Galileo Commission Report … Revisited

Previous conversations about this report (https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-the-galileo-commission?highlight=galileo) tended toward skepticism that the authors were sincere and whether something would come from it. Some time has passed since the report was published. I am wondering if anyone here is aware of further developments. Has anything come of it?

 

I was pretty excited when I read the first part of the report, especially the Summary of Argument on Page 6. Those are things we have bee telling scientists all along.

 

From [Section] 3 The Inescapability of Background Assumptions, Page 20

It is supposed to be empirical, but for our empirical science to function, it needs to make assumptions that are not in themselves empirical. Or, put as the yet unsolved Humean problem, inductive science can only progress through inductive experience. But how can it then justify this injunction, which is itself not founded inductively? Well, it cannot. It has to make an assumption which, as such, lies outside the practice of science.

https://www.galileocommission.org/

 

That is good stuff … else it is just pablum to make it seem as if they are actually reasonable people.

 

I recently took a good look at some of the Advisors. I met one at an ITC conference in Vigo, Spain. It seemed we might later compare notes, but he would not respond to my overtures. Another a priori announced under cover of his academic authority that EVP are stray radio waves. We gave a free seat in a séance with a world-renowned physical medium to one who later would not share his thoughts on the subject. Another insisted our EVP was outside of his area when we asked him to offer guidance in our study. One publicly attacked his “living research subject” for unsubstantiated accusations outside of the research protocol … to throw your research subject under the bus is a violation of The Belmont Report. His peers effectively cheered him on.

 

It goes on.

 

The report appears to be written by academics to make academics feel good. The missing elements in it are public outreach, and I am pretty sure, the possibility that consciousness might not arise from physical processes.

 

The report is very detailed, and I like much of what is written. However, the subject is really a lot simpler than that. In my mind, there is theoretical science and engineering science. The report is concerned with theoretical science, as the engineers seem to be doing fine.

 

Turning report judging over to laypeople as a public process would require that the scientist learn to communicate their research in lay-terms. Then laypeople would have the wherewithal to decide if they want to fund the work.