John Galt, Jr.

In another thread, 're: Mind/Body Problem', Corey Hammer made the following claim:

This claim seems to me to be worth a thread of its own, so,...

I make the assumption that the claim is intended as an empirical claim, and as such, subject to evaluation. In other words, no one will 'render the empirical a priori', by rejecting any proposed counter-examples as 'not really understanding because they aren't science'

Having said that, on the face of it, the claim seems to be (rather obviously) false; Counter-examples abound.

I know that my spouse went to the refrigerator and took out the left over turkey because he wanted some left-over turkey, and he believed that there was left-over turkey in the refrigerator. Here, I understand why some event in the natural world occurred and there seems to be nothing worth calling science involved.

Moreover, the explanation of why my spouse did what he did appeals to the conceptual truth about (an aspect of ) the natural world (in the realm of human activity), roughly, 'If a person wants A, and believes that doing B will achieve A, then unless there are countervailing reasons, the person will do B.' No science necessary to provide this 'principle of human behavior'.

I can/anyone can provide many instances of understanding aspects of the natural world, (and not just in the realm of human activity) where, similarly, nothing in the way of science is required for understanding.

Maybe that is enough to get things started here.

John Galt. Jr.

elwoodblues

Playing the definition game...

Science _can_ explain these things, if we but had the tools. Certain configurations of neurons in a person's head, a certain configuration of the perceived environment... Human actions and decisions should, in theory, be explicable in this manner.

Of course, it's not necessary or desirable to speak of these things on that level. It'd be like describing economic theory on the level of particle physics; possible, but by no means efficient.

Peter Soderqvist

Albert Einstein!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
<a href="http://www.fys.ku.dk/~raben/einstein/" target="_blank">http://www.fys.ku.dk/~raben/einstein/</a>

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

scombrid

Well, Did your spouse conjure up the turkey? Did your spouse practice remote viewing and float into the kitchen to check the fridge before physically going in?

I ask these questions because you ignore the practice of the scientific method that occurs unconsiously in the decision making process that led to checking the fridge for turkey.

Initial observations:
1. Had turkey for dinner two nights ago.
Perishable leftovers are stored in the fridge.

Hypothesis:
Turkey is perishable and any leftovers will be in the fridge. As we had turkey for dinner two nights ago and I remember placing the turkey in the fridge, unless somebody has eaten it, it's still there.

Test:
Look in fridge

Result:
Hey look, turkey.

What happened:
Based on prior experience, spouse had reason to search for turkey in fridge and turkey was there.

Try finding me an example where person wants A and believes that action B will acheive A without any factual basis for that belief. In your example, spouse based his belief on prior observation. To support your claim that we derive knowledge without empirical observation, action B must produce A with a demonstrable causal effect. B must come out of the blue, revelation type stuff. No post hoc fallacy allowed. Prayer is often the action B that people believe will achieve desire A. People pray all the time with no demonstrable effect. However, they often credit the prayer with whatever the outcome. This is an area where people claim but never demonstrate non-empirical knowledge.

John Galt, Jr.

scombrid,

Where did I make such a claim?

John Galt, Jr.

scombrid

I took your "No science necessary" statements to be such a claim. You seem to assert that people can 'just know' things.

Do you not dispute my dissection of your arguement from turkey?

I still assert that your example of a situation where human action had no basis in science, was actually a situation where the scientific method was lurking in the shadows of Spouse's decision making.

seanie

Methodological naturalism and the scientific method are so ingrained in everyday life you appear to have overlooked them entirely.

Shadowy Man

Yes, and that is one thing that has been really bothering me lately. People don't seem to realize this, and seem to think that "science" is something only done by physicists, chemists, biologists, etc.

Tom Sawyer

You are aware that the firing of neurons to access data from memory and using brain processes to assess situations based on current data (we had x amount of turkey and ate y amount, therefore there should be x - y amount left and left over turkey is generally kept in the refrigerator) is covered by science, right?

MadMordigan

Actually, the OP is correct, 'science' is not used in day to day interactions. However, The superset of science, which is empiricism, is integral to our survial.

Science is a method for obtaining and testing empirical data, but it is too cumbersome to be used in most day to day life.