tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post1458265590917983025..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: An Echo, Not a ThoughtStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-59348862924296419992014-05-02T18:19:11.186-07:002014-05-02T18:19:11.186-07:00On the claim that college students are apparent pa...On the claim that college students are apparent passive receptacle for pseudoscientific ideas, I just can't see how things were ever any different? <br /><br />I'll take E.F. Schumacher's advice on individual maturity and skepticism with scientism disguised as science, and reductive science disguised as the whole truth. But how do we teach all of this? Learning how to take tests won't make people curious and look past the narratives, and if you do look, you'd better be ready for a lifetime of not knowing and that uncertainty real science brings.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed#The_tasks_of_man<br /><br />Schumacher notes that within philosophy there is no field in more disarray than ethics. He argues that this is because most ethical debate sidesteps any "prior clarification of the purpose of human life on the earth." Schumacher believes that ethics is the study of divergent problems; which require transcendence by the individual, not a new type of ethics to be adopted by all.<br /><br />He argues that there is an increasing recognition among individuals that many solutions to human problems must be made by individuals not by society, and cannot be solved by political solutions that rearrange the system. For Schumacher, the "modern attempt to live without religion has failed."<br /><br />He says that the tasks of an individual can be summed up as follows:<br />1.Learn from society and tradition.<br />2.Interiorize this knowledge, learn to think for yourself and become self-directed.<br />3.Grow beyond the narrow concerns of the ego.<br /><br />Man, he says, in the larger sense must learn again to subordinate the sciences of manipulation to the sciences of wisdom; a theme he further develops in his book Small is Beautiful.<br /><br />... <br />Schumacher was very much in favour of the scientific spirit; but felt that the dominant methodology within science, which he called materialistic scientism was flawed; and stood in the way of achieving knowledge in any other arena than inanimate nature. Schumacher believed that this flaw originated in the writings of Descartes and Francis Bacon, when modern science was first established.<br /><br />He makes a distinction between the descriptive and instructional sciences. According to Schumacher the descriptive sciences are primarily concerned with what can be seen or otherwise experienced, e.g. botany and sociology, while the instructional sciences are concerned with how certain systems work and can be manipulated to produce certain results, e.g. biology and chemistry. Instructional science is primarily based on evidence gained from experimentation.<br /><br />Materialistic scientism is based on the methodology of the instructional sciences, which developed to study and experiment with inanimate matter. According to Schumacher many philosophers of science fail to recognize the difference between descriptive and instructional science; or ascribe this difference to stages in the evolution of a specific science; which for these philosophers means that the instructional sciences are seen as being the most advanced variety of science.<br /><br />He is particularly offended by the view that instructional science is the most advanced form of science; because, for Schumacher, it is the study of the low hanging fruit of inanimate matter, or less metaphorically the study of the lowest and least complex level of being. As Schumacher sees it, knowledge gained about the higher levels of being, while far harder to get and far less certain, is all the more valuable.<br /><br />He argues that applying the standards and procedures of instructional science to descriptive sciences is erroneous, because in the descriptive fields it is simply not possible to use the experimental techniques of instructional sciences. Experimentation is a very effective methodology when dealing with inanimate matter; but applying it to the living world is liable to destroy or damage living things and systems, and is therefore inappropriate.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-21235850354535419102014-05-02T16:49:37.495-07:002014-05-02T16:49:37.495-07:00I couldn't make head nor tail of this essay. I...I couldn't make head nor tail of this essay. It seemed like someone grabbed a broom on a windy day and started sweeping, and leaves and dust flew around a while, but if you try to reach for something solid, there's nothing there.<br /><br />It's probably just me. I accept the important point - things are not right, religion has been downcast into the past, science has been elevated into religion, and we're all confused by a religion that has no moral code greater than I create my own reality.Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.com