Intellectual humility

It seems a good chunk of Grof's experiences with Sagan were excerpted with this permission for the publication Anti-Matters:

When Science Becomes Scientism - Carl Sagan and His Demon-Haunted World

Also, the old Skeptiko thread detailing questionable tactics used by skeptics (mentioned above) also had this piece on Sagan by RA Wilson:

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger3.html

(scroll down to THE ASTRONOMER WHO ABOLISHED GRAVITY)

Like millions (and millions) of others, I was entranced by Sagan's TV series, Cosmos in the 1970's. He became one of my science heroes and I loved to listen to him being interviewed, hanging on his every word. He was, for me, the ultimate expert. Until, that is, I bought one of his books, The Dragons of Eden, and realised as I read through it, that here was a man professing his faith. His faith, as Lewontin emphasises in a review of another Sagan book, in materialism.

That Lewontin review was for the same book, The Demon-Haunted World, mentioned above the link provided by Sciborg. R.A Wilson (from Sciborg's other link) provides a quote from another Sagan book which confirms my eventual disillusionment with the great TV Science guru (and, consequentially, most subsequent TV science gurus):

Similarly, in Brocca's Brain, Sagan rejects data on so-called "out of body experiences" among near-dead patients because -- he says -- nobody in that state has reported anything they couldn't have heard while unconscious. But the literature of OOBE has hundreds of cases of such reports, including numerous incidents in which the subjects reported things in rooms far away from the operating room. Once again, we can only wonder if Sagan habitually lies through his teeth or just doesn't read any of the literature on the subjects upon which he claims Expertese.

Most of us here would echo the sentiment of that last sentence, not just about Sagan but about most so-called "expert" commentators on such matters.

Perhaps there's a degree of over-confidence, for example the ideas of Velikosky really did need a stern critique, perhaps it then becomes a matter of habit to adopt a similar tone on other matters.

It seems a good chunk of Grof's experiences with Sagan were excerpted with this permission for the publication Anti-Matters:

When Science Becomes Scientism - Carl Sagan and His Demon-Haunted World

Also, the old Skeptiko thread detailing questionable tactics used by skeptics (mentioned above) also had this piece on Sagan by RA Wilson:

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger3.html

(scroll down to THE ASTRONOMER WHO ABOLISHED GRAVITY)

Thanks for that, Sci. Eye opening, or it should be.

Oh another let's beat up scientists and science thread. Does anyone know the moral of this story? It seems not. Well let me tell what it is. The moral is one of accountability and an exposé of how science is self correcting. These scientists were deservedly called to task. Gee, I wonder how philosophy and philosophers would standup and handle such scrutiny?

It is an interesting asymmetry. On the one hand, people are permitted to blithely doubt ideas supported by good to strong evidence*, as long as the idea falls under "stuff I don't want to believe." But on the other hand, people are excoriated for doubting ideas supported by weak to no evidence, when the idea becomes "stuff I want to believe." And philosophizers, whose ideas aren't even tested to begin with, are given a free pass altogether.

Linda

"Evidence" in the scientific sense, which doesn't refer to "information which merely affirms an idea", but "information which makes an idea more likely to be true or valid."

That Lewontin review was for the same book, The Demon-Haunted World, mentioned above the link provided by Sciborg. R.A Wilson (from Sciborg's other link) provides a quote from another Sagan book which confirms my eventual disillusionment with the great TV Science guru (and, consequentially, most subsequent TV science gurus):

I didn't subscribe to see the whole review, but I believe [in that review] Lewontin (himself an evolutionary biologist) makes the now famous quote there about the philosophical position of materialism:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

It's an interesting sentiment, that rather than pursuit of what are the best explanations for reality the goal is to uphold the materialist/physicalist position because it in turn closes out a place for God.

This upholding of materialism/physicalism philosophy in academia has been brought up by others, for example John Searle who himself is a materialist:

"I believe one of the unstated assumptions behind the current batch of views is that they represent the only scientifically acceptable alternatives to the antiscientism that went with traditional dualism, the belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritualism, and so on. Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives."

-John Searle, "What's wrong with the philosophy of mind?"

Beyond that I think in general some see materialism/physicalism as the philosophical position science should have. Retired NASA researcher Pruett mentions materialism as one of science's unnecessary sacred cows, and the physicist Adam Frank has written about how materialism - while often seen [as] the default position in physics - is more than likely wrong.

All that said it wouldn't be fair to paint all skeptics with the same broad brush, as mentioned Sam Harris and Michael Shermer have changed their positions based on reason so should in these instances be commended for their intellectual humility as it's defined in the OP.

I didn't subscribe to see the whole review, but I believe [in that review] Lewontin (himself an evolutionary biologist) makes the now famous quote there about the philosophical position of materialism:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Indeed, I've used the same quote myself several times in the past because I think it is an honest yet disturbing dogmatic position for a scientist to hold. Basically he encourages his peers to abandon impartiality and commit not only to materialism but also to atheism. That leaves me to wonder whether it is any and all philosophical challenges to materialism that they see as unconscionable or, rather, a perceived slide back into the clutches of organised religion.

Ironically, in doing so, they run the risk of alienating people like many of us here who are not religious and are pro-science while remaining philosophically opposed to materialism.

Indeed, I've used the same quote myself several times in the past because I think it is an honest yet disturbing dogmatic position for a scientist to hold. Basically he encourages his peers to abandon impartiality and commit not only to materialism but also to atheism. That leaves me to wonder whether it is any and all philosophical challenges to materialism that they see as unconscionable or, rather, a perceived slide back into the clutches of organised religion.

Ironically, in doing so, they run the risk of alienating people like many of us here who are not religious and pro-science while remaining philosophically opposed to materialism.

[I]nteresting, I'll have to find a way to get the complete review as I read the quote as an admission regarding the bias scientists have toward the philosophy of materialism/physicalism, rather than a policy advisement on how scientists should make sure they are closing the door to God.

Though I don't think there is [always] a clear line between philosophy and science. For example Kastrup, in his set of papers and Scientific American articles, interweaves between scientific evidence and philosophical argument for Idealism. Physicist Richard Conn Henry uses his physics knowledge to make a parallel Idealist argument that was published in Nature.

Another example not related to Idealism would be the development of Orch OR by [physicist] Penrose and [anesthesiologist] Hammeroff. Penrose [in addition to the physics] supplied the philosophy inspired by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem while Hameroff noted that explanations of conscious thought would need to go "lower" than the neuronal level [which is why he posited a quantum biology explanation centered around microtubules]. One of their major predictions was found to be true in 2014.

[I]nteresting, I'll have to find a way to get the complete review as I read the quote as an admission regarding the bias scientists have toward the philosophy of materialism/physicalism, rather than a policy advisement on how scientists should make sure they are closing the door to God.

Someone thoughtfully made the full review available here:

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/L...Review.htm

A pair of articles by Daniel Engber related to this:

Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real
Is Science Broken?

Plenty in here to offend everyone who's replied so far, I'd say  But I think it's a fair perspective.

A pair of articles by Daniel Engber related to this:

Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real
Is Science Broken?

Plenty in here to offend everyone who's replied so far, I'd say  But I think it's a fair perspective.

Regarding the claim in the first of those articles that Bem did unreported pilot testing, it's worth noting his comment about that to Ulrich Schimmack, quoted here:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-c...4#pid13704