Scientific Misinterpretations Promote Relativism

The scientific process is the most effective method humans have for learning about the natural world. Science is a body of knowledge, but it is also a process. Science is an exciting and dynamic process for discovering how the world works and building that knowledge into powerful and coherent frameworks. “The Scientific Method” is a term often conceived as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders. The reason many like to promote misinterpretations of scientific abilities to reach objective knowledge, objective reality, and objective ontological truths is when relativism or subjectivism reality seems possible it opens gaps in truth and often, allowing the addition of magic in the gaps. However, science is largely a way to ensure accountability for factual claims. A scientific theory is merely a way of organizing ideas that makes sense from evidence of the world. Scientific methods are merely ways of rejecting or supporting factual claims that emerge from theories. Therefore, some still say but “everything is relative.” I see this as a common statement of people who are over impressed by scientific misinterpretations or ones who are not holding to scientific realism, especially those prone to self-serving biases and who disregard the correspondence theory of truth. Any view explicitly embracing the idea that...

Axiology vs. Nihilism

Axiological (good can be known or communicated and things have value) Nihilism (value is baseless and nothing good can be known or communicated) Roughly, axiology believes in some amount of objective value and meaning in life, the other nihilism on the other hand denies value especially objective value or most meaning in life thus the two are in a sense against each other. Axiology, (from Greek axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”), also called Theory of Value, the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies (1) in the considerable expansion that it has given to the meaning of the term value and (2) in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical. Roughly, nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. As an axiologist believer, myself I find it hard to follow nihilistic argument about there being no objective value and then the nihilist believer wishes to use logic as a objective tool in their defense. If one has not objective value as it seems nihilism wishes to project, how is it not then hindered by this same belief, for to me if there can be no objective standard of value there can be no logical arguments possible when nihilism is in play. Furthermore, it would seem without...

Behavior Modification Methods: Positive vs. Negative

This will mainly be a compilation of sourced ideas Overall, there are two kinds of emotional motivations: pleasant (will be referred to as “positive”) and painful (will be referred to as “negative”). Punishment versus Reinforcement Punishment: To decrease the probability of a behavior occurring in the future—it discourages the target behavior. Reinforcement: To increase the probability of a behavior occurring in the future—it encourages the target behavior. “Positive” vs. “Negative” Positive: when something is added, or introduced. Negative: when something is subtracted, or removed. Positive Reinforcement vs. Negative Reinforcement Positive reinforcement: To introduce something desirable to increase the probability of the target behavior in the future. Negative reinforcement: To remove something undesirable to increase the probability of the target behavior in the future. Positive Punishment vs. Negative Punishment Positive Punishment: To introduce something undesirable after a behavior to reduce the probability of the target behavior in the future. Negative Punishment: To remove something desirable after a behavior to reduce the probability of the target behavior in the future. Negative Emotional Motivations Guilt and Shame There are many misconceptions about guilt and shame. Many are them are perpetuated by those who try to use these feelings to keep us down and hold us back. I will not name who does this to us but if you examine your life it will become very obvious. In fact, under this post I would love to hear from you about the creative ways these feelings have been used against you. Guilt and shame are tricky feelings that cause so much unnecessary suffering. Nearly identical in the way they work within us, guilt and shame...

Natural Morality?

Natural morality describes a form of morality that is based on how humans evolved, rather than a morality acquired from societal norms or religious teachings. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is central to the acceptance of a natural morality. Ref We, humans, tend to think of emotions as dangerous forces that need to be strictly controlled by reason and logic. But that’s not how the brain works. In the brain logic and reason are never separate from emotion. Even nonsense syllables have an emotional charge, either positive or negative. Nothing is neutral. The seven networks of emotion in the brain: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, and PLAY. In Pankseep’s Affective Neuroscience, he explains that there “is good biological evidence for at least seven innate emotional systems….” Panksepp explains that some of these “universally recognized emotions correspond to the ‘infantile’ feelings that young children exhibit.” These emotional systems are genetically encoded into the subcortical neurocircuitry of the mammalian brain. Stimulating different subcortical areas via electrodes produces emotional reactions in animals. In contrast, “We cannot precipitate emotional feelings by artificially activating the neocortex either electrically or neurochemically,” writes Panksepp. He points out, however, that “emotionality is modified by cortical injury.” He also emphasizes: “Emotive circuits have reciprocal interactions with the brain mechanisms that elaborate higher decision-making processes and consciousness.” Panksepp points out that each major emotional system “has intrinsic response patterning mechanisms” in place. Real world experience can, however, affect the natural expression of primal emotional systems. For example, Panksepp writes: “Most cats that have been reared only with other cats will hunt and kill mice and rats, but those that have been reared with rats from the time of...

We All Should Reject the Supernatural

I am a full “atheist” who rejects the existence of god even as a universal spirit! Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that god does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/ I 100% reject all supernatural (including all and any gods). The why is easy there’s no evidence in are obviously naturalistic world for magical superstitions like supernatural. Just as there is no amount of evidence of the supernatural which can be found or proved in nature this is not surprising because as science has shown it’s all natural explanations for everything, not just once, but every time, not just one place but in every place, and every way. So after all this time, all of the world shows us is that there is only justifications for natural only explanations in nature, and that would seem compelling enough but even more there have not even been any credible thing to indicated that anything supernatural exists, thus it is extremely safe to say nothing supernatural does not exist. Therefore, I have 100% psychological certainly. But as always I am open to reliable valid evidence, so then and only then if credible evidence is confirmed for something supernatural exists, will I alter my thinking. To be clear, like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. (In a derivative way, certainty is also an epistemic property of subjects.) Although some philosophers have thought that there is no difference between knowledge and certainty, it has become increasingly common to...