Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[Audie]

OK.

It goes like this:-

1) You are part of the universe

2) You have brain cells

3) Ergo, the universe has brain cells.

That is all he meant. I think.

Let who will find that to be an astonishing fact of reality.

 

[exchemist]

Hardly matters, does it?

....a certain enjoyment in the use of language maybe......

 

[Audie]

....a certain enjoyment in the use of language maybe......

And cringing when someone says "if I was you.."
or "irregardless".

People used to say to me, "You talk like a book."

 

[exchemist]

And cringing when someone says "It I was you.."
or "irregardless".

People used to say to me, "You talk like a book."

Praise indeed. So long as they do not have in mind the Canterbury Tales.

Or Beowulf .

 

[Subduction Zone]

And cringing when someone says "It I was you.."
or "irregardless".

People used to say to me, "You talk like a book."

Yes because we all know that "If I was you." is correct

Muphry's Law strikes again.

 

[PureX]

Then what is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

The how vs. the why, I guess.

Is it wise to do something when all of the evidence demonstrates that it would be a bad idea? Is it wise to forgo conventional medical treatments and instead use unproven and untested treatments?

Is it wise to presume that there can be only one answer to those questions?

It is interesting that science ignores personal anecdotes and instead focuses in objective data. In doing so, science has been extremely successful.

By what criteria is it so successful? By the criteria of our being able to control and manipulate our physical environment to our advantage? Is that really the criteria for success that we want, or need? Is that really why we exist?

So is it wise to rely on your personal experience only, or is it wiser to look at the objective data?

Again, is it wise to presume this is an either/or scenario?

 

[PureX]

Yes I would say that science does lead to wisdom. But I suppose I am thinking mainly about the way one learns it at university. The dons I learnt from seemed to be able to apply their knowledge while recognising its fallibility, and at the same to have an infectious curiosity and enthusiasm for the unexpected, which I consider to be wisdom. (My tutor used so frequently to open a response by "It's very interesting you say that, because......" that it was almost his catchphrase.) I gather this is one interpretation of wisdom. I think studying science can give some wisdom too in the sense of expanding the mental horizon, to make one aware of the wonders of the world and thus more tolerant of the vicissitudes of daily life. And there is no doubt at all that the deep questions about limits to knowledge implicit in quantum theory - the fall of determinism etc - lead to a certain humility about human capacity to know.

I'm not saying that everyone who studies science draws such lessons from it, but I feel sure many do.

But one can find wisdom in almost anything, if one is seeking it in earnest, don't you think? Whereas there is nothing particular to the scientific method that would lead one to seek wisdom, as opposed to seeking functional information about physical reality. Which is what (and pretty much all) the scientific method produces. Which is why 300 years of science does not seem to have increased overall human wisdom hardly at all. While it has increased our effectiveness at manipulating our physical environment exponentially. And the imbalance has become so pronounced, now, that we are in danger of self-annihilation.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The how vs. the why, I guess.

Knowing how to do something seems like knowledge to me. Knowing why something happens also seems like knowledge.

It would seem to me that wisdom is knowledge plus profundity. It may be like a sense of humor where you are able to arrange your knowledge of the world into something humorous.

Is it wise to presume that there can be only one answer to those questions?

If someone decides to try and cure their appendicitis with crystal meditation, would you think they were wise?

By what criteria is it so successful? By the criteria of our being able to control and manipulate our physical environment to our advantage? Is that really the criteria for success that we want, or need? Is that really why we exist?

If it weren't for things like vaccines and antibiotics, many of us wouldn't exist right now.

Again, is it wise to presume this is an either/or scenario?

Is it wise to presume that reality is whatever you believe it to be?

 

[PureX]

Is it wise to presume that reality is whatever you believe it to be?

No one presumes it, and yet it is true, nevertheless. I think if we were really interested in gaining wisdom, instead of functional control, we would want to acknowledge this, instead of run from it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No one presumes it, and yet it is true, nevertheless. I think if we were really interested in gaining wisdom, instead of functional control, we would want to acknowledge this, instead of run from it.

So if someone believes the world is flat the world will become flat?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if someone believes the world is flat the world will become flat?

Let me try real hard. I will be back with the results later.

 

[Audie]

Yes because we all know that "If I was you." is correct

Muphry's Law strikes again.

I am no good at proofreading

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am no good at proofreading

Been there done that. Sometimes when I am using my tablet a post will make no sense because it "corrects" me and I do not notice it.

 

[exchemist]

But one can find wisdom in almost anything, if one is seeking it in earnest, don't you think? Whereas there is nothing particular to the scientific method that would lead one to seek wisdom, as opposed to seeking functional information about physical reality. Which is what (and pretty much all) the scientific method produces. Which is why 300 years of science does not seem to have increased overall human wisdom hardly at all. While it has increased our effectiveness at manipulating our physical environment exponentially. And the imbalance has become so pronounced, now, that we are in danger of self-annihilation.

.......sez you. Not sure I buy your pessimistic analysis.

Do you really not think that science has contributed to human wisdom? For instance in learning (slowly!) we and other creatures on this planet are all interdependent, in recognising that all races are one species, in gaining a perspective of what humanity is in relation to the cosmos, in recognising everything is not mechanically determined and that we cannot know everything? Are these insights worth nothing?

Perhaps it would be useful if you can identify parallel examples, from other fields of knowledge, that have contributed to human wisdom over the same period (taking say 1600 as an arbitrary start date for modern science). I'm sure there are plenty, but it might be illustrative to compare.

 

[PureX]

So if someone believes the world is flat the world will become flat?

It will be their "reality", regardless, just as yours is yours. Reality is an intellectual construct and no human's intellectual construct is "objective", nor is anyone's intellectual construct "the truth". You think your intellectual construct is more "real" (and true) than theirs because you adhere to "objective evidence", but even your presumption of "objectivity" is logically incoherent, and is heavily biased in favor of relative functionality. And the fact that you apparently don't or can't understand this, and don't want to try just underscores the inhibiting effect that bias is having in terms of any honest pursuit of truth and/or wisdom.

 

[PureX]

Do you really not think that science has contributed to human wisdom?

I see no evidence that this is it's intent. Increasing knowledge is all well and good, and could be used to gain wisdom should that be one's desire, but I see nothing about science that expresses or even encourages that particular goal.

For instance in learning (slowly!) we and other creatures on this planet are all interdependent, in recognizing that all races are one species, in gaining a perspective of what humanity is in relation to the cosmos, in recognizing everything is not mechanically determined and that we cannot know everything? Are these insights worth nothing?

I see little evidence that these "facts" have had any appreciable effect on collective human wisdom. And I see little effort being expended on the part of science and those engaged in it to do so. The whole endeavor seems intent on AVOIDING the very areas of thought that need to be addressed in the pursuit of wisdom, mostly because the scientific process is unable to address them.

Perhaps it would be useful if you can identify parallel examples, from other fields of knowledge, that have contributed to human wisdom over the same period (taking say 1600 as an arbitrary start date for modern science). I'm sure there are plenty, but it might be illustrative to compare.

I would say that art has done far more to help humanity increase it's individual and collective wisdom than science, simply by showing us to ourselves in ways that would otherwise go unnoticed, and that we often even try to avoid seeing. I would say that theology (a sub-category of philosophy), for all it's abuse and corruption by religion, has given us a number of tools that can and are being used by humans all over the world on a regular basis to increase their individual, and thereby our collective, wisdom (the deliberate practice of humility, honesty, cessation of ego and desire, admission of guilt/complicity, responsibility for the well-being of others, and so on). Whereas science has given us a great many powerful tools that could have been used in the service of wisdom, or in the pursuit of it, and yet has done little to nothing to actually encourage us toward that end. The ethical possibilities of applied science does not seem to be something that many scientist are eager to contemplate, discuss, or debate.

 

[exchemist]

I see no evidence that this is it's intent. Increasing knowledge is all well and good, and could be used to gain wisdom should that be one's desire, but I see nothing about science that expresses or even encourages that particular goal.
I see little evidence that these "facts" have had any appreciable effect on collective human wisdom. And I see little effort being expended on the part of science and those engaged in it to do so. The whole endeavor seems intent on AVOIDING the very areas of thought that need to be addressed in the pursuit of wisdom, mostly because the scientific process is unable to address them.
I would say that art has done far more to help humanity increase it's individual and collective wisdom than science, simply by showing us to ourselves in ways that would otherwise go unnoticed, and that we often even try to avoid seeing. I would say that theology (a sub-category of philosophy), for all it's abuse and corruption by religion, has given us a number of tools that can and are being used by humans all over the world on a regular basis to increase their individual, and thereby our collective, wisdom (the deliberate practice of humility, honesty, cessation of ego and desire, admission of guilt/complicity, responsibility for the well-being of others, and so on). Whereas science has given us a great many powerful tools that could have been used in the service of wisdom, or in the pursuit of it, and yet has done little to nothing to actually encourage us toward that end. The ethical possibilities of applied science does not seem to be something that many scientist are eager to contemplate, discuss, or debate.

Then, sadly, we will just have to differ. I venture to suggest that if you had studied science to the point of reaching some understanding of it then you might feel differently, but I have no way of demonstrating this. So there we are.

 

[PureX]

For instance in learning (slowly!) we and other creatures on this planet are all interdependent, in recognising that all races are one species, in gaining a perspective of what humanity is in relation to the cosmos, in recognising everything is not mechanically determined and that we cannot know everything? Are these insights worth nothing?

What scientific principal or practice admonishes us to consider the wisdom to be gained from these? There is none that I am aware of.

 

[Audie]

Post 118 seems to me to smell of it, as does post 1329 of this thread: Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

I may be wrong of course, but I feel now I was too hasty in doubting PureX's contention.

A very faint whiff, depending on how it was intended.
What I saw was a request for example / explanation.

Much like my request, for examples of these scientismists.
Who would deny that there may be such? You know
there's worse, and crazier.

I'd like to know about them. If I, others are taking a
profoundly, life and earth threateningly wrong approach
to grasping the nature of reality, I would surely like
to know.

I tend to think in terms of examples. That is certainly
how things are donein law. I can understand things that way.


All I got was something to the effect that they are
everywhere, and I must be dumb if I cannot see them.

From following the topic I get the idea that our friend
believes he, and perhaps some few followers, have
achieved a level of understanding denied to the
"Scientism(ists)".

I also get the impression that he has had to concoct a group
of people and their way of thinking, in order to contrast his
Enlightenment to those benighted materialists / scientism(ists).

A lot of psychological projection is all that is, imo.

The refusal to provide even one (1) actual example from the
purported multitude stands as pretty good evidence, of a
material sort, that there are no examples to give.

There's more to observe, but let it fade away, it seems
there is no there there.

 

[exchemist]

What scientific principal or practice admonishes us to consider the wisdom to be gained from these? There is none that I am aware of.

Indeed not. The role of science is to understand nature through observation and the construction of predictive models of it, not to offer masterclasses in "wisdom", whatever those might look like.

But that was not the challenge you laid down in post 183, to which I have been trying to respond. That challenge, if I'm not mistaken, was what wisdom has been derived from the practice of science.