No. All things that can be said to exist can be demonstrated. All things that can be demonstrated can be dealt with scientifically.

Again, in these discussions there is confusion about science as the public institution involving laboratories and such, and science as the human cognitive process. Unless we're talking about the formal results science has produced (things like chemistry), I'm talking about the second: the human cognitive process of observation/perception-analysis-testing-reevaluation.

There is nothing about emotions or human interactions that implies they cannot (in principle) be observed, analyzed, tested, and evaluated. I would hope that is what psychologists attempt to do (it's not important in the discussion whether they do it WELL or not--it's only important that they COULD, in principle, do it well).

Hmm, is not the scientific method a product of fantasy, then?

I'm not referencing "science" as it's current social construct. I reference it as the human cognitive method loosely encompassed by empiricism. Certainly, the origin of mathematics is empirical: the counting of objects. "Math" counts as "science" from the perspective I'm offering.

I'm under the impression that people don't really mean to be discussing...the formalities of the National Academy of Sciences, but instead how humans interact with reality by a "scientific process" of analyzing and understanding reality.

I think part of the communication breakdown that occurs in these discussions springs from different people holding different definitions of 'knowledge.'

We would all agree that science is the only way of discovering 'scientific knowledge' that you have articulated above. Intuition cannot reliably generate such knowledge alone.

We would be divided on whether 'scientific knowledge' is the only 'truth.' This belief takes an act of faith and is unprovable. Eventually we'll arrive at the argument that if there are 'truths' that cannot be 'scientifically known' then we cannot even talk about them rationally. I'm OK with this in principle. In practice though, talking about these kind of metaphysical issues is very stimulating for many people.

It doesn't do any damage to anybody as long as we realize that these discussions do not generate the same kind of knowledge that actually doing science generates.

It is what it is. It's function is to process fantasies so that they align well with reality (as determined by how the outcome WORKS). The process consistently produces useful results. No other process works consistently at all.

Math is not empiracle. Not at it's base. It's entirely synthetic and axiomatic. Science has taught us that math can be used as an idiom of nature and is therefore beloved of science but math exists without objects. e.g. one could imagine a circle and accurately postulate its mathematical properties without getting out of the armchair. You need never have actually perceived a round object.

It produces the only truth which "matters." Other "truths" serve only to entertain individuals in their personal fantastical reveries.

Once you realize that

1) brains work by generating fantasy
2) it's entirely possible that most brains contain mostly fantasy most of the time
3) fantasy is arbitrary, and not necessarily consistent between people
4) external reality heavily impinges upon our very EXISTENCE, and...
5) using a "scientific method" allows our individual minds to ALIGN WELL with external reality, as demonstrated by our discovered ability to ALTER external realities

then it becomes obvious that science "matters" in a fundamental sense: we can't even exist without it.

"SWIMfriend wrote:
1) Human minds function ONLY as a generator of fantasy."

Do you have a peer review study you can provide to back that up?

I'm just going by your axiom which I quoted. The scientific method is, indeed, a product of the mind. It would follow that it is then a work of fantasy.

^yes and that is a valid point I would much like SWIMfriend to adress based on the origional statement made. Seems there is a double standard there.

So people like to say. I say math was based on counting, and counting is fundamentally connected with material reality and cause and effect. People are amazed at how well math connects with reality (Einstein is famously quoted in that regard). It doesn't amaze me: math was engendered FROM reality directly.

When you imagine a "circle" you are imagining a "physical representation" that exists within the fundamental rules of reality in our universe. And indeed, maths have been worked out that DIDN'T seem connected to our reality (but as offshoots of maths that DID), and then were SUBSEQUENTLY shown to "work" with newly discovered realities.

Maths are of interest only as they (and because they) have a one to one correlation with external reality.

It is fully addressed in the response contained in the quote. You may use whatever WORD you wish to use to describe science (fantasy is fine, if you wish). It is necessary ONLY to state that the process of science is that process by which we "moderate" fantasy in order to make it better align with an apparent external reality in which we LIVE, and in which, misalignment can result in NOT LIVING.

I respectfully disagree.

There are at least two flavors of knowledge that 'matter.' (maybe we could explore this value judgment later).

1. Scientific knowledge (for all the reasons you have listed above regarding control of external environment etc.)

2. Synthetic knowledge. this is knowledge that can be gained purely by reflection of our concepts. Language and mathematics both fall in this second category.

Example 1: the formula for the volume of a box is real knowledge that can help you live that does not require science.

Example 2: All widows have been married. This knowledge can be derived from contemplating our concepts. We do not need to make a survey.

As a materialist I would say that these are the only kinds of truth that 'matter' to me. I like to be charitable and let everyone make their own value judgments though.

Sorry. For me this is a bit boring. I'm aware that philosophers like to create problems so that they can work on "solving them." I'm aware that thinkers are "proud" of their synthetic knowledge.

But I find no "meaning" or "utility" in it unless it can interact with "the universe." All things that interact with the universe can be dealt with empirically.

This is a bit off topic but. Is this an evidence backed claim or an intuition? AFAIK we have no real evidence on the origin of maths. It goes back too deep.

Still, my point is that one can arrive at a mathematical truth without any examination of the external world. i.e. without doing science. Yet by doing this armchair work we can arrive at useful knowledge.

Therefore, not all useful knowledge has to come from science.

I am a strict strict materialist so I mostly agree with you.

Thing is, Other people wont agree with us and that's just fine. No need to convince everyone that other kinds of knowledge should be meaningless to them.

The only important thing to me is too keep different knowledge separated into different bins. I'm an evolutionary biologist and I get massively chagrined when people claim to explain nature using 'received/scriptural knowledge.' However, why would I begrudge someone their received knowledge when it does not impinge on the realm of scientific knowledge?

I must disagree with the statement which suggests the hunam minds only purpose is to generate fantasies; IME the human minds built-in more fundamental function is to seek shelter, warmth, food and companionship.This not to deny that we do fantasise alot but our existence is indispensably linked to our external reality (as we percieve it) and this where another innate aspect of being human becomes apparent, inquisitiveness towards the wonderful place we find ourselves blessed with.

Scientific approach,and we must remember has certainly had some pretty dark chapters in its history, is the best analytical approach for approaching things material to satisfy our inquisitiveness, but science is, IMO, the way we were meant to proceed.But on the other hand, science is like an idol for many, who cannot comfortably sit with the possibility that science cannot even come close to answering certain aspects of being any time soon.


It is our duty to use scientific methods, but a degree of humility in acknowledging it may NOT be the all-encompassing tool for all scenarios should not be forgotten.

What I "begrudge" are those who would try to claim knowledge as being "universal" when in fact it's only stuff in their heads. The only sort of "knowledge" that is interesting in COMMUNICATION is knowledge that reflects on things that are IN COMMON between the communicators. And what is common between communicators is the universe.

I'm not the one who stated the sole function of the mind is to generate fantasy. If one wishes to be consistent, then one must acknowledge that the scientific method is also a work of fantasy. So are you saying that we should fancy one mode of fantasy instead of other modes of fantasy? That one mode of fantasy is superior to other modes of fantasy?

Well, fantasy is a somewhat "loaded" word that I purposely use to make a point.

But if you think about it, you will see that the "natural" (i.e., naive) process of the mind is to use what it CONTAINS ALREADY to try to fit a new experience. That's...."fair enough" (really, what else can it do?), but it very often gives the wrong answer. What's useful, then, is to REALIZE THAT, and work on testing answers to separate "better ones" from not so good ones. That's the scientific process.

There is no built-in function of the human mind that delivers positively "correct" answers all the time. Hence, I said that what the human mind delivers is "fantasy." It's slightly loaded, but it's a useful description.

BTW, have a look at these STRIKING optical illusions!