result of physic’s research a universe where intelligence is perceived as both driver and emergent is possible.

Ancient philosophy was perceptual, classical philosophy was based on reason as well as looking back and using the insights of their predecessors. Both were very different from modern philosophy which is mostly thought experiments with points of view evolving from and building on prior points of view. It is not based on universals, perceptions of reality or anything fundamental. It is based on reasoning, points of view, and analysis.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:48 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:28 pm I agree with Wiki’s definition of reductionism. I have responded in your “Humans are programmed for evil” with a defense of Physics, you may read it there, and outlined the reasons it is not reductionist but explanatory of the origin of phenomena.

Reductionism as “associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simple or more fundamental phenomena.” What is more fundamental than virtual particles that are arising in space-time. It is not possible to get more fundamental than that, other than peering into interior space which so far is not an option. What is fundamental cannot be reduced precisely because it is fundamental.

The other definition “that interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts” is done all the time. The brain being a prime example as causal to intelligence, individuality, mind etc. I would not be too sure about neuro-psychology, cognitive sciences etc. It appears to me that they too consider biology as fundamental.

The East whose culture goes back to the rishis (sages) of higher ages interprets evolution differently than does the West. They do not base it on biology which reductively “interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts.” What is unsheathed or liberated from biology is viewed not as a product of biology but foundational to biology. Physics in studying origins rather than outcomes can have a better perspective on which view is valid.

I did not mean to imply that you promoted the idea of a deity or believed in one. It appeared that your overseeing CEO type system was reminiscent of that concept. In your other post you said that the Buddha was theist and I refuted that assumption there.
Veritas Aequites wrote:

I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.



owl of Minerva response:

It is not a matter of what we think of the Eastern or Western views on evolution. Both require research and investigation to be either validated or invalidated under the searchlight of reason. It requires more than personal opinion.

Physic’s research moved the origin of life from a soup of organic molecules and other theories to life’s emergence being set as soon as, not just the planet, but the universe was born; particles and atoms did not begin with molecules. Physics has found that for events to become things they have to be observed. As a result of physic’s research a universe where intelligence is perceived as both driver and emergent is possible.

Ancient philosophy was perceptual, classical philosophy was based on reason as well as looking back and using the insights of their predecessors. Both were very different from modern philosophy which is mostly thought experiments with points of view evolving from and building on prior points of view. It is not based on universals, perceptions of reality or anything fundamental. It is based on reasoning, points of view, and analysis.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:54 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm
A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.
Really? What study is this?
It is the work of theoretical physicists, popularized in the writings of theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Sculptor »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:54 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm
A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.
Really? What study is this?
It is the work of theoretical physicists, popularized in the writings of theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli.
Please cite properly.
You said physicists in plural. WHo are they and what did they publish?
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Belinda wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:25 pm Owl of Minerva wrote:
In general it may be best to go with what is expansive, what opens doors and lets in the light, as opposed to what is reductive; closing doors and shutting out the light. That approach could suffice in these fractured times of multi world views until we have a unifying theory of everything that we can all agree on, because it is irrefutable.
Educationists who design curriculums for school children especially curriculums for secondary school children are well aware of the disadvantage to the child and to society of specialisation too soon.

At university level it is unfortunately a fact that the sciences and medicine are expanding as fields of knowledge and expertise. There was a time when Renaissance Man was good at both arts and sciences. Leonardo is a great example of Renaissance Man. In modern times there is not enough time at university for a science student to learn history and philosophy of science, let alone read novels and poetry and paint pictures.
Specialization is a problem. Also programming; ‘ a this is the way it is mentality’ do not think of it being any other way. That is fatal in philosophy and it often prevents a specialist from approaching a problem with an open mind. Once programmed with a world view it is very difficult to become deprogrammed and few bother, because it is unsettling. Not many are curious about life, question the status quo or have interests beyond their livelihood and a few hobbies. They argue from their world view and defend it. Da Vinci’s “Vitruvius Man” is inspiring. A view of humanity, in contrast, as the descendants of a motley crew going back to Homo habilis is unlikely to inspire great art or great thoughts.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:10 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:54 pm

Really? What study is this?
It is the work of theoretical physicists, popularized in the writings of theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli.
Please cite properly.
You said physicists in plural. WHo are they and what did they publish?
I am not aware of who the other founders of the theory are or what they may have published. Carlo Rovelli is head of the Group. They may have published for their peers, not for a general readership.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:26 pm owl of Minerva response:

It is not a matter of what we think of the Eastern or Western views on evolution. Both require research and investigation to be either validated or invalidated under the searchlight of reason. It requires more than personal opinion.

Physic’s research moved the origin of life from a soup of organic molecules and other theories to life’s emergence being set as soon as, not just the planet, but the universe was born; particles and atoms did not begin with molecules. Physics has found that for events to become things they have to be observed. As a result of physic’s research a universe where intelligence is perceived as both driver and emergent is possible.

Ancient philosophy was perceptual, classical philosophy was based on reason as well as looking back and using the insights of their predecessors. Both were very different from modern philosophy which is mostly thought experiments with points of view evolving from and building on prior points of view. It is not based on universals, perceptions of reality or anything fundamental. It is based on reasoning, points of view, and analysis.
The subject of Physics by definition is confined solely to what is defined as 'physical'.
Physics is the natural science that studies matter,[a] its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.[2] Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves.
Wiki
You are adding to Physics what it does not involved.
Even considering the observers, Physics is not a study about life and living things not about intelligence, consciousness and the likes.

Physics do not involve other 'independent' Biology nor Chemistry and other knowledge.
It is the function of the inherent philosophy-proper to take into consideration all the different knowledge[s] and wisdom to optimize the well-being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Sculptor »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:29 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:10 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:08 pm

It is the work of theoretical physicists, popularized in the writings of theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli.
Please cite properly.
You said physicists in plural. WHo are they and what did they publish?
I am not aware of who the other founders of the theory are or what they may have published. Carlo Rovelli is head of the Group. They may have published for their peers, not for a general readership.
In other words you were mistaken. What other aspects of your assessment are also false?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:41 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:25 pm Owl of Minerva wrote:
In general it may be best to go with what is expansive, what opens doors and lets in the light, as opposed to what is reductive; closing doors and shutting out the light. That approach could suffice in these fractured times of multi world views until we have a unifying theory of everything that we can all agree on, because it is irrefutable.
Educationists who design curriculums for school children especially curriculums for secondary school children are well aware of the disadvantage to the child and to society of specialisation too soon.

At university level it is unfortunately a fact that the sciences and medicine are expanding as fields of knowledge and expertise. There was a time when Renaissance Man was good at both arts and sciences. Leonardo is a great example of Renaissance Man. In modern times there is not enough time at university for a science student to learn history and philosophy of science, let alone read novels and poetry and paint pictures.
Specialization is a problem. Also programming; ‘ a this is the way it is mentality’ do not think of it being any other way. That is fatal in philosophy and it often prevents a specialist from approaching a problem with an open mind. Once programmed with a world view it is very difficult to become deprogrammed and few bother, because it is unsettling. Not many are curious about life, question the status quo or have interests beyond their livelihood and a few hobbies. They argue from their world view and defend it. Da Vinci’s “Vitruvius Man” is inspiring. A view of humanity, in contrast, as the descendants of a motley crew going back to Homo habilis is unlikely to inspire great art or great thoughts.
Education in the Humanities precisely is aimed at opening minds to alternative world views. However many (not all) medics, social scientists, and natural scientists also are aware of alternative world views.

Alternative world views are only part of what makes a man a unique individual. Among all the people who view the world in one peculiar way , besides world view,
there are other causes of personalities and affiliations . In a liberal democracy the aim of school and university teachers is to alert the student to an array of choices so that he isn't stuck in one world view.

You are very right that is unsettling to be confronted with a novel world view. Many people are afraid to risk becoming mentally unsettled, and I maintain that such people are unfree. They are unwilling to cast off their chains. I keep hoping that more people will take that risk here on this little forum.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Belinda wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:52 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:41 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:25 pm Owl of Minerva wrote:



Educationists who design curriculums for school children especially curriculums for secondary school children are well aware of the disadvantage to the child and to society of specialisation too soon.

At university level it is unfortunately a fact that the sciences and medicine are expanding as fields of knowledge and expertise. There was a time when Renaissance Man was good at both arts and sciences. Leonardo is a great example of Renaissance Man. In modern times there is not enough time at university for a science student to learn history and philosophy of science, let alone read novels and poetry and paint pictures.
Specialization is a problem. Also programming; ‘ a this is the way it is mentality’ do not think of it being any other way. That is fatal in philosophy and it often prevents a specialist from approaching a problem with an open mind. Once programmed with a world view it is very difficult to become deprogrammed and few bother, because it is unsettling. Not many are curious about life, question the status quo or have interests beyond their livelihood and a few hobbies. They argue from their world view and defend it. Da Vinci’s “Vitruvius Man” is inspiring. A view of humanity, in contrast, as the descendants of a motley crew going back to Homo habilis is unlikely to inspire great art or great thoughts.
Education in the Humanities precisely is aimed at opening minds to alternative world views. However many (not all) medics, social scientists, and natural scientists also are aware of alternative world views.

Alternative world views are only part of what makes a man a unique individual. Among all the people who view the world in one peculiar way , besides world view, there are other causes of personalities and affiliations . In a liberal democracy the aim of school and university teachers is to alert the student to an array of choices so that he isn't stuck in one world view.

You are very right that is unsettling to be confronted with a novel world view. Many people are afraid to risk becoming mentally unsettled, and I maintain that such people are unfree. They are unwilling to cast off their chains. I keep hoping that more people will take that risk here on this little forum.
In some universities there is not a lot of support for the humanities. Philosophy departments are barely holding on. There is a cultural view that all that is a waste of time and not a good fit for the average student. In public school art classes are not considered necessary; it is thought best to put emphasis on a practical career choice; on what will be in demand. Science and business are perceived as top choices, even in some elite universities, for their perceived cachet and money-making prowess. The development of the student to be an all-around individual is too often neglected. This may not be true in all cultures but it is in some.

The well-off in the past got a classical education and even some ordinary people were quite cultured and benefited from their educations, even if their life’s work was humble.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:29 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:10 pm
Please cite properly.
You said physicists in plural. WHo are they and what did they publish?
I am not aware of who the other founders of the theory are or what they may have published. Carlo Rovelli is head of the Group. They may have published for their peers, not for a general readership.
In other words you were mistaken. What other aspects of your assessment are also false?
Argumentation appears to be your forte. I was not mistaken as you assert. I will explain it again. If there is a group working on a specific area of a discipline, in this case physics, and they are all in cinque with a particular theory, then by definition the member of the group who publishes the theory is not a lone wolf, out on a limb, with a theory that does not have support of any of his peers; others in his discipline. He has the support of a whole group of them: physicist(s) plural; period; full stop.

Comprende?

Putting your energy into understanding the theory, agreeing or disagreeing with it: allowed. Nit-picking: tiresome.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Sculptor »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:18 pm
Argumentation appears to be your forte. I was not mistaken as you assert. I will explain it again. If there is a group working on a specific area of a discipline, in this case physics, and they are all in cinque with a particular theory, then by definition the member of the group who publishes the theory is not a lone wolf, out on a limb, with a theory that does not have support of any of his peers; others in his discipline. He has the support of a whole group of them: physicist(s) plural; period; full stop.
I understand that you believe this but since you cannot name any of this mysterious cliche I doubt whether your 4 line assessement of their findings is really worth reading.
Comprende?

Putting your energy into understanding the theory, agreeing or disagreeing with it: allowed. Nit-picking: tiresome.
You not given any Theory to understand. All you have given is a tabloid sound bite about what you think "they" have discovered.
It's just a list of empty assertions about which you seem to know very little.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:52 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:18 pm
Argumentation appears to be your forte. I was not mistaken as you assert. I will explain it again. If there is a group working on a specific area of a discipline, in this case physics, and they are all in cinque with a particular theory, then by definition the member of the group who publishes the theory is not a lone wolf, out on a limb, with a theory that does not have support of any of his peers; others in his discipline. He has the support of a whole group of them: physicist(s) plural; period; full stop.
I understand that you believe this but since you cannot name any of this mysterious cliche I doubt whether your 4 line assessement of their findings is really worth reading.
Comprende?

Putting your energy into understanding the theory, agreeing or disagreeing with it: allowed. Nit-picking: tiresome.
You not given any Theory to understand. All you have given is a tabloid sound bite about what you think "they" have discovered.
It's just a list of empty assertions about which you seem to know very little.
Whatever! Try to be less saturnine.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:52 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:18 pm
Argumentation appears to be your forte. I was not mistaken as you assert. I will explain it again. If there is a group working on a specific area of a discipline, in this case physics, and they are all in cinque with a particular theory, then by definition the member of the group who publishes the theory is not a lone wolf, out on a limb, with a theory that does not have support of any of his peers; others in his discipline. He has the support of a whole group of them: physicist(s) plural; period; full stop.
I understand that you believe this but since you cannot name any of this mysterious cliche I doubt whether your 4 line assessement of their findings is really worth reading.
Comprende?

Putting your energy into understanding the theory, agreeing or disagreeing with it: allowed. Nit-picking: tiresome.
You not given any Theory to understand. All you have given is a tabloid sound bite about what you think "they" have discovered.
It's just a list of empty assertions about which you seem to know very little.
Whatever! Try to be less saturnine.
An additional comment. I have given the physicist’s name. If you are interested check out the theory and then enlighten us, in your own words; explain in what way I have misrepresented it. A blanket statement that I have misrepresented it and seem to know very little about it could be either lack of comprehension or opinion. Either one is not pertinent to a meaningful dialogue.
Post Reply