A central goal of scientific investigation is to understand causal mechanisms. We want to understand why specific inputs generate specific outputs. For example, in medicine, we want to understand the mechanisms of action of drugs to be able to more skillfully use them.
So many "scientists" simplify the analysis so as to be useless. Acupuncture, for example: Ignore the needles for a moment. A session involves another person interacting with you physically and intensely, with a focus on improving your well-being.
That alone must have some positive benefits associated with it.
Of course, we shouldn't immediately claim certainty that some weak correlation must have a causal component either. Observe. Hypothesize. Continue to observe. Think, think, think.
Then, act - for yourself. Never force others to suffer the results of your conclusions. That's for you and you alone.
Thank you for this essay, this sums up so well the situation we are in now and what Covid brought to light. The words that keep coming up when I look at the topic you are writing about here are Hubris and Humility, also worshipping false idols, this essay ties in so well with one of your first essay’s I came across “Understanding God as Nature or The Universe.”
David Bohm said, “So thought is an abstraction. Literal thought has this problem in it that, implicitly, it’s trying to say that it’s seeking the ideal of not being an abstraction, but just being another copy of what is. It is not leaving out anything. I think you can see that there’s always more, and we could say, therefore, by means of thought we could not capture the whole. That’s what I’m suggesting. We can always get more. There’s no limit to thought which you can set, because people could always discover more. Scientists could discover more and more and more. But still, it’s always limited. It’s limited because it doesn’t get all, right?”
Robert Breedlove recently wrote, in The Map Is Not the Territory.
In the gulf between the map and the territory the philosophical stakes are high. The symbol (the map) is indispensable because without it communication breaks down and our actions (the territory) cannot be coordinated effectively. Without maps, we are also limited in our ability to store and transmit knowledge. This is disruptive to the effectiveness of action, for as Aristotle said “the purpose of knowledge is action, not knowledge.” At the same time, any given map necessarily excludes many—or perhaps even most—aspects of its respective territory. So there are strict ontological (reality-based) limits on the reliability of maps. Here, extreme danger lurks. Those who foolheartedly believe that the map can be the territory think that their models of reality can override reality. Such fools buy into the idea of totalized knowledge: a set of symbols that contain reality in its totality. This is the intellectual hubris at the dark heart of totalitarian ideologies. So although we cannot dispense with the map, to mistake it for the territory can cause extreme human suffering.
Well said.
So many "scientists" simplify the analysis so as to be useless. Acupuncture, for example: Ignore the needles for a moment. A session involves another person interacting with you physically and intensely, with a focus on improving your well-being.
That alone must have some positive benefits associated with it.
Of course, we shouldn't immediately claim certainty that some weak correlation must have a causal component either. Observe. Hypothesize. Continue to observe. Think, think, think.
Then, act - for yourself. Never force others to suffer the results of your conclusions. That's for you and you alone.
Thank you for this essay, this sums up so well the situation we are in now and what Covid brought to light. The words that keep coming up when I look at the topic you are writing about here are Hubris and Humility, also worshipping false idols, this essay ties in so well with one of your first essay’s I came across “Understanding God as Nature or The Universe.”
David Bohm said, “So thought is an abstraction. Literal thought has this problem in it that, implicitly, it’s trying to say that it’s seeking the ideal of not being an abstraction, but just being another copy of what is. It is not leaving out anything. I think you can see that there’s always more, and we could say, therefore, by means of thought we could not capture the whole. That’s what I’m suggesting. We can always get more. There’s no limit to thought which you can set, because people could always discover more. Scientists could discover more and more and more. But still, it’s always limited. It’s limited because it doesn’t get all, right?”
Robert Breedlove recently wrote, in The Map Is Not the Territory.
In the gulf between the map and the territory the philosophical stakes are high. The symbol (the map) is indispensable because without it communication breaks down and our actions (the territory) cannot be coordinated effectively. Without maps, we are also limited in our ability to store and transmit knowledge. This is disruptive to the effectiveness of action, for as Aristotle said “the purpose of knowledge is action, not knowledge.” At the same time, any given map necessarily excludes many—or perhaps even most—aspects of its respective territory. So there are strict ontological (reality-based) limits on the reliability of maps. Here, extreme danger lurks. Those who foolheartedly believe that the map can be the territory think that their models of reality can override reality. Such fools buy into the idea of totalized knowledge: a set of symbols that contain reality in its totality. This is the intellectual hubris at the dark heart of totalitarian ideologies. So although we cannot dispense with the map, to mistake it for the territory can cause extreme human suffering.
'Ontological truth' as Jesse Michels is fond of saying. Unknown unknown's.
"Argument from incredulity” is a great phrase I plan on using.
Nice article.