A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Montmorency]

And that experience is going to be worth more than reading a neuroscience study about it.

Although, it still won't be enough, it takes a lot more than understanding to improve on not having mental biases.

Worth more in what sense? Towards what end? Toward getting past them? As it so happens, magnetic stimulation has been effected to temporarily deactivate several biases, such as optimism bias.

We wouldn't need to waterboard people if we had this ability...

Yes, sure, extracting information is a classic. How about taking two individuals and replacing one's memories and experiences with the other's, and vice versa. Wacky reality TV shenanigans ensue, right?

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Sure, that sort of broad comparative analysis is difficult with neuroscience, unless tens of thousands of diverse individuals could be 'processed' at some point.

where you have to take someones word for it that their method arrives at the right answer.

So what's the use of the "great" philosopher besides for confirming what you already know? Perhaps you don't have the best answers? Perhaps your own experiences do not grant you any special insight? As I see it, to take your concept at face value would easily lead to the conclusion that each is wise in his or her own manner. Here, it just seems like a sort of tool for self-aggrandization.

observing and reacting to the world

Careful, that's awfully close to...

I don't know where you got common sense from. I was pretty explicit about praising scientific advances in medicine over old timey methods, right? It's just that in areas other than medicine etc I was criticizing science.

You were saying something like, 'the conclusions and questions of cognitive science are all old hat and common sense', it seems to me.

How about, you're undervaluing the broad application of science to questions the humanities ask, particularly in their formulation and material basis? Surely philosophy without grounding in actual causal and material mechanisms is plain old wind-whistling: farting around. Consider whether you're not simply underestimating...say, what if one neuroscientist applied your "personal experience" approach? Would then the use of the neuroscience in unraveling what's behind the big questions be evident?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Worth more in what sense? Towards what end? Toward getting past them? As it so happens, magnetic stimulation has been effected to temporarily deactivate several biases, such as optimism bias.

Understanding, catching yourself when it's important, letting it go on when it's useful.

We aren't going to go around wearing magnets on our head fixing all our deficiencies

Sure, that sort of broad comparative analysis is difficult with neuroscience, unless tens of thousands of diverse individuals could be 'processed' at some point.

So what's the use of the "great" philosopher besides for confirming what you already know? Perhaps you don't have the best answers? Perhaps your own experiences do not grant you any special insight? As I see it, to take your concept at face value would easily lead to the conclusion that each is wise in his or her own manner. Here, it just seems like a sort of tool for self-aggrandization.

???

You don't read philosophy and take their word for it, but you can still gain insight. And you just said studying history and other cultures is valuable. You can learn a lot from your own experiences...haven't you? But you can get a lot from other people too and from getting an education...everyone knows that...you're familiar with the concept of a humanities education, so I don't know why you keep talking about common sense and a "personal experience" approach...

You were saying something like, 'the conclusions and questions of cognitive science are all old hat and common sense', it seems to me.

No, I was asking for examples where the had something interesting to say about a big question, and disputed the examples offered

How about, you're undervaluing the broad application of science to questions the humanities ask, particularly in their formulation and material basis? Surely philosophy without grounding in actual causal and material mechanisms is plain old wind-whistling: farting around. Consider whether you're not simply underestimating...say, what if one neuroscientist applied your "personal experience" approach? Would then the use of the neuroscience in unraveling what's behind the big questions be evident?

How am I undervaluing it?

The impulse to have an objecting grounding, an inarguable foundation, is just what I was criticizing back in the beginning. It's the same with modern philosophers who work entirely within a logical or rationalistic framework. Starting with a "scientific grounding" and proceeding by strict logic is how people end up with utilitarianism.

[Montmorency]

You don't read philosophy and take their word for it, but you can still gain insight. And you just said studying history and other cultures is valuable. You can learn a lot from your own experiences...haven't you? But you can get a lot from other people too and from getting an education...everyone knows that...you're familiar with the concept of a humanities education, so I don't know why you keep talking about common sense and a "personal experience" approach...

I don't know, maybe I've got it wrong, but I feel like you're trying to wriggle out of your own ideas here.

The impulse to have an objecting grounding, an inarguable foundation, is just what I was criticizing back in the beginning. It's the same with modern philosophers who work entirely within a logical or rationalistic framework. Starting with a "scientific grounding" and proceeding by strict logic is how people end up with utilitarianism.

Where did I say any of that? Weren't we past it?

No, I was asking for examples where the had something interesting to say about a big question, and disputed the examples offered

...

After everything, you're telling me I don't understand your position. Yet I really feel like you're going back and forth between distinct formulations. Maybe it really is because you, as you claim, are irrational and inconsistent?

I'll list some propositions, and you should check off the ones that resonate with you:

1. Science is too logical to have bearing on issues of morality.
2. Issues of morality are the Big Questions.
3. Morality can not be logical, or rational, or coherent, or any other such word.
4. Morality must be derived from personal experience.
5. Psychology is common sense.
6. My morality is correct, and I can tell because I have strong feelings toward issues and my life experiences have been meaningful and instructive.
7. Second-hand experience is inferior to first-hand experience with respect to morality.
8. The humanities are valuable in studying the human condition.
8a. The humanities are more valuable in this regard than science.
9. The study of morality and the study of the human condition are inextricable.
10. The humanities are irrational, and do not operate on a logical or consistent basis but are rather totally personal.
11. Humans are disordered and inconsistent on every level.
11.a. Personal experience is irrational and therefore valuable.

And let's cut off there for now. I feel like there have to be crippling contradictions and semantic deficits in your ideology...

You should write up a Manifesto. I promise I'll push it on tourists in Times Square, while in the nude.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't know, maybe I've got it wrong, but I feel like you're trying to wriggle out of your own ideas here.

Where did I say any of that? Weren't we past it?
...

After everything, you're telling me I don't understand your position. Yet I really feel like you're going back and forth between distinct formulations. Maybe it really is because you, as you claim, are irrational and inconsistent?

I'm confused about your objection as well.

2. Issues of morality are the Big Questions.
1. Science is too logical to have bearing on issues of morality.
3. Morality can not be logical, or rational, or coherent, or any other such word.

Some of the big questions are about morality. But morality is a broader topic than the people who think of it in terms of science and logic would say. They reject the religious view and do not have a good way of viewing the world to replace it when it comes to moral questions. They replace it with things like the harm principle, consent, and human rights.

4. Morality must be derived from personal experience.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.

5. Psychology is common sense.

Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological (sensation and perception) or the common sense or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.

6. My morality is correct, and I can tell because I have strong feelings toward issues and my life experiences have been meaningful and instructive.
7. Second-hand experience is inferior to first-hand experience with respect to morality.

People think that, it's not a terrible thought, but they aren't infallible.

Strong feelings change and we are always adding life experiences...and the basic assumption with that statement is really that the feelings of others and their experiences can be instructive too. Sometimes it can be more objective when you can view it from the outside.

8. The humanities are valuable in studying the human condition.
8a. The humanities are more valuable in this regard than science.
9. The study of morality and the study of the human condition are inextricable.

amen

10. The humanities are irrational, and do not operate on a logical or consistent basis but are rather totally personal.
11. Humans are disordered and inconsistent on every level.
11.a. Personal experience is irrational and therefore valuable.

I think it's obvious I flubbed it when talking about "personal" and about "rationally ordered".

Let's take lying....

Someone says something to you...you have to judge whether what they said was true, or how close to to truth it was, whether it was misleading, whether they mispoke, whether it's not true because it's a generalization, whether the generalization is defensible, whether they know the truth, whether if they know the truth it is something they could express easily, what emotion they are feeling when they say it, what their motivation or intent is, how uncommon a lie it would be, how serious a matter it is, what kind of situation it is, how much effort they put into the deception...that's all I can think of at the moment, sorry it's an awkward attempt. These are all things that can effect how we react to a lie. But the judgement occurs right off the bat, possibly we are getting angry and frowning before we even realize it. Often it's incorrect, but it's unavoidably our basis.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?

Perhaps it starts with a definition of lying that includes "there must be an intent to deceive". Our knowledge of that intent, if we have it, came from the initial judgement. What good is asking ourselves, consciously, whether it was there? And why would we imagine there is a a single definition of lying that is applicable to the entire range of social situations?

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.

What we are really doing is, first of all, making a purely personal judgment of the person. But this never takes place in isolation--it depends on our relationship with the person.Then we are going to make a judgment about what response to make. This may be completely at odds with our personal judgment. Parents often don't care about their kids lies, understand why they lied, see right through it, but they want to teach them not to do it.

Distinct from all this are moral codes about lying. There are some lies that societies or cultures judge, at that time, rightly or wrongly, to be serious enough to require a well known cultural response. Other times certain groups will decide to hold themselves to particular high standards. These are often distinct from our natural judgments, but influence them as well and especially influence the response we think necessary.

Now, I would say, that since, essentially, every lie is different, and since judgments take place so fast, and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions, that it is a requirement to have extensive social experience, as we all do, and to reflect upon that experience. What do we think about when we reflect? All the various things that go into it like in my list, or most likely one that stood out. We can ask ourselves whether they really believed what they said. Whether they fooled themselves into believing it. Maybe we'll ask ourselves how much we care, which is really just checking our feelings at the moment.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.

Why someone would truly believe science, logic, and a consistent rational basis for morality come into it is beyond me. That might possibly describe a legal code for dealing with lying...I hope our legal system has a logical, consistent, rational basis for determining whether something is slander and judging it...but that's not morality...

Anything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something. Many philosophers have said that. There may well be some philosophy out there that is good food for thought on the subject, I can't think of any off hand.

The fact is its absurd to act like we make moral judgments in a reasonable manner and from an impartial viewpoint. That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive. Either discuss specific lies that you've seen or talk in general about what kind of person to be and how to treat people. You might use a principle you've heard of about lying to think about a specific lie, but you shouldn't expect that principle to always apply.

You can make statements that are generally true about lying, but they wouldn't be rules that you could apply. "people should usually be instinctively averse to deceiving someone who trusts them" for example.

Also...unavoidably in these moral issues we have the questions "How high a standard should I hold myself too? How high a standard should I hold others too?". In general, religions set the bar high. It's kind of a puritan thing. Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so. Secular people often go off of what they've been taught, are puritanical about taboos, and (too often) try to justify their vices with an appeal to "natural" or "normal". I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.



I'm going to skip out on trying to edit this and you can tell me which parts don't make sense...

[Montmorency]

Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological

That's the idea, isn't it?

or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.

You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

feelings of others and their experiences

Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

sensation and perception

That's what you're about.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.

Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

Let's take lying....

A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?

Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.

Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.

The ancients lapped that stuff up.

These are often distinct from our natural judgments

I don't recognize that a judgment can be unnatural.

and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions

There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

A

nything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something.

Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive.

It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so.

My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

[Ironside]

Like I said--it's as if I'm defending a "life begins at conception" person (who I'm confidant is not going to effect change in our country) vs some people I have profound disagreements with. In other countries, the creationist types are much more of a problem.

They are stronger in the US than any other western country.

I don't think the question in your example is "Why did this happen?" by the way. It's "how do I deal with this". I've heard that people were simply less attached to their children until they reached a certain age back when infant deaths were common, don't know if it's true or not though. I'd be surprised if you think scientific knowledge has helped us deal with the death of a child though.

That part goes under therapy, that stuff you found important but disqualified from this discussion.

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment.

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

Minor stuff. Like that your soul isn't your mind. It's also getting closer to another big question: what is your conciousness? By current data, it seems to act as a communication center between specialized areas, that treat things such as knowing your own body parts, the concept of left (yes really. They can eat all food on the plate, rotate it and suddenly more food appears. Loosing the concept of right requires a mirror brain, otherwise it'll make you blind) and things like that.

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.

I wouldn't characterize finding out that people have existed before me as a finding, ergo history is useless. Broad brush covers everything important.

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

Now a paper where the first source tried to document everything as throughly as possible? That's bull and you can't learn anything useful from there.

[Sir Moody]

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show )

“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

[Ironside]

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show )

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

It's worse than that, for a long time "based on a true story" was the way to write history, accuracy be damned. It's interesting with history and it has many facets of knowledge, but praising it while damning science as a whole, doesn't exactly strike true. It already contradict at least one previous statement.

Sasaki, do you consider science to only be statistics and clinical studies of one or a few factors, and not good bacause they're not having all factors the real world do?

[Montmorency]

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Excuse me, I was delirious.

What I meant to say was that it came as a disappointment to see the process of such an unusual worldview come to something so banal, like an advice column in a magazine for middle-aged moms.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.

Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

How would it demonstrate that?

Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

What about it?

A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Sorry that's nonsense.

Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

eh, you understand the context of the talk about the rational approach, right?

Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird

There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

I don't know much about that left brain right brain stuff.

I think they talk about it, in their laborious way, as type 1 and type 2 processes.

Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

Often in morality there's just the premise, no deductive steps. The idea that there should be deductive steps, starting from a foundation, is the problem.

It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"

My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

The humanities have asked a great many dumb questions. I'm sure science can unravel many of them.

I don't consider someone, say, sitting around asking "what is it in music that makes me feel energized?" to be doing good work in the humanities. People who try a humanities approach there will probably come out with some silly verbiage. If you really wanted to know you would go for neuroscience.

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Principles serve as foundations for a system, they are just general, loose, concepts.

Most everyone believes that harming others is generally bad and that pleasure is generally more desirable than pain, but they don't take that as principles.

I'm curious where you're coming from on this, your ideas about the definition of lying and about what a principle and rule based morality would mean are not what I thought they'd be.

They are stronger in the US than any other western country.

Yes! And just look at the other western countries. No offense.

That part goes under therapy, that stuff you found important but disqualified from this discussion.

Dealing with life is not therapy. It's for everyone. Therapy is for people who can't deal with it on their own and for people with serious issues.

Minor stuff. Like that your soul isn't your mind. It's also getting closer to another big question: what is your conciousness? By current data, it seems to act as a communication center between specialized areas, that treat things such as knowing your own body parts, the concept of left (yes really. They can eat all food on the plate, rotate it and suddenly more food appears. Loosing the concept of right requires a mirror brain, otherwise it'll make you blind) and things like that.

We treat those things as big questions because of our religious heritage and our tendency towards mysticism. Not a surprise, since much of scientific motivation originates there. It's like those scientists who spend their time thinking about big bang stuff, they would have gone deep into theology in an earlier time most likely. Not saying they aren't doing legitimate science, but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

I wouldn't characterize finding out that people have existed before me as a finding, ergo history is useless. Broad brush covers everything important.

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

Now a paper where the first source tried to document everything as throughly as possible? That's bull and you can't learn anything useful from there.

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show )

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

It's worse than that, for a long time "based on a true story" was the way to write history, accuracy be damned. It's interesting with history and it has many facets of knowledge, but praising it while damning science as a whole, doesn't exactly strike true. It already contradict at least one previous statement.

But this is you having the wrong approach again...it's a very good illustration.

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

Sasaki, do you consider science to only be statistics and clinical studies of one or a few factors, and not good bacause they're not having all factors the real world do?

They used to not make a distinction between science and philosophy, yes? But today we make a distinction. The methods that have been around before that distinction are not really science in our modern sense. Farmers have not been scientists since the dawn of time. People who selected bigger fruit to get seeds from were not genetic engineers, etc.

What I meant to say was that it came as a disappointment to see the process of such an unusual worldview come to something so banal, like an advice column in a magazine for middle-aged moms.

But that's the point--such statements are insignificant...platitudes...proverbs...old grandpa advice. They aren't the real deal. It's like saying "life isn't fair" or something. It's just a reference to a body of experience/knowledge/etc.

[Montmorency]

Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.

So, I should just take your word for it on no basis whatsoever? You know best in all matters?

Sorry that's nonsense.

Because it makes things difficult for you? No dice.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird

Did I say that?

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

You don't see how it might be presumptuous to unilaterally prescribe a purpose for history to the exclusion of all else?

What about it?

As in, gain a lifetime's experience in a single treatment. Obviates any need for deep personal study of the humanities, doesn't it?

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"

That's not it. "Acquire insight through personal experience": a rule. An example of inconsistency would be, 'Allah is the only God. Allah is ultimate. Allah is Law. Hitler is the greatest of all. Heil Hitler. His wisdom shall guide us above all things.'

but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

It's not scientific to describe anything as having ultimate, transcendental importance. Do you expect, though, that scientists can only be credible if they discourse only in terms of science? A scientist can't just be a regular guy with hopes, dreams, and petty musings?

[Ironside]

Yes! And just look at the other western countries. No offense.

No taken. Now, please explain to me in wich way creationists, by their actions, are part of making America great.

Dealing with life is not therapy. It's for everyone. Therapy is for people who can't deal with it on their own and for people with serious issues.

Any potentially traumatic experience needs a coping mechanism. Therapy is an outsider training you in a coping mechanism. So even if it's a sort of self medication, learning methods on how to cope is a form of therapy.

We treat those things as big questions because of our religious heritage and our tendency towards mysticism. Not a surprise, since much of scientific motivation originates there. It's like those scientists who spend their time thinking about big bang stuff, they would have gone deep into theology in an earlier time most likely. Not saying they aren't doing legitimate science, but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

Please tell us what you consider the big questions then. The one about if we have a core, an essense (aka a soul) and how it would work is appearently not a big one. How the mind works isn't a big one. You're a driver in a car, who doesn't feel to need to know anything about the car it self. Only, dealing with life is unexpected, bumpy and gives a dent or two, if you're lucky.

But this is you having the wrong approach again...it's a very good illustration.

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

Read a book.

Seriously, if that's the goal why not simply focus on media? It has the same principle of stories about human nature and deals much more about that insight you mention. Of course the same problem of source checking that occurs in science applies. Only because you find it insightful and amazing doesn't mean that it is.

They used to not make a distinction between science and philosophy, yes? But today we make a distinction. The methods that have been around before that distinction are not really science in our modern sense. Farmers have not been scientists since the dawn of time. People who selected bigger fruit to get seeds from were not genetic engineers, etc.

And the scientific method was vast improvements on both areas, indicating that using science on humanities would do the same. I have to agree on that... Or maybe you had some other point with that. Applying an older method systematically and refining it are indeed principles of the scientific method. Or are you telling that breeding can't be science since it was done before someone applied a scientific method on it?

We should not tell ourselves that we've resolved the tension, that we have a clear cut, consistent, rational, logical moral system.

I'm not sure if this sounds like a non-sequitur to you but I think we're talking past each other with this rule stuff. A belief is not a rule.

And that's one big thing people tries to get out of religion. And you praise religious people for doing it.