The Science Delusion

[Boston Rockbury]

Found this letter from Helmut Squark to Richard (the 'Dark Lord') Dawkins.

Dear Richard ,
      Thank you for your emails. I?m having a few existential problems of my own right now Dick; so I?d appreciate it if you wouldn?t mind fucking off. I?m not sure about ?everything that can be known can be known by science?. Science is a way to map reality but to look at a map of Rome is not to experience being there. To really know something you need to know all of its connections. To know a chair you need to know something of its place in the history of design of chairs ? know about the materials it is made of, but also know its? context. The reason it was bought, how it matched the style of the house it was placed in etc?. When you look deeply you realise that starting with the chair you can extend out to infinity in time and space in your quest to truly know it. But science cannot (even theoretically) search all of reality and all of time to analyse the complete group of connections that give the complete definition of that chair because science itself is only a sub-set of reality and can never out-grow the set of which it is a part.
   There are other ways to know something Dick. A direct, phenomenological experience will often be more interesting than any amount of analysis. You can know how a woman?s heart-rate and breathing change during sex- know why her skin becomes flushed pink as she approaches climax but no amount of analysis will help you know what it is to make love to that woman. There are, Dick, things that science does not know and cannot know and many of those things are amongst the most important in life. But perhaps not for you.

Helmut

[meekon5]

I have a chair in my kitchen that i accidentally stole from one of the restaurants I used to run.

I like the idea of exrapolating the existence of a chair back in many directions to understand it's history and place in my personal universe.

[Boston Rockbury]

The chair-bone's connected to the rug-bone.

[Zen Dog]

Science is OK as far as it goes but sometimes I just like to make a whole load of shit up and live in an imaginary world.Hah,only kiddin'.Richard Dawkins is a scientist but he has a soul.Read his introduction to the Salmon Of Doubt the last incompleted book by Douglas Adams.

[Boston Rockbury]

I thought the intro was written by Stephen Fry.

[Zen Dog]

My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Dawkins wrote the epilogue.

[Boston Rockbury]

My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Dawkins wrote the epilogue.

To quote Helmut Squark
"I met the Dawk Lord in person for the first time last week and it gave me a great idea for one of those 'Mr Bean mistaken for a brain-surgeon' type of comedies. We take a bloke of moderate intelligence, crazily inflated ego and more rage than an Israeli settler. Then we drop him into a chair at Oxford and hand him an international audience to see how everyone reacts. Of course you think that people will see through it straight away - the comical inconsistencies, the lack of subtly, humour and insight. He will be exposed and the illusion will come horribly tumbling down. But no! Incredibly the tension only builds as rather than the expected mockery, he receives adoration from a fawning band of followers, bewitched by intoxicating scientific mysticism and a strangely contradictory prize of reality, stripped clean of all ambiguity and art.

[biodegraded]

I have a chair in my kitchen that i accidentally stole from one of the restaurants I used to run.

Does it pull the room together?

[Hominid]

My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Dawkins wrote the epilogue.

To quote Helmut Squark
"I met the Dawk Lord in person for the first time last week and it gave me a great idea for one of those 'Mr Bean mistaken for a brain-surgeon' type of comedies. We take a bloke of moderate intelligence, crazily inflated ego and more rage than an Israeli settler. Then we drop him into a chair at Oxford and hand him an international audience to see how everyone reacts. Of course you think that people will see through it straight away - the comical inconsistencies, the lack of subtly, humour and insight. He will be exposed and the illusion will come horribly tumbling down. But no! Incredibly the tension only builds as rather than the expected mockery, he receives adoration from a fawning band of followers, bewitched by intoxicating scientific mysticism and a strangely contradictory prize of reality, stripped clean of all ambiguity and art.

I think by confusing science with philosophy, Mr. Squawker accuses Dawkins of not trying to find meaning, which is not the realm of scientific analysis (in its purest form).

[Boston Rockbury]

My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Dawkins wrote the epilogue.

To quote Helmut Squark
"I met the Dawk Lord in person for the first time last week and it gave me a great idea for one of those 'Mr Bean mistaken for a brain-surgeon' type of comedies. We take a bloke of moderate intelligence, crazily inflated ego and more rage than an Israeli settler. Then we drop him into a chair at Oxford and hand him an international audience to see how everyone reacts. Of course you think that people will see through it straight away - the comical inconsistencies, the lack of subtly, humour and insight. He will be exposed and the illusion will come horribly tumbling down. But no! Incredibly the tension only builds as rather than the expected mockery, he receives adoration from a fawning band of followers, bewitched by intoxicating scientific mysticism and a strangely contradictory prize of reality, stripped clean of all ambiguity and art.

I think by confusing science with philosophy, Mr. Squawker accuses Dawkins of not trying to find meaning, which is not the realm of scientific analysis (in its purest form).

Interesting point. But is Dickie Dawk himself who blends science and philosophy by trying to make scientificic 'values' of: rigour, analytical thinking, methodological attitude etc' universally applicable in politics and everyday life. This systematic expansion of science beyond its natural field is called 'Scienceology'.

[Hominid]

My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Dawkins wrote the epilogue.

To quote Helmut Squark
"I met the Dawk Lord in person for the first time last week and it gave me a great idea for one of those 'Mr Bean mistaken for a brain-surgeon' type of comedies. We take a bloke of moderate intelligence, crazily inflated ego and more rage than an Israeli settler. Then we drop him into a chair at Oxford and hand him an international audience to see how everyone reacts. Of course you think that people will see through it straight away - the comical inconsistencies, the lack of subtly, humour and insight. He will be exposed and the illusion will come horribly tumbling down. But no! Incredibly the tension only builds as rather than the expected mockery, he receives adoration from a fawning band of followers, bewitched by intoxicating scientific mysticism and a strangely contradictory prize of reality, stripped clean of all ambiguity and art.

I think by confusing science with philosophy, Mr. Squawker accuses Dawkins of not trying to find meaning, which is not the realm of scientific analysis (in its purest form).

Interesting point. But is Dickie Dawk himself who blends science and philosophy by trying to make scientificic 'values' of: rigour, analytical thinking, methodological attitude etc' universally applicable in politics and everyday life. This systematic expansion of science beyond its natural field is called 'Scienceology'.

Not sure about that dude - the values you mention: rigour, analytical thinking, being methodical... as applicable as they are in real life, are they not what is the bedrock of scientific inquiry? They are the tools used to evaluate evidence, disregard quackery, and establish the truth about "things".

Even if they were slightly tangential to pure science, they are still are a good starting point from which to challenge institutionalized religion (which is what I think Helmut is likely criticising in Dawkins, though he seems to just hate his guts - period.)

[BikerDude]

Found this letter from Helmut Squark to Richard (the 'Dark Lord') Dawkins.

Dear Richard ,
      Thank you for your emails. I?m having a few existential problems of my own right now Dick; so I?d appreciate it if you wouldn?t mind fucking off. I?m not sure about ?everything that can be known can be known by science?. Science is a way to map reality but to look at a map of Rome is not to experience being there. To really know something you need to know all of its connections. To know a chair you need to know something of its place in the history of design of chairs ? know about the materials it is made of, but also know its? context. The reason it was bought, how it matched the style of the house it was placed in etc?. When you look deeply you realise that starting with the chair you can extend out to infinity in time and space in your quest to truly know it. But science cannot (even theoretically) search all of reality and all of time to analyse the complete group of connections that give the complete definition of that chair because science itself is only a sub-set of reality and can never out-grow the set of which it is a part.
   There are other ways to know something Dick. A direct, phenomenological experience will often be more interesting than any amount of analysis. You can know how a woman?s heart-rate and breathing change during sex- know why her skin becomes flushed pink as she approaches climax but no amount of analysis will help you know what it is to make love to that woman. There are, Dick, things that science does not know and cannot know and many of those things are amongst the most important in life. But perhaps not for you.

Helmut

We know that people are capable of great depth of feeling and emotion.
None of that falls outside the realm of science. A Motzart symphony is no less majestic if it's creation had nothing to do with a devine creator or anything outside the realm of the tangible. If it is the product of neurons firing only it is not in any way less.

The real scratch my head line is the one that goes

A direct, phenomenological experience will often be more interesting than any amount of analysis.

Phenomenology is most typically defined as...

The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of ?phenomena?: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. This field of philosophy is then to be distinguished from, and related to, the other main fields of philosophy: ontology (the study of being or what is), epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic (the study of valid reasoning), ethics (the study of right and wrong action), etc.

The "science" of studying thought as an "Intentional Object".
Yes I know that philosophy is not science but if you were to pick one philosophy that comes the closest to being one I would say Phenomenology would qualify as a clear winner. That is to say that the premise of thought as an intentional "OBJECT" is pretty easily quantified. Measure a study group assigned a task where they are given false information vs a group given true information and study the outcome. Bingo. And the deeper you go down the Phenomenology rabbit hole the more it (and the whole Sartre brand of existentialism "Being in it's self vs Being for it's self) starts to sound like Freud. Again is psychology science?

But the Point is that there is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD for exploration. To suggest that ignoring it gives a FULLER understanding is poppycock. It is not in opposition to experience. It is in ADDITION to experience.
A person can experience something fully and study the causes and meaning. There is also a lot of additional information that makes up a part of the experience. For instance there are actual physiological reasons why a woman's skin flushes during sex. And the act of sex likewise has innumerable information like the release of endorphins etc.
Examining that does not stand in opposition to the experience. And in no way lessens it.

[Boston Rockbury]

Found this letter from Helmut Squark to Richard (the 'Dark Lord') Dawkins.

Dear Richard ,
      Thank you for your emails. I?m having a few existential problems of my own right now Dick; so I?d appreciate it if you wouldn?t mind fucking off. I?m not sure about ?everything that can be known can be known by science?. Science is a way to map reality but to look at a map of Rome is not to experience being there. To really know something you need to know all of its connections. To know a chair you need to know something of its place in the history of design of chairs ? know about the materials it is made of, but also know its? context. The reason it was bought, how it matched the style of the house it was placed in etc?. When you look deeply you realise that starting with the chair you can extend out to infinity in time and space in your quest to truly know it. But science cannot (even theoretically) search all of reality and all of time to analyse the complete group of connections that give the complete definition of that chair because science itself is only a sub-set of reality and can never out-grow the set of which it is a part.
   There are other ways to know something Dick. A direct, phenomenological experience will often be more interesting than any amount of analysis. You can know how a woman?s heart-rate and breathing change during sex- know why her skin becomes flushed pink as she approaches climax but no amount of analysis will help you know what it is to make love to that woman. There are, Dick, things that science does not know and cannot know and many of those things are amongst the most important in life. But perhaps not for you.

Helmut

We know that people are capable of great depth of feeling and emotion.
None of that falls outside the realm of science. A Motzart symphony is no less majestic if it's creation had nothing to do with a devine creator or anything outside the realm of the tangible. If it is the product of neurons firing only it is not in any way less.

The real scratch my head line is the one that goes

A direct, phenomenological experience will often be more interesting than any amount of analysis.

Phenomenology is most typically defined as...

The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of ?phenomena?: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. This field of philosophy is then to be distinguished from, and related to, the other main fields of philosophy: ontology (the study of being or what is), epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic (the study of valid reasoning), ethics (the study of right and wrong action), etc.

The "science" of studying thought as an "Intentional Object".
Yes I know that philosophy is not science but if you were to pick one philosophy that comes the closest to being one I would say Phenomenology would qualify as a clear winner. That is to say that the premise of thought as an intentional "OBJECT" is pretty easily quantified. Measure a study group assigned a task where they are given false information vs a group given true information and study the outcome. Bingo. And the deeper you go down the Phenomenology rabbit hole the more it (and the whole Sartre brand of existentialism "Being in it's self vs Being for it's self) starts to sound like Freud. Again is psychology science?

But the Point is that there is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD for exploration. To suggest that ignoring it gives a FULLER understanding is poppycock. It is not in opposition to experience. It is in ADDITION to experience.
A person can experience something fully and study the causes and meaning. There is also a lot of additional information that makes up a part of the experience. For instance there are actual physiological reasons why a woman's skin flushes during sex. And the act of sex likewise has innumerable information like the release of endorphins etc.
Examining that does not stand in opposition to the experience. And in no way lessens it.

Okay

[Hominid]

VAGINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DigitalBuddha]

VAGINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The beaver movie?