Logical positivism and/or scientism?

If you read Fritjof Capra's "The Web o f Life" he argues the case that "science" is functional in terms of establishing limited degrees of control, but what we call "progress" often turns out to have unforeseen negative consequences. This supports the philosophical view that "scientism" cannot be the foundation for epistemology (theories of knowledge) unless we delimit "knowledge" to ephemeral functionality. And since "science" usually assumes that an observer is independent of its observations, philosophers often dismiss scientism as a form of naive realism which cannot account for second order issues like "the nature of observation".

Well, Roy, what other kinds of truth would you say the world needs, besides the scientific kind?

I'm not a fan of logical positivism, either, but that is only one potential philosophy of science. I would say a claim is "scientific" if it is a testable statement that has proved true time and again against multiple attempts to disprove it. Under that definition of what's "scientific" and what isn't in mind, are there any truths in your life that you rely on which you don't consider scientific? And what are they?

b y definition realities are all different all the time especially when relative to same one
then reality cannot b said objectively without makin a lot of confusions between different realities stuffs
that is why science is precious, what concern only objects there that noone mean nor that it is knowin being a reality of anything real

just free logics of pur objects perspectives out of being conscious only so wthout meanin particular thing

it is a kind of realisation to true existence

first only truth can exist, as the conscious right out of anything or nothing

then truth exist so everything and nothing is known wat it is

then truth existence is real by obvious freedom results of being true conscious

then true individual existence move freely as being real too

that is why what matter the most in values is conscious

being scientific is meant for being conscious too so not meanin the opposite to what u see, but also being clear to oneself too even if not sharin it for clarity to b alive by what is objectively seen same by anyone else realities conscious

Imagine the situation that civilized order would be in, in terms of holding itself together, and recovering from repressive primal traditions or spasms of madness (sexism, slavery, eugenics, Hitler, Stalin, etc) if it really had nothing more potent in its arsenal to defend an "ought" with than a scientist's or Weinberg's depthless "...because I say so." One shouldn't confuse incompetency in a particular area with such involving the spouting of a "truth", or paper over "every fact has to be a non-inferred concrete object or phenomenon, or derived from the latter" as being yet another dogma in turn. Physics wallows in an ample supply of inferred generalizations and abstract entities itself. Regardless of whether traditional veins of knowledge are interpreted as "actual" or "bovine defecation", the current scientific library wasn't around to assist humankind's initial rise to distinguish itself from the inherent behaviors of animals. And if all it possessed as an argument was "...because I say so", then no loss.

Steven Weinberg - "I must admit science isn't everything. It certainly isn't. There are things that are outside the scope of science and which are still terribly important to human beings. There is metaphysics of a sort that goes beyond the kind of learning processes I mentioned. But there is also aesthetics and morality. It seems to me that there's an unbridgeable gulf between statements with the word 'is' and statements with the word 'ought.' There is no way a scientist [science] can ever tell you how you ought to behave. It may tell you, if you have some fundamental moral principles, how you can satisfy them, how you can bring about what you take as a desired goal. But it can never tell you what your goals ought to be.

"There is a moral order. It is wrong to torture children. And the reason it is wrong to torture children is because I say so. And I don't mean much more than that. I mean that not only I say so, John [Polkinghorne] says so, probably most of us say so but it is not a moral order out there. It is something we impose and bully for us. And in this respect I think religion is no better. . . . I think that even those who believe in a god still have the responsibility to answer the question, "What is right?" And they have to answer it for themselves and, if they accept the morality provided by god, that is their choice, so that they, like the atheist scientist, have to make a free choice of moral behavior which is not dictated by a theory of the universe religious or scientific.

"..... If, in fact, there is out there built into the structure of the universe an objective meaning, an objective moral order, that would be really quite wonderful. And perhaps part of my passion about this arises from regret that it isn't true. But, if it isn't true, then surely it's better that we not kid ourselves into thinking that it is. It's better that we salvage what we can from at least the satisfaction of creating some meaning around us."

(Was the universe designed? Steven Weinberg and John Polkinghorne: An Exchange; Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science; www.counterbalance.net)

morality source is science

like what u said about ur morals to not kill children show how u r not a moral person at all bc u invent things

not killin elders is much more important then children who do not yet exist
while any adult is free conscious existence individually for sure and killin it is killin existence which is the crime wether by being existin or not it doesnt matter but killin true existence is surely the crime

u see in children ur ambitions as existence reason which is opposite to existence as facts realities so everything should deny urself existence right

1 - Why isn't my subjective experience infinitely different from yours ? Why can we coincide in many things so for instance that we can speak and address each other in a reasonable comprehensive manner ?
2 - Why do we have social agreement in a far greater order then social disagreement ?
3 - Why does my observation of who you are being while silently reading the lines you write down in this forum doesn't change who you are on your daily life and experience ? Given your line of reasoning "your" reality should be dependent on my observations...

...so Fresco, once more, either you can pragmatically address these simple questions in a reasonable tangible manner so that you can believe yourself while claiming what you claim, or I will keep continuously insisting on my doubts regarding the difference on what you claim you believe and believe believing and how you actually perform more or less conscientiously...either way your timeless obsession with these issue has prove always very entertaining, so I look forward to your condescending benevolent answer.

1. Common physiology and language.
2. Ditto
3. "I" don't have "reality" except as a functional node in the description of interactions. The continuity of "self" is dependent on the abstract continuity of the symbols "I" or "fresco". The "self" is a social/legal entity rather than an independent ontological one. It is as ephemeral as "the wave ridden by a surfer"

1 - My question was why is coincidentally such psychology common after all why isn't it infinitely divergent from person to person ?

2 - Doesn't agreement require the possibility of agreeing due to a common frame of reference ? or is it divine guess work ?

3 - Ephemeral or not can I change the experience of who you are being right now through my observation, do you believe in that or not and please answer tangibly. Saying that "you" don't exist is not an argument neither in favor or against either possible position regarding subjective or objective reality...the emergent contradiction being how do I construct something that does cannot exist...

...since you are not replying on a very simple battery of straightforward questions I am left wondering if I am speaking with a figment of my imagination, maybe I am...

My answers will never be satisfactory to you because you are looking for a substrate or "underlying system" from which to proceed. My argument is that such a system would only "exist in the mind of a god" (albeit some are keen to conceive of gods), and that we can never "conceive of it" since we are inextricable parts of such a system. The Fil which was evoked by this thread is an ephemeral product of this thread, the English language and its inter-fresco/ inter-others interactions. It is a passing wave interacting with other passing waves of common biological structure. Its cohesion is temporary...its concern with what it calls "coincidence" is temporary. Such concern is an intellectual pass-time which, unless directed at solving specific issues (of prediction and control) in this cosmically insignificant lifespan of humans*, has no more import than dancing (with itself or others).

Remember that (social)we have been playing with what we call "science" for no more than a few hundred years...and if the history of life on earth were a toilet roll, humans would occupy the last millimetre. No wonder speculation about "existence"often has the character of of pre-toilet tissue age, or is ignorant of the epistemological limits of "science".

Fresco in your very own belief system you have to invoke a subtract to criticize it...the point being you cannot claim an observer builds up reality and simultaneously state that the observer is not a thing...your are twisting words meaning there to save the day.

In turn I very well understand what you are trying to convey with " function is identity" if only to my view that does not conflict with the concept of an objective reality although it might seam so on a first glance...you see I distinguish function from subtract once no function can be established without a subtract...what I am saying is that functions depend on holistic systems and contextually vary from system to system although their self subtract, the subtract of any given particular function, might be the same.

Note that I am not claiming that a final subtract can ever be found as for all that I know it might itself be a cyclic pattern in an infinite self enclosed loop where FUNCTION is the only visible link cluing its phenomenal manifestation...think of a fractal for metaphor.