Noetic "Science": NOT Closer To Truth

In recent weeks I have been watching YouTube videos from a PBS series called "Closer to Truth." The host, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, is a neuroscientist who is investigating ideas at (over?) the edges of science. One episode starkly shows the absurdity of giving credibility to pseudoscience horse pucky: the last speaker in this episode, Julia Mossbridge, is a proponent of Noetic Science. A reminder:

Epistemic Responsibility

With so much harmful magical thinking (ya, I know, that is redundant) in so many areas in our culture, the link below in an excellent presentation of intellectual or epistemic responsibility to oneself and to others. In other words, no, you cannot just believe anything you want.

Click on the link below:

The Responsibility We Have Regarding Our Beliefs

Origins And Anthropology

There probably isn't a normal human being who hasn't ask, "Where did we come from?" The following videos do an excellent job of explaining the probable history of how all life and humans began, and the history of human biological and cultural evolution. Oh, if you ask "Why?", that is a philosophical or religious question for which NO answer is justified no matter how intently apologists try to do so.

Where did life come from?

What was the ancestor of everything?

Why are we the only humans left?

Are we all related?

The Two People We're All Related To

From the fall of Dinos to the Rise of Humans

The Humans That Lived Before Us

When We First Walked

When humans were prey

When We Tamed Fire

When We Met Other Human Species

When we took over the world

Is Philosophy Stupid?

Richard Carrier presents a very interesting analysis of philosophy in this hour-long video. While he criticizes some scientists, notably Lawrence Kraus and Stephen Hawking here, for their opinion of philosophy, his comparison of philosophy with science AND the comparison of "good" philosophy with "pseudo" philosophy is enlightening.

Click below for the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ

Time Is Mysterious

Intuition/Common Sense break down not only in the findings within Quantum Mechanics but Time as well:

"What is Time? Tackle one of the greatest problems in all of science—the nature of time itself—in "Mysteries of Modern Physics: Time," a groundbreaking course by Dr. Sean Carroll, one of the foremost researchers in this field. In this second video from the 24-video series, Professor Carroll approaches time from a philosophical perspective. “Presentism” holds that the past and future are not real; only the present moment is real. However, the laws of physics appear to support “eternalism”—the view that all of the moments in the history of the universe are equally real."

Click on the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAScJvxCy2Y

Another Logical Syllogism Attempt Defending A God Debunked

Humanity has discovered and developed logical syllogisms as part of deductive proofs of reality. The results are certainly valid IF (and, it is a big one) ALL of the premises are true. All logical syllogisms I have seen in support of a God have at least one premise that is false or unsupported by evidence. Below is just one more attempt to support Christianity through this apologetic, and my comments in red debunking the appropriate statements:

Posted on September 29, 2010 by John Oakes wrote in Philosophy, The Existence of God, Theology.

A twelve-point outline of logical arguments for the existence of God.

When Truth Is Hijacked

Religious apologists expose their ignorance and denial of reality regularly. Unfortunately, the recipients of their promulgations are indoctrinated already so what happens is confirmation bias within a closed echo chamber.

This is a classic example of a very intelligent person who regularly displays the foibles of apologetics (link).

Ways Of Knowing

I was in an emotional discussion with a Catholic Apologist several days ago. (link) We were talking past each other regarding "ways of knowing." This article is one of the better ones I have read that clarifies the matter.

Obfuscation Exposed

Obfuscate: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing (link)

I was invited on Catholic apologist Trent Horn's podcast recently to follow up on an email I sent to him challenging his reliance on philosophy in support of his Catholic faith and to clarify the obligation that atheists have regarding truth claims. 

Trent focused on defending his use of philosophy by interrupting me frequently with non-pertinent questions. When I attempted to present the value of science he cut me short without essentially addressing what points I was able to make. He stated that we must think "really hard." If this failure to listen "really hard" to another point of view is any indication, he has a long way to go to an open, inquisitive mind.

Here is the podcast (link). What do you think? I think it was a typical apologetic obfuscation.

(Here is the link I mentioned in the podcast.)

Evidence That Philosophy And Psychology Have Their Pseudoscientists

"A new volume of papers on panpsychism edited by philosophers Godehard Bruntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla just appeared with Oxford University Press. It features paper by prominent philosophers David Chalmers, Galen Strawson and Brian McLaughlin, among many others. According to the traditional version of panpsychism, everything around you is conscious: the chair your are sitting on, the rock you use as a doorstopper at home and the thick hurricane-safe windows in your office. Panpsychism literally means that particular kinds of psychological states are embedded in everything. An alternative to the traditional view is the view that everything around you has a form of rudimentary consciousness."

Is There Consciousness in Everything?

More Post-Modern Philosophy Exposing Itself

"Is there objective knowledge about the world, or is everything equally “true”? Of course there’s objective knowledge, for if there wasn’t, we wouldn’t be able to make predictions that worked, cure diseases, or achieve any progress, practical or otherwise."

Is the idea of objective knowledge sexist? Is there a “woman’s way of knowing”?

Peter Singer And Ethics

Peter Singer is one of the most prominent moral philosophers, and a controversial figure on the subject of ethics.  While one may not fully agree with some of his positions, he will expand your mind on the subject, as he writes clearly and succinctly, with depth and consistency.  If one wishes to get a summary of his background and ethical ideas, this will help.

Peter Singer’s new books on ethics

A Perspective On Free Will From An Eminent Philosopher

"The big philosophical problem with free will, which has been highlighted repeatedly by Sam Harris, and here stressed by Searle, is this: we feel as if we are free agents, that we are in control of our decisions—but we’re not.  How can that be? Compatibilism simply doesn’t deal with that question, and Searle calls compatibilism (at 6:25) a 'copout.'"

John Searle on the persistent philosophical problem of free will

An Example Of A Philosopher Not Understanding Science

"Sadly, that is not what this article, by James Blachowicz—professor emeritus of philosophy at Loyola University here in Chicago—is about.  It’s about Blachowicz’s misguided claim that there is no scientific method that differs from the way an artist writes a poem, or the way a philosopher arrives at a definition of a term."

A philosopher argues that science is no more reliable than philosophy at finding truth
- - -

Wisdom From The Past

"As we can see in one country after another, the old order won’t give up without a fight. No old order does. But the caste-like privilege of white males is doomed. The challenge now before us is how best to realize newly available opportunities for human betterment, for the benefit of all. I can think of few more useful guides to that challenge than Keynes, Polanyi, and Tocqueville."

Which Thinkers Will Define Our Future?

Relativism

"Despite its popularity, and the fact that it can seem to be the only position able to promote tolerance and open-mindedness, relativism is actually a rather unattractive position and extremely difficult to defend."

‘That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me!’

Lawrence Krauss Clarifies Atheism, Science And Physics

There is much misunderstanding of atheism and atheists, especially by the religious.  Robert Wright, an atheist, but a critic of "New Atheism", provides a backstop for Lawrence Krauss' clear and succinct presentation of atheism, science and physics in this 90 min video. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson Shows He Can Think Unscientifically

The link below is evidence that even the best of scientific minds can fail to always use it. It's curious that Neil deGrasse Tyson fails to see that this statement is as scientifically wanting as a religious apologist using the Fine Tuning argument for the existence of God.  Why?  Because science deals in probabilities.  The probability ("very likely") stated in both cases, without knowing the "out of" (the denominator), cannot be determined.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ‘very likely’ the universe is a simulation 

The Value Of Philosophy

Anyone who has followed my writings for some time understands that I have problems with over-promotion of philosophy, especially if used to understanding reality.  However, I have always said that it is a good tool for organizing reason and logic.  This is a good example of its potential in this area.

Teaching kids philosophy makes them smarter in math and English.

Another Example Of A Philosopher Attempting To Be Relevent.

"Why are so many smart people such idiots about philosophy?"  Wrong question, it should be:  why are so many philosophers continuing to over-promote a discipline that did its work and now meaningful activity regarding reality is being carried out by one of its progeny?

Science guy vs. philosophy