I have floundered for a while failing to satisfactorily understand certain posters here and elsewhere, certain popular science writers and certain positions on world-view. For example, how it is that Henry Bemis can end up sounding like Sam Harris at times (sorry bud).

Floundering no more!

The following discussion of the scientific image and the manifest image, not in Dan Dennett terms but in terms of a preceding philosopher I hadn't even heard of, Wilfred Sellars, puts enough together for me to simply say voilá, there it is:

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-most-important-philosopher-you-never-heard-of/comment-page-1/#comments


The simple question of, now that I reject the ready-made world-view of LDSinc., what should my world-view be, --a question by the way that grows more complicated the more we learn from science and the non-LDSinc Manifest image--, was clarified enormously by this discussion. Many of the conversations on this board and the viewpoints of certain posters have been clarified. Truly an "ahhhh yes" moment.

Human

For context:

The Stanford entry on Sellars:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sellars/#Oth

The relevant paper from Sellars:

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf

Hmm.

Somewhat interesting, though I find some of his philosophical meanderings more than a bit silly.

I'm fascinated with what appears to me to be something of an obsession with "world views." That you seem to think we MUST have one, for example. From my admittedly poorly-informed viewpoint (of just reading your posts), it seems like you desperately want some ideology to go by. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the link, though.

Wrong to this extent: I'm certainly not seeking an ideology. In fact, I do all I can to NOT follow/accept any one ideology. That, to me, is a certain way into error.

I quite naturally take on the "stereoscopic" view Sellars describes and Dan Kaufman & Massimo Pigliucci discuss, but not as part of an ideology, and certainly not dogmatically. As I've said to you before, I'm an old-fashioned sceptic( not in the popular Shermer sense), no matter how my writing here may look. Being sceptical frees me to read, write and question things as I please rather than by program (ideology).

But yes, world-view is important to me, not the least because I think we all have one, whether examined or not, aware of one or not, want one or not.

ifi-, did you watch the whole video? I'm interested in knowing, specifically from you actually, what exactly do you mean by "philosophical meanderings" and how are they "more than a bit silly"?

This goes back to the Nagel question I asked you earlier. Unfortunately I was pulled away before seeing the thread, and consequently haven't been able to find it (RfM 'search' for some reason doesn't work on my iPhone or my 7 year old iMac).

Is Jesus on a piece of toast a manifest image?

Yep.

The scientific image of the toast is one of molecules which are the result of atoms which are the result of quarks and stuff like and etc, all mapped out mathematically and etc.

But none of that goes to the image of Jesus on a piece of toast. But, for that matter, the taste of eating Jesus's 'head", say, is not part of the scientific image, either.

Human:

I am a fellow flounderer. Leaving the faith forces many of us to ask questions that we would have never thought of, after living safely in the bubble.

It has forced me to question God, Jesus, the origins of life, etc. I have developed some leanings, but far from conclusions.

"I have floundered for a while failing to satisfactorily understand certain posters here and elsewhere, certain popular science writers and certain positions on world-view. For example, how it is that Henry Bemis can end up sounding like Sam Harris at times (sorry bud)."

COMMENT: This does not explain just what your dilemma is with respect to understanding such posters and writers, myself included. I can't speak for unidentified others, but as far as I know, I have been quite clear in my statements about worldview formation. If you have a problem understanding my position, and want a clarification, you have to articulate what the problem is. Otherwise, there can be no response. I don't even understand your supposed connection between what I have said and the views of Sam Harris.

_________________________________________

"Floundering no more!

The following discussion of the scientific image and the manifest image, not in Dan Dennett terms but in terms of a preceding philosopher I hadn't even heard of, Wilfred Sellars, puts enough together for me to simply say voilá, there it is:

The simple question of, now that I reject the ready-made world-view of LDSinc., what should my world-view be, --a question by the way that grows more complicated the more we learn from science and the non-LDSinc Manifest image--, was clarified enormously by this discussion. Many of the conversations on this board and the viewpoints of certain posters have been clarified. Truly an "ahhhh yes" moment."

COMMENT: "Floundering no more" (?) So, by conceptualizing worldview formation and evaluation by appeal to a rather simplistic dichotomy of "scientific image" vs. "manifest image" and declaring that they must somehow be "reconciled" something profound has been achieved? I don't get it. Please, please, articulate your "ahhhh yes" moment.

The problem is rendering the "manifest image" well-defined and rational; while controlling its allowance of irrational excesses. Science, however incomplete, does that rather naturally. If the manifest image is a blank check for human imagination; where rational grounding doesn't matter, then what is the point of the rational scientific image? The manifest image can simply ignore the scientific image whenever it is convenient to justify some favorable worldview belief. I am not saying that the manifest image is not important, or that it cannot reveal important truths. All I am saying, or ever said, is that it must be filtered through a scientific worldview that controls metaphysical excesses. Science is not a straight-jacketing dogmatic limitation of the manifest image, but merely a tempering influence.

So you are left with the same reconciliation problem: How and by what principles does the rational, scientific image, trump or at least temper the intuitively appealing and human based dictates of the manifest image. I don't see how Sellers' view sheds any light on this issue. In fact, this strikes me as a classic case where philosophy (or psychology) invents intuitively appealing explanatory concepts that on the surface appear profound, but turn out to be logically suspect, pragmatically impotent, and often grossly misleading. One may *feel* enlightened, but it is entirely unclear just what the substance of the enlightenment is, and what it means about the way the world really is.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: This does not explain just what your
> dilemma is with respect to understanding such
> posters and writers, myself included. I can't
> speak for unidentified others, but as far as I
> know, I have been quite clear in my statements
> about worldview formation. If you have a problem
> understanding my position, and want a
> clarification, you have to articulate what the
> problem is. Otherwise, there can be no response.
> I don't even understand your supposed connection
> between what I have said and the views of Sam
> Harris.

Yep, fair. The linked-to video and paper will give pretty obvious hints etc; but right, I didn't say anything explicit. Also note, I didn't say anything about experiencing a "dilemma" either.



> COMMENT: "Floundering no more" (?) So, by
> conceptualizing worldview formation and evaluation
> by appeal to a rather simplistic dichotomy of
> "scientific image" vs. "manifest image" and
> declaring that they must somehow be "reconciled"
> something profound has been achieved? I don't get
> it. Please, please, articulate your "ahhhh yes"
> moment.

I'm a "flounderer", yes, in the same sense rebeljamesdean understood.

Please note that I didn't appeal to "a rather simplistic dichotomy" but to the ensuing discussion around that dichotomy, and specifically to the discussion between a philosopher and a philosopher/scientist. That may seem a trivial point, but it's the discussion and not the "dichotomy" that provided the aha!

To push further on this, just to be clear, I also didn't say anything about something being "reconciled", which you put in quotes for perhaps other reasons? And finally, I didn't say that something "profound" has been "achieved". I spoke only of "clarification", which amounted to an "aha" moment, and then pointed to the discussion and the paper that provided the clarification.

Did you watch the discussion? Did you read the paper?

I will attempt to explain the "aha" later.



> The problem is rendering the "manifest image"
> well-defined and rational; while controlling its
> allowance of irrational excesses. Science,
> however incomplete, does that rather naturally. If
> the manifest image is a blank check for human
> imagination; where rational grounding doesn't
> matter, then what is the point of the rational
> scientific image? The manifest image can simply
> ignore the scientific image whenever it is
> convenient to justify some favorable worldview
> belief. I am not saying that the manifest image
> is not important, or that it cannot reveal
> important truths. All I am saying, or ever said,
> is that it must be filtered through a scientific
> worldview that controls metaphysical excesses.
> Science is not a straight-jacketing dogmatic
> limitation of the manifest image, but merely a
> tempering influence.

I ask if you had seen the discussion because the above is a very confused use of the terms scientific and manifest images as they were discussed and as they were used by Sellars. I will attempt to untangle your points in a bit, though.



> So you are left with the same reconciliation
> problem: How and by what principles does the
> rational, scientific image, trump or at least
> temper the intuitively appealing and human based
> dictates of the manifest image. I don't see how
> Sellers' view sheds any light on this issue. In
> fact, this strikes me as a classic case where
> philosophy (or psychology) invents intuitively
> appealing explanatory concepts that on the surface
> appear profound, but turn out to be logically
> suspect, pragmatically impotent, and often grossly
> misleading. One may *feel* enlightened, but it is
> entirely unclear just what the substance of the
> enlightenment is, and what it means about the way
> the world really is.

I'd enjoy reading what you think Sellars's view is here, for example what you find wanting in his idea of a "stereoscopic" view. Also, what exactly is "logically suspect" and "pragmatically impotent" and "grossly misleading" about the way in which Sellar's presents the two images and/or how Dan Kaufman & Massimo Pigliucci discuss the ideas. As far as the pragmatic use of Sellars's ideas, it would seem Kaufman and Pigliucci at least found them very useful, full of explanatory power and not at all misleading let alone "grossly" misleading. I'd love to know what you think Kaufman and Pigliucci (and myself) are missing here.

From what you write, there is some confusion with how the concepts of a manifest and a scientific image are used by Sellars and during the Kaufman/Pigliucci discussion.

I'll attempt to be more explicit in another post.

Thanks for your interest, Henry.

Yep, fair. The linked-to video and paper will give pretty obvious hints etc; but right, I didn't say anything explicit. Also note, I didn't say anything about experiencing a "dilemma" either.

COMMENT: Do you expect readers to spend a couple of hours processing your links in order to arrive at what *may* be your point? We need a brief synopsis of Sellers' thesis tied to an articulated point! You need to convince the reader that the links are worth the effort. (At least that is how I see it.)

I did not watch the video, but I did read the Sellers link in full, which reminded me of my reading of the entire book as a graduate student many years ago.
____________________________________

Please note that I didn't appeal to "a rather simplistic dichotomy" but to the ensuing discussion around that dichotomy, and specifically to the discussion between a philosopher and a philosopher/scientist. That may seem a trivial point, but it's the discussion and not the "dichotomy" that provided the aha!

COMMENT: Fine, but again, what was the point of the discussion? What generated the aha moment, and what insight did it reveal to you? You never explain.

_______________________________________

To push further on this, just to be clear, I also didn't say anything about something being "reconciled", which you put in quotes for perhaps other reasons? And finally, I didn't say that something "profound" has been "achieved". I spoke only of "clarification", which amounted to an "aha" moment, and then pointed to the discussion and the paper that provided the clarification.

COMMENT: Your post began with a stated confusion about certain positions on worldviews. Worldviews encompass a set of beliefs, or belief-commitments, that motivate one's outlook on life, and one's related actions. So, I read the Sellers essay looking for some pragmatic insight to worldview formation, maintenance, or evaluation. That is how you set up the post. In short, how did Sellers, or the discussion "clarify" your understanding of various approaches to worldviews.
____________________________

Did you watch the discussion? Did you read the paper?
I will attempt to explain the "aha" later.

COMMENT: Again, I only read the paper. If the discussion somehow linked Sellers' use of the so-called scientific and manifest images to worldviews, you need to explain. Then, you might generate interest in the video. (Again, speaking for myself.)
____________________________

I ask if you had seen the discussion because the above is a very confused use of the terms scientific and manifest images as they were discussed and as they were used by Sellars. I will attempt to untangle your points in a bit, though.

COMMENT: I gave you the benefit of the doubt in trying to interpret Sellers in a context of worldviews! He, of course, was not talking about worldviews per se, but rather "perspectives." Thus, "the unity of a reflective vision, where "the most appropriate analogy is stereoscopic vision where two differing perspectives on a landscape are fused into one coherent experience." The manifest image is centered around the pre-scientific, human-based, "man-in-the-world" perspective (i.e. first person, subjective, intuitive perspective). Otherwise, the essay is, in my view, largely confused, and philosophically obscure. (Not just my view), and thus subject to interpretation. So, give us your interpretation, or at least what the philosophical discussion you rely upon has to say about this.

_____________________________________

I'd enjoy reading what you think Sellars's view is here, for example what you find wanting in his idea of a "stereoscopic" view. Also, what exactly is "logically suspect" and "pragmatically impotent" and "grossly misleading" about the way in which Sellar's presents the two images and/or how Dan Kaufman & Massimo Pigliucci discuss the ideas.

COMMENT: What I find wanting is his simplistic philosophical or psychological perspectives as related to human experience; perspectives that are solely conceptual, without ontological commitments. Surely, Sellers' perspectives are interesting. But what is at bottom that might be helpful in informing worldview formation or evaluation. How do these perspectives service each other in a pragmatic way, other than just creating an "aha moment" that apparently cannot be articulated.
_____________________________________

As far as the pragmatic use of Sellars's ideas, it would seem Kaufman and Pigliucci at least found them very useful, full of explanatory power and not at all misleading let alone "grossly" misleading. I'd love to know what you think Kaufman and Pigliucci (and myself) are missing here.

COMMENT: But you did not tell us how they found Sellers' ideas useful, or full of explanatory power. In fact, you told us nothing about their interpretation or understanding of Sellers. You tell me what they said, what their position or point is, and then I can comment; and maybe if intrigued, I will watch the hour-long video.
______________________________________

From what you write, there is some confusion with how the concepts of a manifest and a scientific image are used by Sellars and during the Kaufman/Pigliucci discussion.

COMMENT: I am not confused about Sellers' essay, except when his prose is genuinely obscure and confusing. I have been reading philosophy for 40 years. It often shifts from the logic of critical argument to artful obscurity, leaving the reader to figure out just what the philosopher intended, or what it might subjectively mean to the reader. In most such cases you are left with very little substantive insight that is enlightening or useful as a genuine reflection of the actual world. However, I remain always open, and even when philosophy succumbs to these difficulties, like art, it can often be stimulating personally, and convey information personally. The distinction is in the articulation. And I think that in a post like this--if you want participation and appreciation-- you need to supply the articulation, and not leave us "floundering" as to just what you point is.
_____________________________________

I'll attempt to be more explicit in another post.

COMMENT: You have said something like this to me on several occasions, but there rarely is a forthcoming post. If your idea is worth posting--and I no doubt believe it is--then give us some meat in the beginning. :)

COMMENT: Do you expect readers to spend a couple of hours processing your links in order to arrive at what *may* be your point? We need a brief synopsis of Sellers' thesis tied to an articulated point! You need to convince the reader that the links are worth the effort. (At least that is how I see it.)


No, I don’t expect any such thing.

My point? I wasn’t making a “point”, or an argument or anything of the kind. This is what I meant before about your professional training and career as a lawyer necessarily colouring how you read (and perhaps your expectations).

My OP is simple sharing. In fact, my first impulse after viewing the video and skimming Sellars was simply to say, “hey, Bemis, check this out”.

My expectations from RfM readers? Are you kidding? I assume I haven’t any readers, nor have I attempted to garner any. I have zero expectations from RfM and its readers. Apparently you expect a lot.

I rarely trouble myself to convince anyone of anything here, including you. Am I lazy? Yes, but that is beside the point.



COMMENT: You have said something like this to me on several occasions [write something more explicit], but there rarely is a forthcoming post.


You’re right. Someone else here called me out on this.

Gonna think about this today. I feel as though I've been rude. Perhaps I am too solipsistic here on RfM, breach too many points of basic etiquette etc. and should reconsider posting. Heck, I barely take the trouble to write coherently anymore. Ya, I am being rude.

(But I will snatch time to read RfM here and there.)

In any event, happy Easter.

Cheers,

Human

"My point? I wasn’t making a “point”, or an argument or anything of the kind."

COMMENT: But you *were* making a point. The point was, "Check this out, I FOUND IT INTERESTING AND INSIGHTFUL." It was that personal point that drew me to the post. Frankly, with millions of website links and videos, I don't give a s**t about what two obscure philosophers think of Sellers. But I *do* care about what YOU think is insightful and relevant as related to worldviews, and other issues we have discussed. If that involves some essay or link, fine. But without your commentary, I really am not interested. Your insights and views compliment and inform my own very limited perspective, which is entirely why I tune in.
_________________________________

My OP is simple sharing. In fact, my first impulse after viewing the video and skimming Sellars was simply to say, “hey, Bemis, check this out”.

COMMENT: O.K. But, again, "sharing" does not come in a vacuum of personal interest and perceived importance; particularly when it is accompanied by a declaration stating that the shared reference was the source of enlightenment. ("ahhhh, yes!")
_________________________________

"My expectations from RfM readers? Are you kidding? I assume I haven’t any readers, nor have I attempted to garner any. I have zero expectations from RfM and its readers. Apparently you expect a lot."

COMMENT: Well, I know you have one very interested reader, which is probably the same number I have. And, I do have an expectation--if when you say or intend, "Hey, Bemis check this out," you mean, "Hey Bemis, what do you think of this?" If you only mean the former, it is unlikely I will check it out. If you mean the latter, then I expect some preparatory effort on your part to set up the "this is interesting and important" aspect of your post. But, again, that is just me. If you don't want to do that, that's O.K. I just feel that if a dialogue is intended, it should be two way.
___________________________________

I rarely trouble myself to convince anyone of anything here, including you. Am I lazy? Yes, but that is beside the point.

COMMENT: Sorry, I don't buy it. I read your posts religiously (and not just on Easter!) You often articulate a very specific and pointed view, which is well crafted, informative and logical; whether I happen to agree with it or not. Maybe you are not as dogmatic in your presentation as I am (to your credit), and are not trying to strictly convince anyone, but I have no doubt you have a position to defend--and you defend it very well.
____________________________________

Gonna think about this today. I feel as though I've been rude. Perhaps I am too solipsistic here on RfM, breach too many points of basic etiquette etc. and should reconsider posting. Heck, I barely take the trouble to write coherently anymore. Ya, I am being rude.

COMMENT: Rude is not the word I would use. You have a life, you have time limitations, etc., just like we all do. You do what you can do. I get that. Just know that I personally am disappointed when your posts are offered solely as a casual, "check this out" invitation instead of offering a substantive opinion as to why you found what is shared to be important and interesting.

Finally, note your response to Cinda, below. Even that limited response went a long way toward uniting Sellers' essay with worldviews. If I could just tease out a couple more paragraphs it would be great. Notice that Sellers expressly states that the manifest image should not be taken uncritically, or at the dismissal of the scientific image. How, might (or should) these diverse images be integrated on a practical level of belief formation and action? When should one take precedent over the other? Is it all just intuition? Can any logical points be made that go beyond Sellers' dichotomy?

With much respect, appreciation, and many years of valued Rfm friendship,

HB

Thank you, Henry. If I had a point, you found it.


I agree with you, and I would use the word "rude". I owe more to a post than what I posted. As grateful as I am that you find my writing well enough to be articulate, I assure you it is lately all one-off sitting on the crapper stuff. Essentially, if I can't get a post off with my thumb on the fly, with at best a looksie-over for spelling & grammar, then I don't get a post off; then it's back to IRL demands.

I use to explicate, and that carefully. But when I think about it, it has been literally years since I crafted my posts (here and elsewhere). If I'm articulate now, it is only a lucky residue lingering from days when I tried. --Honestly, I don't deserve your dedication. On that, know that I'm the same, seeking out your posts first.


Yes, Sellars like myself and most everyone else thinks the manifest image must not be taken uncritically. In fact, there is far far far more criticism of the manifest image than there is of the scientific image. For one, while everyone participates within the manifest image only a few, as if selected by nature, may properly participate in the scientific image. There's no end of moralizing, propagandizing, criticizing, and just generally discussing and sharing and arguing about exactly what we see within the manifest image, and what we don't see and what we should see. Every artifact of representation of the manifest image, every movie book song picture building structure, in a word Art, is subject to our critical faculty, and we quite rightly and profusely voice our criticism. Every act by another human being, let alone ourselves, crossing a street kicking a dog kissing your mother dropping bombs feeding the poor and housing the rich comes under our scrutiny. All this and almost everything else is within the manifest image. My goodness, none of this escapes scrutiny.

A fella going along within this manifest image, explained as an "illusion" by the likes of Dennett, say, (for it take consciousness to observe the manifest image AND the scientific image), will come along stuff that tells the fella about another image, the scientific image. Sellars makes a point of emphasizing that THAT image is first inescapably part of the manifest image, comes from the point of view of the image, and actually cannot be what it claims to be, a disembodied, view from nowhere image of the actual truth of things. That was refreshing, wasn't it? To read that, written in the 60s (I think).

So no, Sellars doesn't think the manifest image should go by uncritically, but nor does anybody, and it isn't even possible.

So what about this "dismissal" of the scientific image? Nobody really does that, either. Most don't understand a word of it, of course. This is purely human. Given the Bell Curve, only 10% of us will really have a chance to grasp it for ourselves (it takes math and a lot of it to do so). Sure, we can read the popular science books, telling us this and that in terms and metaphors that we can understand, but that project is squarely in and in the language of the manifest image. There's no way around it.

So, what of the percentage of people within the 10% who have real access to the scientific image, what should they do with it vis-a-vis a worldview, say?

That's where Sellars is useful, his idea of the "stereoscopic view". NEITHER view should subordinate the other. Rather, both views can be held up as valid in and at the same time. Of course there is ignorance to overcome. There was once an ignorance, to use the cliché's most invoked around this kind of talk, about how the sun and earth are related to one another. So, the sun isn't going around us, big deal. What is that fact to the fella and his mate turning over the furrow in 1617 to 2017? Not much. The sun looked the same as it came up over the East back then as it did this morning. We today simply have a different story in our head about the movement of the sun and the earth than they did back then. Let's argue about these turnips...

So yes, there are ignorances to be corrected. But let's take an extreme view of reversing the normal state of things, as beings living in the manifest image, ineluctably since, unlike the scientific image, it cannot be avoided. Dennett as philosopher, say, is operating within the manifest image, as a philosopher (it was interesting just how much Sellars placed within the manifest image over the scientific image). He decides that findings from the scientific image demonstrates that consciousness itself is an illusion. Does he *live* as if it's an illusion? Of course not, nor could he. Sam Harris, say, decides that the scientific image demonstrates that there is no free will. Does he *live* as if there's no free will? Of course not. They cannot help but keep the two images apart, and they view the two images stereoscopically. One does not trump the other, nor needs to. Isn't that Sellars point?


The Manifest Image is how things are, to us. The Scientific Image is how things *really* are, from a view from nowhere. That *really* is a pretense, though, for there is no view from nowhere. I champion anyone that demonstrates this, because today it seems too easy to forget.


Okay, so that is more along the lines I'd write with my thumb sitting on the crapper. Usually, if I go along this way, I don't post. Usually, *knowing* that it would go along this way forestalls me even using my thumb to push the letters on the glass screen. But today I will post this, as thanks for our friendship.

Mind you, Henry, You deserve far more than my thumb and a stream of consciousness from the crapper! Far more my friend. What you deserve, quite obviously, is my going home and taking apart the Sellars paper in a notation notebook and sifting through his argument; then explicating that argument in a post and finally delineating my own critical point of view. That is what you deserve. That is what you want. That is what I wish I could give. But that is exactly what is difficult for me to do, for a variety of reasons.

Instead, I must against better judgment push "Post Message" below and move on again to the demands of this clanking ongoing nonsense we call "life".

Cheers from somewhere manifest, believe me,

HUman

A fella going along within this manifest image, explained as an "illusion" by the likes of Dennett, say, (for it take consciousness to observe the manifest image AND the scientific image), will come along stuff that tells the fella about another image, the scientific image. Sellars makes a point of emphasizing that THAT image is first inescapably part of the manifest image, comes from the point of view of the image, and actually cannot be what it claims to be, a disembodied, view from nowhere image of the actual truth of things. That was refreshing, wasn't it? To read that, written in the 60s (I think).

COMMENT: Yes, indeed! Even now, we do not see this recognition often enough. To spell it out for others (assuming there might be someone else 'listening'), the point is that science (and scientists generally) traditionally views itself as detached from the subjective, human, dictates and propensities of what Sellers calls the manifest image, not realizing that science itself cannot escape it. Just like every other human endeavor, it is ultimately subjectively based. When one studies the history of science, you see this very clearly through the interactions between scientists as they vie for attention and notoriety. And, as you point out, when Dennett (or other philosophers) decide that to reconcile consciousness with science they have to minimize the importance of consciousness, sometimes to the point of calling it an illusion, they thereby also minimize science, the very thing they are trying to elevate.
_____________________________________________

So no, Sellars doesn't think the manifest image should go by uncritically, but nor does anybody, and it isn't even possible.

COMMENT: Right. In fact, Sellers at times seems O.K. to apply the scientific image as a check on the manifest image. But, we might ask, why? The only answer, really, is that it has produced (1) psychological objectivity; i.e. general empirical agreement; and (2) it has produced clear technological results. It hasn't told us anything "objective" about the reality underlying these images.
_____________________________________________

So what about this "dismissal" of the scientific image? Nobody really does that, either. Most don't understand a word of it, of course. This is purely human. Given the Bell Curve, only 10% of us will really have a chance to grasp it for ourselves (it takes math and a lot of it to do so). Sure, we can read the popular science books, telling us this and that in terms and metaphors that we can understand, but that project is squarely in and in the language of the manifest image. There's no way around it.

COMMENT: Well, science cannot hide behind mathematics. Mathematics as applied to physics is nothing more that the relationship of various empirically established quantities, and theories about such relationships. That alone does not meet ontology, i.e. it does not tell us what is in the real world. For that, we need concepts that transcend the mathematics, and (heaven forbid) metaphysics. Thus, the mathematics of relativity, does not tell us what "spacetime" is. The mathematics of quantum field theory does not tell us what the underlying fields are or mean. For that we need concepts of "fields," "particles," "energy," etc.

As for myself, I do not *do* mathematics. But, I do understand how mathematical equations apply to the empirical world, and how a mathematical model "fits" into a conceptual theory. Note, that no science textbook contains nothing but mathematics. They all have text, and usually a lot of it. Why, because nothing really gets explained without it; i.e. without concepts.

Also, although no one "dismisses" the scientific image, some have seen it for what it is, without losing respect for it. I note in particular the writings of Paul Feyerabend, "The Tyranny of Science" and "Against Method." Note also, Thomas Kuhn's famous critique of the scientific method. Finally, I also note the occasional push back against scientific materialism by some prominent scientists.
________________________________________

So, what of the percentage of people within the 10% who have real access to the scientific image, what should they do with it vis-a-vis a worldview, say?

COMMENT: Well, first and foremost, they should not lose the perspective of the manifest image. Second, they should understand the dependency that the scientific image has on the manifest image. We see many, many cases were the dominance of the scientific perspective has eschewed one's worldview.

In fact, scientists themselves are so specialized in their expertise, you are really talking about a small percentage of scientists who I would say have a handle on the "scientific image" in this philosophical sense. You really need a background in theoretical science (not just applied science), and a good understanding of philosophy and logic. Few scientists have this. But, remember, worldview formation is entirely personal; i.e. we take what we have. Your background in literature and the arts, say, is not per se inferior to science when it comes to worldview formation. It is a matter, I think, of constantly trying to inform our perspective through a broad range of knowledge and experience; the scientist just as much as the artist.
______________________________________

That's where Sellars is useful, his idea of the "stereoscopic view". NEITHER view should subordinate the other. Rather, both views can be held up as valid in and at the same time. Of course there is ignorance to overcome. There was once an ignorance, to use the cliché's most invoked around this kind of talk, about how the sun and earth are related to one another. So, the sun isn't going around us, big deal. What is that fact to the fella and his mate turning over the furrow in 1617 to 2017? Not much. The sun looked the same as it came up over the East back then as it did this morning. We today simply have a different story in our head about the movement of the sun and the earth than they did back then. Let's argue about these turnips...

COMMENT: Well, I would personally qualify this a bit, as I noted in a prior post. Science, by its nature, offers logical checks and balances to the manifest image, preventing it from getting too detached from reason. But, then, the manifest image checks science by reminding it that humanity and the subjective are always first and foremost at the bottom of any human endeavor. How all of this is to be spelled out, of course, is difficult, except with a broad brush.
__________________________________

So yes, there are ignorances to be corrected. But let's take an extreme view of reversing the normal state of things, as beings living in the manifest image, ineluctably since, unlike the scientific image, it cannot be avoided. Dennett as philosopher, say, is operating within the manifest image, as a philosopher (it was interesting just how much Sellars placed within the manifest image over the scientific image). He decides that findings from the scientific image demonstrates that consciousness itself is an illusion. Does he *live* as if it's an illusion? Of course not, nor could he. Sam Harris, say, decides that the scientific image demonstrates that there is no free will. Does he *live* as if there's no free will? Of course not. They cannot help but keep the two images apart, and they view the two images stereoscopically. One does not trump the other, nor needs to. Isn't that Sellars point?

COMMENT: Completely agree. See above comments.
_______________________________________

The Manifest Image is how things are, to us. The Scientific Image is how things *really* are, from a view from nowhere. That *really* is a pretense, though, for there is no view from nowhere. I champion anyone that demonstrates this, because today it seems too easy to forget.

COMMENT: Exactly. I am reminded of Thomas Nagel's book, "The View from Nowhere" which makes this point.

_________________________________

Thank you taking the time to provide that response. There are so many issues and questions raised by this post. That is why I pressed you a bit for more.

By the way, you have access to my contact information. Feel free to call or email me anytime if you want to discuss anything on a more private, personal level.

Now, take a break!

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> By the way, you have access to my contact
> information. Feel free to call or email me anytime
> if you want to discuss anything on a more private,
> personal level.

I do? How do I have this?

But now that you've put that out, please do not feel personally offended in any way if I don't reach out. Let me explain:

I've been on-line since '95, posting on various boards like this one. (I especially like how EricK has kept this one retro and text based.) I've taken up email exchanges in the past, even from here, from some extremely intelligent and intellectual people (people like you). Quite simply, I can't keep up. I always fail to keep up my end, and I feel badly afterwards.

I'm a slow reader and an even slower writer, which is why I've allowed myself the freedom to write uncorrected stream-of-conciousness or nothing. This allows me to keep posting here and elsewhere, when and only when the mood strikes. Even registering my moniker here would impede my freedom, since registration allows for edits. I feel more free allowing my incidental mistakes, in writing and in thought, to go by sans the ability to edit. When I committed myself to this stance, it use to irk me to no end when I couldn't correct a stupid error, but I knew it would irk me even more if I had access to an edit button.

Having said that, there is one context that I may reach out, and that is if I was in your vicinity. I must confess, which goes to show how much you are a presence in my thoughts, that recently we were in Utah and Vegas, and I was bedeviled with trying to fit in a few days to drive the 8 hours to S. Cal. to maybe see you. Couldn't do it. And weirdly, on my part, I posted here anonymously for help finding a bloody bottle of Prosecco in St. George! Mormon country or not, Jesus that was a far more difficult task than it should be, if we are to believe ourselves living in a civilized society. My goodness.

Anyway, point me to that contact info, if you will. I'll leave you with mine should you ever desire to see what real mountains look like (as in the Canadian Rockies). Oh how the locals went on about 7 people dying along Angel's Landing in Zion Park! So funny.

Cheers,

Human

By the way, per your comments, the manifest image has logic and reason enough to check itself without having to necessarily go to science. Part of the problem with today's scientism is using science or the pose of science to answer everyday manifest images questions. Seriously, there are headlines out there not far away from this: Science Demonstrates Why Trump Voters Are Dummies

Think about it: Name, City, Occupation. Plus, Google!

That said, it was only an offer. (One rarely extended.) Thus, no pressure; and no offense if you pass. In any event, I view informal email correspondence the same way I view RfM participation; completely optional and completely free of response pressure.

I have always wanted to visit scenic Canada. Several years ago, we almost went to Calgary to visit the McCues but it didn't work out. I am afraid with the current U.S. situation, I might be tempted lay down roots. But, on second thought, it is a bit chilly up there for this ole SoCal guy.

That reminds me. I have also wanted to go to Toronto to have a little chat with Gould. I think, however, that such a visit would be a bit one-sided. It would make for a good photo opp though.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gould+bench+toronto&qpvt=gould+bench+toronto&qpvt=gould+bench+toronto&qpvt=gould+bench+toronto&FORM=IGRE

___________________________________________

"Seriously, there are headlines out there not far away from this: Science Demonstrates Why Trump Voters Are Dummies"

COMMENT: Really? They needed science for that? :)

Well My goodness, you have a look similar to Gould's! I was expecting a look more along the lines of Be.rnie Sand.ers. Kinda plays with how I read your posts.

Was gonna hit you up for money when I first googled, thinking you were the founder of the other huge, multistate law firm sharing your name. But to my pleasure, I find instead you're just another good, honest labourer like myself.


Pity you couldn't hook up with Bob. You two would have had an excellent conversation together. I once walked along the river with him for six hours, talking non-stop. He's a good talker, thorough like yourself. Pity that trip didn't work out for you.

Oh, and don't be too sure about Gould not talking back. I honestly don't completely dismiss Antique ideas about daemons or genius loci embodying sculptures.

I have a bust of Dante in my library, and I swear to god, at night, with a few candles lit, I feel It's eyes on me, judging me.

Gould was shy, though. His genius may very well have said, "thank you for the statue but no thanks. I'm happy enough spreading myself thin over Lake Simcoe."

This, I am not understanding:



> I am not saying that the manifest image
> is not important, or that it cannot reveal
> important truths

Can you give me an example of a manifest image that reveals important truths? Thanks :)

cinda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This, I am not understanding:
>
>
>
> > I am not saying that the manifest image
> > is not important, or that it cannot reveal
> > important truths
>
> Can you give me an example of a manifest image
> that reveals important truths? Thanks :)

Properly speaking, in context with the way it is used in the OP, it is "the" manifest image and "the" scientific image, not "a".

An important truth that exists in the manifest image, for example, would be that it is wrong to torture animals. The scientific image has nothing to say about that. A cat is a dog is a horse is a pig is a person is also only molecules and atoms and fermions and bosons and so on from the point of view of the scientific image, all of which to be scaled alongside the size of the solar system and galaxy and the universe itself.

Would you two just get a room. ;)

HH =)