I seem to have missed plaetton's rant.

It is NOT ignorant to have an opinion on whether psychologists and anthropologists are scientists.

It IS ignorant to be unaware, as plaetton is, that the question is contentious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=0

Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.

During the last 10 years the two factions have been through a phase of bitter tribal warfare after the more politically active group attacked work on the Yanomamo people of Venezuela and Brazil by Napoleon Chagnon, a science-oriented anthropologist, and James Neel, a medical geneticist who died in 2000. With the wounds of this conflict still fresh, many science-based anthropologists were dismayed to learn last month that the long-range plan of the association would no longer be to advance anthropology as a science but rather to focus on “public understanding.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

plaetton:
This is either a deliberate slight-of-hand trick, or an inadvertent irrationality and circuitry on glaring display

1. According wiki,
Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.

2. According to wiki,
Anthropology /ænθrɵˈpɒlədʒi/ is the scientific study of humans, past and present,[1][2] that draws and builds upon knowledge from the social sciences and life sciences, as well as the humanities.

Now, if psychology and Anthropology are scientific disciplines, then psychologists and anthropologists are scientists.
This begs the question of which scientists is the op referring to?

This shows what I have said repeatedly, that this op is so irrationally biased, that he does not even understand much about the science he has been so vocally critical of.
This is grand folly.

You dont philosophize what you dont know.

We dont have all information about consciousness yet, philosophy is to total waste of time on this.

You can only philosophize what you know.

Philosophy at this point will only lead to conclusion before knowledge.

op i dont understand chinese *Yawns* BOORIING!!!

People who don't pursue philosophy become follow follow people.

People who have lost their understanding of the importance of their philosophy are mentally enslaved.

ooman:
You dont philosophize what you dont know.

We dont have all information about consciousness yet, philosophy is to total waste of time on this.

You can only philosophize what you know.

Philosophy at this point will only lead to conclusion before knowledge.

I think the unique nature of consciousness gives philosophy an edge here. It is only the philosophers that have direct access to consciousness. Until science is able to observe consciousness, the best we can do is philosophize about it. Insights about the nature of consciousness can inform science on how to go about forming a theory.

undercat:


I think the unique nature of consciousness gives philosophy an edge here. It is only the philosophers that have direct access to consciousness. Until science is able to observe consciousness, the best we can do is philosophize about it. Insights about the nature of consciousness can inform science on how to go about forming a theory.

You say "only the philosophers have direct access to consciousness" as if they really do. If they did, they would have provided answers.

@bold - science has been able to observe consciousness, for we are conscious, and we know that; but not its cause. Science has not observed its cause, so all philosophy about its cause is only a waste of time, because we simply do not know. We can only hypothesize at this point. And this is nothing but assumption. So, all your philosophies at this point are based on nothing but assumptions.

It seems you like to philosophize, its ok, you can do that, I do that too. But on cases such as these, I have learned to hold my peace, until there is knowledge of the matter.

sinequanon:
People who don't pursue philosophy become follow follow people.

People who have lost their understanding of the importance of their philosophy are mentally enslaved.

I neither said "dont pursue philosophy" nor "philosophy is not important".

Dr. Michio Kaku and Joe Rogan discussing deep sh?it like consciousness, origin of life, etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWVm7WQ3duY

PART 2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61HRG7T-Knc

undercat:


I think the unique nature of consciousness gives philosophy an edge here. It is only the philosophers that have direct access to consciousness. Until science is able to observe consciousness, the best we can do is philosophize about it. Insights about the nature of consciousness can inform science on how to go about forming a theory.

You are absolutely right.

Originally, the problem was about "awareness". Science has no definition for "awareness", although a naive person could (and probably will) pull up a dictionary definition that spawns more scientific unknowns than it defines. That is why we have philosophy. It is there to draw attention to half baked reasoning, unwitting assumptions, lax definitions and so forth.

Moreover, science has no way of defining or measuring "awareness". Scientifically, there is no explicit essential difference between a very complex machine and an aware being. And while we may have a subjective opinion of our own consciousness, scientifically, we can only assume that the person sitting next to us or communicating with us over the internet is an "aware" being. Yet our intuition tells us that awareness is more than "complex machinery".

Science is moving towards just this definition of "complex machinery". In order to do so it redefines the problem by focusing on "consciousness" instead of "awareness". Consciousness becomes the ability to resolve a flood of sensory signals into a coherent picture. The idea is that a camera is not conscious because it doesn't resolve the hundreds of thousands of pixels it processes, into a narrative, the way a human would. This cheat of redefining the problem allows scientists to pretend that they are getting closer to understanding consciousness by finding a central processing system in the brain. through which all sensory signals must pass.

But "awareness" remains the "hard problem". Scientists can fool people about many things by impressing them with what they claim to be "results" of their theories, but convincing sufficiently smart people that their awareness is just complex mental processing isn't going to fly. We are not talking about the findings of some remote experiment, but an intimate aspect of our day to day lives. Only the dumbest folk will be convinced that they are mere machines, and people like Sam Harris are already working on such dumb folk to wipe clean the slate of their being.

ooman2:


You say "only the philosophers have direct access to consciousness" as if they really do. If they did, they would have provided answers.

@bold - science has been able to observe consciousness, for we are conscious, and we know that; but not its cause. Science has not observed its cause, so all philosophy about its cause is only a waste of time, because we simply do not know. We can only hypothesize at this point. And this is nothing but assumption. So, all your philosophies at this point are based on nothing but assumptions.

It seems you like to philosophize, its ok, you can do that, I do that too. But on cases such as these, I have learned to hold my peace, until there is knowledge of the matter.

You can't study consciousness in a lab is what I mean. At least for now. Any person's consciousness is accessible to him alone, and there aren't even words to express much of it to another person.

A lot of philosophy is based on assumptions. If there were no such leeway what you'd end up with are proofs, which we don't see in abundance in philosophy. Working with assumptions is no barrier to discovery.

Some philosophers suggest that science is going about the problem of consciousness the wrong way. For example Nagel thinks no form of reduction can ever lead us to understand consciousness. You should read his book "The View From Nowhere" or the much shorter paper "What Is It Like To Be A Bat". I tend to agree with the points he made. I think they are useful to science.

undercat:


You can't study consciousness in a lab is what I mean. At least for now. Any person's consciousness is accessible to him alone, and there aren't even words to express much of it to another person.

@bold - Until we are able to, I refuse to contend the matter.

undercat:
A lot of philosophy is based on assumptions. If there were no such leeway what you'd end up with are proofs, which we don't see in abundance in philosophy. Working with assumptions is no barrier to discovery.

@bold - I agree. But if you are an empiricist like I think myself, perhaps, you'd understand.

undercat:
Some philosophers suggest that science is going about the problem of consciousness the wrong way. For example Nagel thinks no form of reduction can ever lead us to understand consciousness. You should read his book "The View From Nowhere" or the much shorter paper "What Is It Like To Be A Bat". I tend to agree with the points he made. I think they are useful to science.

Exactly my point again. You'd only make assumptions that do nothing but lead to contention. However, as you said, these philosophies are no barrier to discovery. So if you wish, you may philosophize. But as I said in my previous post, philosophy at this point leads to conclusion before knowledge.

Until there is knowledge, philosophy should be at minimum.

ooman2:


@bold - Until we are able to, I refuse to contend the matter.

Your loss.

@bold - I agree. But if you are an empiricist like I think myself, perhaps, you'd understand.

Its just a matter of directing efforts wisely. You would have to think of how to observe that awareness or subjective experience, in a scientific way. You have to wonder why your current tools don't suffice. Its not simply a matter of getting up and going to the lab to do science.

Exactly my point again. You'd only make assumptions that do nothing but lead to contention. However, as you said, these philosophies are no barrier to discovery. So if you wish, you may philosophize. But as I said in my previous post, philosophy at this point leads to conclusion before knowledge.

Until there is knowledge, philosophy should be at minimum.

Science does not understand consciousness. It needs philosophy, as it always does in times of doubt. It is even more pertinent in this case where we can see consciousness so clearly and science can't.

sinequanon:


Science is moving towards just this definition of "complex machinery". In order to do so it redefines the problem by focusing on "consciousness" instead of "awareness". Consciousness becomes the ability to resolve a flood of sensory signals into a coherent picture. The idea is that a camera is not conscious because it doesn't resolve the hundreds of thousands of pixels it processes, into a narrative, the way a human would. This cheat of redefining the problem allows scientists to pretend that they are getting closer to understanding consciousness by finding a central processing system in the brain. through which all sensory signals must pass.

True. Even if they find such a processing system we still wouldn't have the explanation for why the system has to be aware of what its doing. It certainly can't explain introspection. They just make like the awareness doesn't exist or is trivial and so it doesn't really figure in their explanations.

But "awareness" remains the "hard problem". Scientists can fool people about many things by impressing them with what they claim to be "results" of their theories, but convincing sufficiently smart people that their awareness is just complex mental processing isn't going to fly. We are not talking about the findings of some remote experiment, but an intimate aspect of our day to day lives. Only the dumbest folk will be convinced that they are mere machines, and people like Sam Harris are already working on such dumb folk to wipe clean the slate of their being.

I'm just waiting for them to start predicting thoughts. I guess if they dabbled into "awareness" they'd suddenly find themselves in psychology's position where people wonder if you are doing science. The mind is where reproducibility and predictability go to die. So they keep working around it, and some people take them seriously when it comes to consciousness.

undercat:


Your loss.



Its just a matter of directing efforts wisely. You would have to think of how to observe that awareness or subjective experience, in a scientific way. You have to wonder why your current tools don't suffice. Its not simply a matter of getting up and going to the lab to do science.



Science does not understand consciousness. It needs philosophy, as it always does in times of doubt. It is even more pertinent in this case where we can see consciousness so clearly and science can't.

Exactly what does philosophy and philosophers know about consciousness that is absolute?