Proposal for a future episode of Psychonautica

[psygnisfive]

Max:

I think you should have a guest on to debate opposing views on the topic of psychedelic experiences, epistemology, and science. I think it was very interesting to hear a proper debate of an issue (the psychedelics vs. meditation debate), and I think having more debate-like topics would benefit the psychedelics community greatly, harkening back to McKenna's appreciation for the debates he had.

[max_freakout]

psychedelic experiences, epistemology, and science

That is an awesome thing to talk about thanx for that

i spoke a bit about psychedelics and inductive reasoning on a recent podcast which is a very similar issue, especially since Mckenna's main critisism of scientific methodology was its unquestioning reliance on "the fallacy of inductivism"

Psychedelics taught me very forcefully that i dont know anything (even more extreme, everything i ever knew is wrong), and Socrates proclaimed 'the wise man knows that he knows nothing' having been a participant in the eleusinian entheogenic ritual

[psygnisfive]

I take issue with the notion that science is guilty of the inductive fallacy. In my experience with science, and the philosophy of science, which I take from Popper, who was adamently against inductive logic, science is not in essence inductive.

The only situations I know of where inductive, statistical reasoning is used is in situations where the situation works well for statistical accounts, e.g. thermodynamics, quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics, noone claims, is actually statistical, since its accepted that the underlying causes of thermodynamics is normal newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics, tho, has an element of controvery to it: some theoreticians believe that the randomness of quantum mechanics is fundamental, others believe that it's merely the manifestation of some underlying wholly causal and deterministic law that we simply don't grasp yet.

But outside of quantum mechanics, I know of noone who proposes that any branch of science is, ultimately, purely statistical. They only use statistical analyses for the say of convenience because more adequate causal theories are untenable at the time.

So I reject the notion that science even uses induction at all as a fundamental part of its explanatory mechanism.

[Szifers]

Inductive reasoning is not unique to statisctical scientific results. It's not about the result but about the way you get there. Newtonian mechanics is also based on the epistemological premise that things are basically always all the same. If you drop an apple from one meter over and over, and you measure the time it takes to fall down, you can avarage the results and conclude that it takes that much time for an apple to fall down. You define the initial conditions, and you can say that the results will always be the same, without ever measuring that exact result. This methodology is practical for describing processes that are so simple that you can trick yourself into the illusion of restoring the initial conditions. The problem is when someone tries to make epistemology of this practical methodology. Because the really interesting things are not that simple. Only synthetic artificial human constructions are that simple. If you're not dropping an apple but a solid copper sphere of one kilogramm, you can approximate the ideal "restored initial conditions". But only because you are not investigating nature, you are investigating your own artificial construct that can bear the illusion of permanency. Apples are all different. Nature is always changing.

[psygnisfive]

No, Newtonian mechanics is not based on any assumptions, it's a description of observed behavior that was held to be potentially accurate, and when contradictory observations were made it was reformulated. This is a perfect example of the fact that science is NOT inductive, in that science intentionally goes out and tries to prove that a theory is incorrect.

Furthermore, the practice of constructing artificial scenarios is important, because you have to attend to the world on it's terms as a construct of multiple simultaneously affective forces. It's not a fallacy to look at _just_ falling, ignoring the small-scale inconsistencies, because those come from something _other_ than gravity, and you're not trying to model anything other than gravity.

This is merely a tool, not a fallacy, because those other things _are_ attended to, just not simultaneously. If you have a theory that attends to everything simultaneously,without introducing concepts like drag, etc., and holds up just as well as the multiple theory approach, then that's just as valid and no serious science community would reject it, because it's a _good_ _theory_. The problem is that it's nigh impossible to attend to everything at once, atleast right now. The future may require a complete rethinking of the composite approach, but that approach will _still_ being science. It's just a different, harder kind of science.

[Ostritt]

I don't agree with scientific method, as you said it's really just logic and not inherently wrong. My qualm would be with the dogma of scientists who state that subjective experience is somehow less valid than objective facts. I think this is part of what McKenna was talking about when he discussed reclaiming the primacy of emotion.

[max_freakout]

I take issue with the notion that science is guilty of the inductive fallacy. In my experience with science, and the philosophy of science, which I take from Popper, who was adamently against inductive logic, science is not in essence inductive.

...snip....

So I reject the notion that science even uses induction at all as a fundamental part of its explanatory mechanism.


i understand what Popper was saying, but what is it from your experience of science itself that suggests this? Because science and philosophy of science are 2 entirely different things, i was under the impression that most scientists pay no heed whatsoever to the philosophy behind it


i dont know anything really about thermodynamics or quantum physics, but to use a trivial, simple example, scientists hold that water boils at 100C, and that assertion is precisely an assertion of inductive logic, because they are saying that water will boil at 100C even in future, as yet unobserved instances of water boiling. Is that not science using inductive method? Scientists havent explained the phenomena of water boiling at 100C, they have merely observed it in a finite number of cases, and inductively extrapolated on those observations to make predictions about the future

ie, a scientist would never say that water might not boil at 100C in some future instance, that would be absurd from the point of view of the scientific paradigm, yet the way i see it, science is relying on induction to make that statement and in fact there is really no reason whatsoever to believe that the next time water boils it will do so at 100C, the only reason we do tend to hold such beliefs is merely (as David Hume pointed out) because of our habits

[London Eye]

Hey Max,

I've been mulling over this thing of inductive reasoning, and to be honest, I can't see how we could do anything but act in that way. If we had to do an experiment every time we boiled something, to make sure that water boiled at 100C, it would slow us down somewhat, no?

I think the point made above is that science (like humans) makes this assumption because according to scientific observation, this has been shown to be the case (water boiling at 100C). It is a repeatable experiment and therfore we reason that this will always be the case...until it is not so.

The scientist, as far as I would know, would be quite happy to then find out why water no longer boiled at 100C. But until that happens, why speculate?

Because I have come from a humanities (languages and literature) background, I have always had a slight suspicion of the cold, hard logic of science and the scientific method, preferring to delve into psychology, psychedelics and poetic musings. But in years of fraught discussions and differing opinions on spirituality and psychedelics, which have never been substantiated by either myself or my fellow discussers, I am beginning to understand why the scientific method came about and why it is so necessary even today (remember it arrived at the tail end of the 16th-17th century, when all sorts of superstitions were rife). Humanity had to separate objective fact from speculation and that's what it did.

When Tom Paine said I believe in one God no more and that for him to tell another of his God would be second hand information and therfore impossible to substantiate, he located the problem which is still the case of psychedelics. If McKenna sees machine elves and says he does that's fine. But I am under no compulsion to take what he says as fact, in fact it would be foolish to do so.

It is only his charisma and eloquence that leads some (many) to take his word as gospel and to go looking for machine elves and thus possibly miss their own truth in the psychedelic realm which may not even be a visual truth. I see this mistake made so often, subjective experience put forward as objective fact. This was why the scientific method came about I believe. And a good thing too.

Subjective experience, psychology can be difficult to verify and the scientific method, while not a complete analysis of the universe, as some scienticists (proponents of scientism) claim, is absolutely precise about what it knows and can deduce.

So in the midst of metaphysical discussions and flights of fancy, at least the scientific method is a way of getting back down to base, from which we can then launch out into metaphysics again.

Without it then we are at the whim of the charismatic individual, the shaman, the trickster, we are back to worshipping gods on earth and aristocracy. I am coming to believe that the true democracy of the people that the world is seeking can only come about from an advancement in science, where science can broaden its scope without losing its precision and objectivity.

I've not made myself very clear above I think, but thought I'd throw that one in anyway. Cheers :rolleyes:

PS: Andy Letcher, author of Shrooms (the book not the slasher film) is speaking at synergy project on friday in a discussion on psychedelics, with a few other psy-heads. Should be animated and controversial)

[psygnisfive]

i understand what Popper was saying, but what is it from your experience of science itself that suggests this? Because science and philosophy of science are 2 entirely different things, i was under the impression that most scientists pay no heed whatsoever to the philosophy behind it


i dont know anything really about thermodynamics or quantum physics, but to use a trivial, simple example, scientists hold that water boils at 100C, and that assertion is precisely an assertion of inductive logic, because they are saying that water will boil at 100C even in future, as yet unobserved instances of water boiling. Is that not science using inductive method? Scientists havent explained the phenomena of water boiling at 100C, they have merely observed it in a finite number of cases, and inductively extrapolated on those observations to make predictions about the future

ie, a scientist would never say that water might not boil at 100C in some future instance, that would be absurd from the point of view of the scientific paradigm, yet the way i see it, science is relying on induction to make that statement and in fact there is really no reason whatsoever to believe that the next time water boils it will do so at 100C, the only reason we do tend to hold such beliefs is merely (as David Hume pointed out) because of our habits

Well, scientists hold that water boils when the energy content is high enough to overcome the intermolecular bonds that maintain liquid states of water. The assertiont aht this happens at 100C is merely because explaining the actual reason this to lay people would be hard.

Furthermore, the assumption of uniformity is not part of the theory, its external to it, and is a matter of practicality only.

[psygnisfive]

Let me add to that: Assuming that something is true (e.g. that water /will/ boil at not-100C) without reason to think that, is pure religion. It's impossible to disprove a negative existentials, which is what such an assertion would be (e.g. there exists a situation where water does not boil at 100C, or there exists a situation where water boils at not-100C). But blindly accepting it as fact is irrational and pure faith.

Science, on the other hand, does not assert that it's theories are absolutely true in all situations. As I've said before, the traditional notion of how science is done, i.e. the scientific method, explicitly requires that such assertions are abandoned by calling for constant testing and challenging. Any good scientist would jump at the opportunity to see if such-and-such a theory is applicable in some new and unfamiliar situation, because that's GOOD SCIENCE.

Consider, for example, the case of dark matter and dark energy. We have no understanding of what could be causing it. One potentially useful theory is a modified theory of gravity, which asserts that Newtonian gravity is _not_ applicable in all situations, and instead at certain distances the equation changes somewhat. This is exactly what you say science doesn't do: assume that laws can be different in different situations.

So again, I do not accept the notion that science, be it scientific theories or the practice of science itself, is guilty of the inductive fallacy of assuming that the world works the same everything, because theories don't assume anything, and the practice explicitly tries to find out what situations cause the theories to fail. Science is anti-inductive.