Harry Potter, Peter Atkins, and the Poverty of Dualism

[rappoccio]

I was watching Peter Atkins on "Beyond Belief 2007: Enlightenment 2.0"
and I was struck by something he said (this is what happens when you
have jet lag).

He said that there were three pillars of thought in human history as
till now: theology, philosophy, and science. What he claimed was that
the first Enlightenment demolished theology as the central pillar of
human thought, and replaced it with philosophy. But then he went
slightly further. He said that philosophy was also demolished by
science, and this at first disturbed me.

He went on to show three street lights: red, yellow, and green.

Red he said represented theology. This is appropriate, since it is the
cessation of questions about the "is". It answers nothing about the
"is" whatsoever, it merely reflects our knowledge of the "ought". Of
course this is of no practical knowledge since what our knowledge of
the "ought" is, changes over time. Therefore he concludes that
theology is completely contradictory to progress in questions of the
"is".

Yellow he said represented philosophy. He said that philosophy asks
questions, but does so in such a way as to obfuscate the answer
entirely.

Green he said represented science. It is, to date, the only known
method of determining the "is". It makes no statements about the
"ought", but merely reflects the "is".

Casting aside theology for the moment as the ultimate reflection of
what we decide should be the "ought", he goes on to say that
philosophy and science attempt to answer the same questions, but in
different ways. The philosopher is the most pessimistic of the group.
The scientist is the most optimistic, he argues.

I thought about this because he actually doesn't explain a word of it
to put it in context, so the remainder is my interpretation.
Previously to here is his views in my summary.

Now, the questions that philosophy and science both answer are the
questions that drive us... "where did we come from", "is there a
reason behind our existence", "why is water wet"... and such
questions. Why, then, does Atkins consider the philosopher to be the
pessimist, but the scientist the optimist?

Philosophy boils down questions and rules out nothing based on the
past. This is the most pessimistic attitude one can take about
"predicting" future behavior and determining the "is". The philosopher
will say that the past is no indication of the future, and that
perhaps tomorrow we will all wake up and be dolphins swimming in a
fishbowl on a Vogon ship. They ultimately think that there is a
distinct possibility that the universe will (tomorrow) follow Douglas
Adams' "infinite improbability drive" where anything that is possible
has its probability drastically increased (so turning to putty or
dolphins or popping into existence as a whale suddenly capable of self-
thought as it plummets to its death are all commonplace). The way I
interpret Atkins' stance, then, is that he is taking the viewpoint
that this is basically rubbish. There is NOT a large chance that
tomorrow we will wake up in an "infinite improbability drive" type
atmosphere. In fact this is a minuscule chance, and if you don't
believe it, make the prediction and then the observation for any
number of days that you desire. I predict that every single one of
them will go on much the same as the previous. This is falsifiable, so
go ahead and try it! In this sense, science is superior because it
takes a more practical and optimistic standpoint about predicting
future events. It tells us about the "is", rather than about the
hypothetical "ought".

I actually thought about this and it makes a lot of sense. The
ultimate question is whether or not we are answering questions about
the "is", rather than the "ought". Questions about the "ought" can
drive us to determine what would be nice to have in the "is", of
course, but there are limitations to thinking about the "ought".

Religion, for instance, is the extreme version of philosophy's
examination of the "ought". Religion tosses out the reasons for the
"ought", and replaces them with "god says so". However with this I am
reminded of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, where Harry finds
the Mirror of Erised. Of course, "Erised" is "desire" spelled
backwards, so it is the "Mirror of Desire" in actuality. It shows the
person what they desire in their hearts.

I think this demonstrates the ideas of dualism in general and religion
in specific. Dualism claims that there "is" something outside the
"is", and religion furthermore states it "ought" to be a certain way.
I think this viewpoint has a distinct poverty in understanding the
universe. To illustrate my point, I defer to Albus Dumbledore and the
Mirror of Erised. On the mirror, it has the statement

"erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi"

Which, when viewed backwards (well, it is a mirror, after all) and
properly spaced:

"I show not your face but your heart's desire"

This is what religion provides for people. It is the ultimate "Mirror
of Desire". It tells people NOTHING about the "is" (your face) but
instead about what they think should be the "ought" (their heart's
desire). This illustrates the poverty of thinking along such lines, as
Albus Dumbledore tells us, this only "shows us nothing more or less
than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts". Furthermore,
it provides "neither understanding, nor truth", and "It does not do to
dwell on dreams, and forget to live". Science, on the other hand,
shows us about actual proper mirrors. Actual proper mirrors simply
show your face: A reflection of the "is", giving us information about
the "is" and nothing about the "ought".

I think these are very wise words in this context. There is no reason
to dwell on the "ought", on a mere reflection of our reality that we
impose on ourselves. It offers us no course to progress. It gives us
no understanding, it does not reflect the truth, it does not provide
any information on the "is" whatsoever. Religion plays precisely the
same role. It is a reflection of our desires and that is all. However
"good" it may make us feel, if we are entranced by the "ought" rather
than the "is", then we become what Dumbledore warns might happen: "Men
have wasted away in front of it". We become shells, not reveling in
the "is", but rather pining for the "ought".

In this sense, I think I understand what Atkins is saying. There is no
information to be gleaned about the "is" by deciding about the
"ought". We can briefly examine the "ought" and determine how to make
the "is" into the "ought", but claiming that the "ought" "is", is a
folly. This dualistic mentality of there being something outside of
our universe (and furthermore, imposing our desires on it) is
intellectual poverty to the extreme. It gives us nothing: no
information, no truth, no understanding, and no true happiness. It
gives merely the illusion of information, the illusion of truth, the
illusion of understanding, and the illusion of happiness.

I welcome people to stop looking in their "Mirrors of Erised",
focusing on the "ought", and instead focus on the mirror in their
bedroom, which displays the "is".

[Dag Yo]

You post weird things tonight but I will comment a very short bit.

It sounds like Atkins is complaining too much about philosophy that he
doesn't exactly understand. As I see it, modern philosophers concern
themselves with the matters of what is true, just as much as any
practicing scientist does. I'm stopping just short of saying he is
making a strawman of philosophy, but I haven't yet discounted that
possibility.

Also I'll have to watch Beyond Belief 2007, that sounds kickass. The
2006 was just amazing (those are still available on google video I
think, I highly recommend most of them (one or two were kinda nutty,
and another one or two were kind of boring - my opinions of course) to
my fellow atheists, but set aside a bit of time as most are fairly
long.

[Lawrey]

Rapp',

Intriguing; you have obviously given a great deal of thought to this
and you will probably guess from my past attempts at response
to long posts that I give them but sparse reading.

I like your logical exposition and your analogous reasoning with
Harry Potter and I find myself in almost total agreement in many
respects.

Can I ask you to recall our discussion with regard to the psychology
of the religious, because I think flying through this that both you
and
Atkins make the same error of imposing "is and "ought" where
"Need" and "Want" might more correctly be envisaged with regard
to showing the heart's desire. Psychologically, ought in this case
stands apart. We all think we know what "ought" to be and more
often than not, it is precisely because it is not, that our heart's
desires are vanquished and where dreams find no resting place.
We all know what the status quo "is".

What I am suggesting that you have overlooked, is the cravings of
want, in the mirrors reflection that is not always apparent in the eye
of the beholder, but is hidden and disguised as need, not seen but
longed for. You may see this as a mute point, but for me it is
paramount in understanding what we see in the reflection of our
own private mirrors, which seldom reflect our inner heart's desire.

I have probably oft' times overstated my views on philosophy and
what it means and what purpose it serves in the investigation of
our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply
means, in the consideration of "Can I?" "Ought I?" and
May I hope?" I see philosophy as assisting science in posing
questions for science to answer, I'm sure you will agree that without
philosophy in the first place, we would not have evolved science to
the positive status in which it finds itself today.

Will you allow me to be old-fashioned here and defend philosophy
for its beginnings and it's initial bent or trend toward religion for
the
answers to difficult questions. We must always try when criticising
our forebears to put ourselves in their times, and consider what
knowledge they had to hand to work on that could rightly be built
upon. In the beginning there was no knowledge and it was the
philosophical mind that questioned and sought answers albiet
sometimes overly simplistic that brought us eventually to this point.

Many philosophers realise their reliance on religion was without
the priviledge of substancial knowledge one way and or the other.
Although it never stopped them from questioning and seeking the
answers from science and or whatever other source was and is
available. It is the philosophers role to question, it is the
scientists
role to justify the answers where possible and go where scientific
endeavour leads and to promote more questions.

Finally coming back to the "Mirrors of Erised." and more specifically
the religious want and need to see in the reflection, NOT of what "IS"
and disgarding "ought" and substituting what MIGHT be, is the
problem we must address and the one we should continually question.
Relgion relies upon its faith for what "MIGHT" be. Not what "is".
So I agree with your last point.

Does any of this make any sense?

[rappoccio]

On Jan 29, 1:11 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You post weird things tonight but I will comment a very short bit.

Remember those commercials in the 1980's that had an egg, and it says
"This is your brain", and then it shows the brain scrambling, and says
"This is your brain on drugs". Well, in this case, take the egg, shake
it up a bit, put it through a blender, scramble it, annihilate a
portion of it in a nuclear reactor, put it in a stew, bury the stew in
peat moss, and bring it back up again, and that is "This is your brain
on jetlag".

:)

> It sounds like Atkins is complaining too much about philosophy that he
> doesn't exactly understand. As I see it, modern philosophers concern
> themselves with the matters of what is true, just as much as any
> practicing scientist does. I'm stopping just short of saying he is
> making a strawman of philosophy, but I haven't yet discounted that
> possibility.

It's inflammatory, to be sure, and he hardly explains his reasoning at
all, as I've mentioned. I agree it's also disturbing, but I do think
that in a sense, he is right (in the sense of dealing with the "is"
versus the "ought"), but obviously there are good and bad ways to do
philosophy.

> Also I'll have to watch Beyond Belief 2007, that sounds kickass. The
> 2006 was just amazing (those are still available on google video I
> think, I highly recommend most of them (one or two were kinda nutty,
> and another one or two were kind of boring - my opinions of course) to
> my fellow atheists, but set aside a bit of time as most are fairly
> long.

I've watched the first session in Beyond Belief 2007 (and up until
Atkins' talk) and its good too. I would say that the first year was
probably better, but this is fun as well.

[rappoccio]

On Jan 29, 6:35 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Rapp',
>
> Intriguing; you have obviously given a great deal of thought to this
> and you will probably guess from my past attempts at response
> to long posts that I give them but sparse reading.
>
> I like your logical exposition and your analogous reasoning with
> Harry Potter and I find myself in almost total agreement in many
> respects.
>
> Can I ask you to recall our discussion with regard to the psychology
> of the religious, because I think flying through this that both you
> and
> Atkins make the same error of imposing "is and "ought" where
> "Need" and "Want" might more correctly be envisaged with regard
> to showing the heart's desire.

Yes, I think both are important. That's more or less what I was
getting at in the imposition of one's desire of what they "want" in
the "ought".

> Psychologically, ought in this case
> stands apart. We all think we know what "ought" to be and more
> often than not, it is precisely because it is not, that our heart's
> desires are vanquished and where dreams find no resting place.
> We all know what the status quo "is".

Yes, I was more talking in terms of what the future "is", and "ought"
to be based on our desires.

> What I am suggesting that you have overlooked, is the cravings of
> want, in the mirrors reflection that is not always apparent in the eye
> of the beholder, but is hidden and disguised as need, not seen but
> longed for. You may see this as a mute point, but for me it is
> paramount in understanding what we see in the reflection of our
> own private mirrors, which seldom reflect our inner heart's desire.

That's precisely what I meant, in that we impose the "want" on the
"ought" in a sense, and religion ignores the "is" and focuses on their
desires of the "ought". Instead, science takes a look at the "is" and
makes judgment decisions of what "ought" based on what "is", whereas
philosophy, to first order, doesn't examine the "is" and focuses
entirely on the "ought", which is dangerous in and of itself because
it is entirely subjective, whereas the "is", is entirely objective. I
think that is the sense that Atkins is talking about, not in the fact
that we should ignore the capability of reason and the "ought"
entirely.

> I have probably oft' times overstated my views on philosophy and
> what it means and what purpose it serves in the investigation of
> our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply
> means, in the consideration of "Can I?" "Ought I?" and
> May I hope?" I see philosophy as assisting science in posing
> questions for science to answer, I'm sure you will agree that without
> philosophy in the first place, we would not have evolved science to
> the positive status in which it finds itself today.

Ahh, you've hit the point precisely, I think. What "good" philosophy
would do is to ask questions based on the "is" ("Why is there
suffering... etc etc"), and guides science to answer those questions.
I think (well, in my opinion) that this blurs the line of "science"
and "philosophy", whereas examination of the "is" is of paramount
importance and constrains the possible cases for the "ought". In that
sense, the "pure reason" philosopher is the ultimate pessimist, who
doesn't disallow any possibility because it might hypothetically
happen. The "reason and observation" philosopher won't be worried
about the chance that the universe will become a watermelon tomorrow,
since it's based on the "is", and ultimately a scientific
observation.

> Will you allow me to be old-fashioned here and defend philosophy
> for its beginnings and it's initial bent or trend toward religion for
> the
> answers to difficult questions.
> We must always try when criticising
> our forebears to put ourselves in their times, and consider what
> knowledge they had to hand to work on that could rightly be built
> upon. In the beginning there was no knowledge and it was the
> philosophical mind that questioned and sought answers albiet
> sometimes overly simplistic that brought us eventually to this point.

Oh, absolutely. It's certainly a fun exercise, I enjoy philosophy
(traditional and modern) and it always bears to listen to the
arguments of those before you. :)

> Many philosophers realise their reliance on religion was without
> the priviledge of substancial knowledge one way and or the other.
> Although it never stopped them from questioning and seeking the
> answers from science and or whatever other source was and is
> available. It is the philosophers role to question, it is the
> scientists
> role to justify the answers where possible and go where scientific
> endeavour leads and to promote more questions.

Indeed, precisely, well said my friend ;). Previously philosophy had
to rely on religion (all questions pertaining to the "ought") for a
"complete" worldview. Now science gives us a complete worldview based
entirely on the "is", and philosophy can take a great deal of
advantage from that and make conclusions based on those
observations.

> Finally coming back to the "Mirrors of Erised." and more specifically
> the religious want and need to see in the reflection, NOT of what "IS"
> and disgarding "ought" and substituting what MIGHT be, is the
> problem we must address and the one we should continually question.
> Relgion relies upon its faith for what "MIGHT" be. Not what "is".
> So I agree with your last point.

Precisely, religion gives us no information aside from what we put
into it. It's literally a reflection of our desires. I hadn't caught
this point on my first reading of the book, but Rowling actually makes
a deep and insightful point.

> Does any of this make any sense?

Absolutely! :)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dev]

I don't like most philosophy, but I generally disagree with Atkins'
assumption that it will become obsolete. I think some of what's going
on with contrasting Eastern philosophy and new physics is evidence of
this. I would say that science provides facts, and philosophy at its
best provides a kind of framework for understanding the value of these
facts. The question is whether or not the "new physics" can provide a
logical moral framework independently of philosophy. I don't think
science is as useful if it isn't guided by value. Scientists follow
philisophical value systems in determining what facts are most
important and how to apply them. Philosophy, in turn, needs to be
limited by science so it stays within the confines of the "is".

[scooter]

I actually had written a post briefly discussing those three eras of
social development last year. I think of them as stages of social
evolution. Theological--before 1300AD and included priests and
"thinkers"; metaphysical--1300-1800 and included philosophers; and
positivistic--after 1800 that is charaterized by science and
scientists.

Having said that, I think your summary of Atkins' presentation is
probably accurate. And, I really like the Harry Potter parallel; it
seems to fit nicely. In fact, I think Im going to have to watch that
movie now on my new HD television!!! Of course, I only bought it
because I want to do my part in trying to bolster the economy. That's
my excuse and I'm stickin' to it ;)

Great post, Rapp.

[Keith MacNevins]

I think you copied that from someone else. It is too intelligent sounding to have come from you.

--
Keith Alan MacNevins
copyright

[Dag Yo]

> positivistic--after 1800 that is charaterized by science and
> scientists.

word. philosophers were mostly jerks before that.

[bodmerocity@gmail.com]

Well done. Best post I've read so far.

On Jan 29, 12:44 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lawrey]

Perhaps you might reconsider if you think about the times
and their situation, they were pretty much hobnailed by
religion's dominance; we shouldn't be too hard on them.
They were after all the bedrock on which later philosophers
were able to feed and on whose shoulders todays
philosophers stand. All science has been the beneficiary
of their albeit feeble efforts.

> > > bedroom, which displays the "is".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Lawrey]

Rapp',

It is gratifying to be in accord. Enjoyed your post.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dag Yo]

> > > positivistic--after 1800 that is charaterized by science and
> > > scientists.
>
> > word. philosophers were mostly jerks before that.
>

> Perhaps you might reconsider if you think about the times
> and their situation, they were pretty much hobnailed by
> religion's dominance; we shouldn't be too hard on them.
> They were after all the bedrock on which later philosophers
> were able to feed and on whose shoulders todays
> philosophers stand. All science has been the beneficiary
> of their albeit feeble efforts.

Sure thing, I didn't mean to call them all jerks in the strongest
sense of the word. It was more of a comparison to more modern
philosophers than a statement that they were all full of it in their
own right.

------------

[Lawrey]

Hi! Dev',

Well said, I have a bit of a gripe about the last part:

> "Philosophy, in turn, needs to be limited by science
> so it stays within the confines of the "is".

I think Philosophy generally is by nature an unrully beast,
if I can put it that way, but essentially it needs to be, to
have and maintain its questing credentials and for that if
for no other reason, I think it may be considered more
efficacious in effect to permit it to wander and wonder
away from the "is" occassionally, in order to keep its
integrity and fully understand its own boundaries, I am
not inclined to limitation by science. By virtue of its own
sense of itself philosophy will inevitably gravitate to the
"is". What is after all is the very counterpart of knowledge.

[Lawrey]

No worries, I understand and accept the point you make. ;)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

By saying philosophy should be relegated by science I don't mean it
should refrain from hypotheticals, or speculation. Philosophy is
useful because it takes from established reality and then experiments
with ways of organizing it, seeking to produce workable structures
that are essentially value-based but reasonably consistent both
internally and with science. I guess by "limited by science" what I
mean is that philosophy should be consistent with science, as it isn't
practical for the consistency to be completely internal.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

He absolutely must have taken that almost verbatim from something someone else wrote. The dev is not intelligent to write a post like that. Not that it makes much sense.

On 1/29/08, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[Lawrey]

Dev',

I see the point you are making and it makes inordinate sense.
many thanks.

> ...
>
> read more »

[random]

I don't think there is any philosophical debate that doesn't have a
related quote from the hitchhiker's guide:

It said: 'The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to
pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of
Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why
and Where phases.
"For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question How
can we eat? the second by the question Why do we eat? and the third by
the question Where shall we have lunch?"

----------

Anyway, I have two points regarding your post.

The first, is that I understand why the "red light" is useless and
doesn't provide any information, but I don't understand why philosophy
can be so easily discarded.
After all, (going back to the hitchhiker's guide), the answer of "42"
is meaningless without knowing what it is you are actually asking.

The second point, is that I also think there is a fourth step.
I'll give an example from cloning. We had a theory, science does his
part, and let's say that we are now capable of perfectly cloning
life.
But now what? Do we implement it? for what uses? what rights will a
clone have? is it moral to create clones for a specific purpose?
Science alone cannot cope with these questions, it must bring the ball
back to philosophy and human morality to actually implement the
knowledge.

[bonfly]

Thanks Dev ... philosophy should, as you say, always be limited by
science. Science, in turn, should be enlightened by observation,
experiment and logic.

By saying philosophy should be relegated by science I don't mean it
> should refrain from hypotheticals, or speculation. Philosophy is
> useful because it takes from established reality and then experiments
> with ways of organizing it, seeking to produce workable structures
> that are essentially value-based but reasonably consistent both
> internally and with science. I guess by "limited by science" what I
> mean is that philosophy should be consistent with science, as it isn't
> practical for the consistency to be completely internal.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lawrey]

Random,

Your query is for Rapp', so I will not presume, however I would
just comment on your opener:

> I don't think there is any philosophical debate that doesn't have
> a related quote from the hitchhiker's guide:

> It said: 'The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to
> pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of
> Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the
> How, Why and Where phases.
> "For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question
> How can we eat? the second by the question Why do we eat?
> and the third by the question Where shall we have lunch?"

Thoughout recorded time phiosophical debate and philosophers have
sought the questions that answer what life is all about and what life
truly means. It evolved around all sorts of important questions such
as, (as Immanuel Kant tells us,) "What can I know? What ought I to
do? What may I hope?" A theoretical question a practical question
and a speculative one; on the nature of the universe in which we find
ourselves, and our relation to it.

If we accept this as the case the "The Hitch-hiker's Guide would
seem somewhat short-sighted and a tad self-serving. ;)

[Dag Yo]

A link for anyone curious. It looks like the 2007 conference didn't
have people speaking for absurdly long times the way the 2006 did (I
rather liked that better I think).

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/

[Dev]

Yes--I think science should be guided by philosophy, and philosophy
should be consistent with science. By science being guided by
philosophy I don't mean its methods should be affected, only its aims--
science at its best is applied to reach certain goals that achieve the
betterment of the human race, and philosophy helps to reasonably
determine what "betterment" entails. Essentially, science and
philosophy should be merged--religion is often to blame for the cases
in which they aren't.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Really interesting post, Rapp.

I'd just like to add one more thing.

It's interesting to me, having raised two children, that human beings
seem to go through a similar process.

To the young child, fears in particular, are explained by monsters
under the bed, and mom and dad are perfect and the equivalent of gods
(even when they tell you they hate you ;). Theist/God of the Gaps.

As the child gets older, they start to look for answers. And since mom
and dad are available they face the barrage. They want to know why the
sky is blue, What causes thunder, Why are they here, Who are they, Why
do people, animals, etc. die? Philosophical.

As young adults, they start to settle down, become more objective, see
reality, develop an understanding of their world and how to fit into
it. Scientific.

Unless of course they've been corrupted by religion in which case they
hang onto the Sky Daddy belief, but even as Christians, setting aside
Sky Daddy, they do move into this phase.

These were my personal observations anyway, for what they're worth.

[Dag Yo]

So I finally watched the video and what follows is a much better
response to it than my first one.

I understood Peter Atkin's argument (only on this brief point) to be:
science does things and shows results, philosophy doesn't do anything,
therefore now that we have science in it's place we have little use
for philosophy. I think he is wrong in general, but correct in some
respect. You generally won't get very much in the way of tangible
results out of philosophy, and that is where his argument does make a
bit of sense. Furthermore, there are, no doubt, plenty of people in
the world who come up with a full set of of philosophical tools and an
understanding of how their use is and should be applied in their lives
-- and for these people, philosophy may have absolutely nothing to
offer. However, and it should be fairly obvious where i'm going with
this, plenty of people do not for whatever reason really ever come
across these philosophic tools on their own. And for them, an
understanding of modern philosophy would surely do wonders for their
understanding of the world around them.

And even though, as Dev was getting at, basic philosophic concepts are
a part of, and can be inferred from an understanding of the scientific
method; I don't think they are quite explicit enough for everyone to
appreciate. So I still think that the discipline is perfectly useful
even in a world in which many people can get an understanding of
science. To prove my point in a way that I hope makes a bit of sense
to some of you who read this far: consider as evidence of my point,
the number of people in this world who understand and completely
accept the findings of the hard sciences and any number of social
sciences as well but still believe in their silly religions without
any notion that the two are not EVEN 'non-overlapping magisterium' but
perfectly compatible knowledges.

----------

[rappoccio]

Yes, that about sums up my opinion as well. I think he was more or
less talking about acquisition of knowledge of the "is", but again,
it's speculation since he didn't clarify at all!

[rappoccio]

On Jan 29, 11:34 am, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I actually had written a post briefly discussing those three eras of
> social development last year. I think of them as stages of social
> evolution. Theological--before 1300AD and included priests and
> "thinkers"; metaphysical--1300-1800 and included philosophers; and
> positivistic--after 1800 that is charaterized by science and
> scientists.

Yes, I think that's about right. After 1800 or so, philosophy is not
as concerned with the "metaphysical" and is far more interested in the
actual.

>
> Having said that, I think your summary of Atkins' presentation is
> probably accurate. And, I really like the Harry Potter parallel; it
> seems to fit nicely. In fact, I think Im going to have to watch that
> movie now on my new HD television!!! Of course, I only bought it
> because I want to do my part in trying to bolster the economy. That's
> my excuse and I'm stickin' to it ;)

Obviously! ;)

>
> Great post, Rapp.

Thanks!

[rappoccio]

Thank you!

On Jan 29, 12:09 pm, "bodmeroc...@gmail.com" <bodmeroc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[rappoccio]

Absolutely, same here ;)

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

Right, I'd say that "science" shouldn't be viewed as "science" here,
but as more or less "unconcerned with what doesn't affect us".

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

On Jan 30, 3:20 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think there is any philosophical debate that doesn't have a
> related quote from the hitchhiker's guide:
>
> It said: 'The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to
> pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of
> Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why
> and Where phases.
> "For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question How
> can we eat? the second by the question Why do we eat? and the third by
> the question Where shall we have lunch?"

Of course, Douglas Adams is one of the best neo-philosophers of our
time! :)

>
> ----------
>
> Anyway, I have two points regarding your post.
>
> The first, is that I understand why the "red light" is useless and
> doesn't provide any information, but I don't understand why philosophy
> can be so easily discarded.
> After all, (going back to the hitchhiker's guide), the answer of "42"
> is meaningless without knowing what it is you are actually asking.

I think Atkins' point is that it gives us no "useful" information
because it sort of asks the wrong questions and befuddles the answer
with objections that aren't that relevant to the "is". But again,
that's speculation, he didn't explain ;)

> The second point, is that I also think there is a fourth step.
> I'll give an example from cloning. We had a theory, science does his
> part, and let's say that we are now capable of perfectly cloning
> life.
> But now what? Do we implement it? for what uses? what rights will a
> clone have? is it moral to create clones for a specific purpose?
> Science alone cannot cope with these questions, it must bring the ball
> back to philosophy and human morality to actually implement the
> knowledge.

Science actually does continue to give us information about it,
though. Study of the "is" still tells us about what we "ought" to do.
Ultimately science will give us information as to why we find the
issue of human cloning "sticky" to begin with... it's just a new way
to arrive at "life". Is something less "alive" because the chemical
processes that make it up are different than what happens inside the
human body? It clearly says no. That guides a lot of the answers we
have.

Examples:
-Do clones have rights? Yes, the same as other humans.
-Do we grow clones to "farm" them? Of course not, see the first
question.
-Is it "ethical" to replicate a person? It's not "unethical" per se,
but it's certainly not what we've seen before.
-Is it "ethical" to perform ethnic cleansing on "imperfect" people? Of
course not, this is the same question as the first as well.

So lots of things are answered by asking more scientific questions.
Philosophy alone gives us insufficient information. I think that's
Atkins' point.

[rappoccio]

Yes, that's partly the reason I liked 2006 better. It wasn't so much
that people were monologuing, they were generally having good
discourse at the time when it is relevant, which made for more
interesting discourse.

[rappoccio]

Excellent points! I loved this. It's indeed the case that "curious"
people aren't satisfied with the "Goddidit" non-answer to life's
questions. What's interesting is that many people are satisfied with
this non-answer for some questions, and want non-non-answers (i.e.
actual answers) for others. It's the double standard again!

[rappoccio]

I think that's very right, many people do not understand what
questions of the "is" are sufficiently well to understand the
questions of the "ought", so to speak. They accept "authority" as a
description of the "ought" because they are told as children that it's
so, and they never question it.

I think that's why the majority of people are theists: they just don't
question what they are told as children. Putting them aside, I would
say that the number of people that are secular/nontheist are a much
higher fraction of the remaining population (perhaps the majority).
There isn't really a way to test this, since it would entail asking
questions like "Do you just accept what your parents/religious figures
told you in your youth uncritically?" which people won't answer
truthfully. However in my experience most religious people I've come
across fall into this category.