BTW the ICPR conference on the science of psychedelics was just postponed till September because of Covid.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, at 3:21 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Excellent! Thanks for making the arc more clear. > > I think the advent of studies of the psychedelics as therapeutic > interventions *do* apply to fields like alchemy, mysticism, and altered > states. So, your (1) is either wrong or overstated. In particular, the > attempt to show correlations between "bad trips" and neuroticism is a > step in the right direction. Other examples might be the instances > where meditation can correlate with *anxiety* as opposed to calm. I > know these disambiguations of "good trips" vs. "bad trips" is waaay too > coarse for you. What you want is very fine-grained parsing of the > difference between one conversation with Hui Neng and another or > answers to questions like the dangerosity of covid-19, sample-size-one > questions, black swan questions, etc. Those people who claim science > will *never* answer such questions or provide fine-grained experience > parsing tools *might* be wrong. I believe they are. Science is simply > too young for what you want. If humans survive long enough, we'll see > science mature to a point where it can address such. And what you're > doing right now *might* be part of that maturing. I don't know. > > Re: (2) - Science is (a little bit) and will be (more and more) > scientific over time. When you say the empirical evidence suggests > science is not scientific, what about reflective studies assessing > scientific literacy among the population? Or the recent studies of the > replication crisis? Are these not science evaluating itself? I also > lump into this rhetoric those studies of religious belief, game > theoretic studies of altruism, susceptibility to "fake news", etc. > Sure, such studies are "soft". But I believe they'll get "harder" over > time, as science matures. > > And re: (3), I believe you *can* have a science of philosophy. > Classifications like "the big 5" (introversion, openness to new > experience, ...), correlations between politics and psychological > traits, so-called political ethics, etc., however flawed, target the > fuzzy boundary between these domains. All that would be required for a > science of philosophy would be to think up and execute experiments on > philosophical people and artifacts. Again, your attempts to map 4 > sources of knowledge across different philosophical traditions *could* > be made scientific if you incorporated some *methodical* > experimentation. > > It seems to me that you're simply impatient and overly restrictive in > what you call "science" (as I think Nick tried to point out). > > On 3/13/20 4:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > I will try to reduce it to three elements: > > > > 1) Once upon a time I had hoped that that Peirce in specific and Science in > > general might provide some "sense making" tools/insights that I could apply > > to fields of inquiry like alchemy, mysticism, and altered states. I am > > concluding that the hope is untenable as Science and Peirce have excluded > > them, deemed them "unworthy." They are not Real, by definition, hence can > > never be Scientific or addressed Scientifically. In parting ways, I imply, > > rather snidely, that Science is capable only of addressing the "easy > > problems." > > > > 2) If Science / the Scientific approach merits privilege should it not, at > > minimum, "eat its own dog food?" Should it not be Scientific? The empirical > > evidence suggests it is not. > > > > 3) At the fringes (e.g. quantum stuff) Science is necessarily Philosophical > > (metaphysical) and metaphorical. The Fringe exists as Science evolves into > > the future and as Science has evolved from the past. From philosophy you > > came and to philosophy you will return. :) Also, philosophy is, in some > > sense, meta to Science. You can have a philosophy of science but not a > > science of philosophy. > > > > Ignore for the moment the labored attempt to make an analogy between > > programming and scientific theory. I will restate that at another time in a > > clearer manner (if warranted by the discussion). > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
