|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15951420 - 03/15/12 03:07 PM (11 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Teknix: you still haven't replied or justified your bare conclusion that a nurse recording a patient's evaluation of his emotional state, or the nurse making that evaluation herself (observation of the body, speech, et cet), does not constitute a measurement of the mind, emotion, conscious, whatever.
Further, you've yet to establish the relevance of this objective/subjective distinction to this question and explain what the line between the two is.
Plainly: you've not provided a clear argument that the mind, the mental state of a person, can not be scientifically investigated or measured.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: johnm214]
#18788117 - 09/02/13 02:50 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Teknix: you still haven't replied or justified your bare conclusion that a nurse recording a patient's evaluation of his emotional state, or the nurse making that evaluation herself (observation of the body, speech, et cet), does not constitute a measurement of the mind, emotion, conscious, whatever.
Further, you've yet to establish the relevance of this objective/subjective distinction to this question and explain what the line between the two is.
Plainly: you've not provided a clear argument that the mind, the mental state of a person, can not be scientifically investigated or measured.
It's not objective data, but subjective data dependent upong ones, threshold for pain and personal experience of the pain as well as past experiences, my 5 of pain could be your 10 of pain. I also posted this in another thread which I'm going to paste here:
Science doesn't seem to deal with such moral questions or ethics that are subjective, so Scientism can't be the ultimate way of knowing everything, or all knowing isn't based on science necessarily, especially when you consider self-evident truth.
Science is concerned about the objective and tangible world, but that is not all there is, as scientism would claim. Scientism excludes other perspectives without compromise which only further divides us by claiming superiority, creating another dogma and fixed perspective unyielding to other perspectives in which we have to deal with on a daily basis. It isn't realistic view imo.
It is good for determining how things do what they do, but it doesn't have any compassion or empathy that the world requires to achieve peace. Scientism often makes the mistake of considering the small sample space of what it knows and uses that in determining the entire population, including what it doesn't know.
There is a swan analogy, that if all swans ever observed have always been white, then can we say all swans in existence are white?
Scientism would claim yes, even if in fact there are black swans, just unrecorded. So Scientism can only base a complete reality on the small sample population of data that it has to work with.
Not everything is empirical as defined by the 5 senses, such as emotional feelings, which is not included as empirical evidence. Yet there is love and it is evident even though it is not an objective phenomena, it is self evident upon experience.
Experience being another crux to Scientism, and the fact that there isn't a theory of everything that ties everything we know together neatly, leaving room for some to an infinite amount of unknowns.
And here is another example, showing that 4% of matter which is objective and we could know empirically and objectively compared to 96% more that we are missing:

Any logical conclusion that would use 4% of the entire pie to explain the rest of the 96% is likely to be faulty.
-------------------- .6th and 7th sense theory .Now is forever. .ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±Theο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±Unseenο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± is seenο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± by the blindο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± eye.ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±.When the inevitable time comes, go with your head held high,without regret or remorse, in your subconscious mind. ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο± ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±ο±
Edited by teknix (09/02/13 03:00 AM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: johnm214]
#18788145 - 09/02/13 03:10 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Teknix: you still haven't replied or justified your bare conclusion that a nurse recording a patient's evaluation of his emotional state, or the nurse making that evaluation herself (observation of the body, speech, et cet), does not constitute a measurement of the mind, emotion, conscious, whatever.
Further, you've yet to establish the relevance of this objective/subjective distinction to this question and explain what the line between the two is.
Plainly: you've not provided a clear argument that the mind, the mental state of a person, can not be scientifically investigated or measured.
IE; when the ruler is constantly changing size and shape, it does not lead to objective measurements. Here is a great example provided by the Mythbusters:
Edited by teknix (09/02/13 03:33 AM)
|
|