rationalskepticism.org

Spearthrower wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

And this, dear Destroyer, is precisely why I will continue to challenge Zoon's claims about how all science supports their assertions: it's not only readily shown false, but also exposes a critically false understanding of how science operates and why it works.

You simply don't seem to be aware that there are two separate arguments that are been conflated here, 1. Theory of Mind is currently more reliable at predicting human behaviour than science - this is zoon's pet theory,..

And what you don't appear in the slightest bit interested in following is that this is expressly what I've challenged a dozen times.

Destroyer wrote:... which I do not disagree with;

So you 'agree' with a claim about science for which you have been presented no evidence?

Then don't seek to lecture me as this is irrational and directly contrary to how science operates.

Destroyer wrote:... because all mental states are subjective and therefore not currently open to any means of empirical analysis and verification,

And you then contradict yourself because you now state 2 positions: i) ToM more reliably predicts human behavior than 'science' and ii) theorizing about mind is impossible.

Destroyer wrote: 2. There is no reason why science, in its study of the brain, i.e., neuroscience, will not advance sufficiently to make reliable predictions about mental states and concepts -

You're just repeating the exact same errors Zoon has made, so why even bother?

Destroyer wrote:this is precisely due to zoon's conviction that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the brain and mind, hence studying the brain will tell us about the mind. That is the aspect of zoon's argument that I have latched unto, and not her preoccupation with "Theory of Mind".

You've both latched onto a position you can't provide any evidence for and insist should be taken as granted despite the lack of evidence.

Why exactly do either of you expect that non-scientific opinions about science are convincing, I have no idea - but you can't just keep repeating yourself as if the strength of your convictions is meant to be convincing?

Ok. Your emphasis is clearly upon the claim that ToM provides a better method for analysing human behaviour than science, whereas my emphasis is upon brain and mind operating as a single function. Nevertheless you are still clearly not seeing things from zoon's perspective, which is that ToM is presently just a placeholder due to the fact that neuroscience is still in its infancy. The conviction is that mind and brain are fundamentally the same property, so by scientifically studying the brain, slowly but surely, more and more reliable information about the mind is being gleaned. But due to the fact that there happens to be so many corresponding interactions taking place between brain functions and awareness, there is still an abundance for science to learn. It is for this reason that humans can currently only make suppositions about the inner workings/personal expressions of others, without having any actual method for determining if those suppositions are factual - hence it been only a theory. Zoon clearly has strong convictions that these suppositions do give a better understanding of human behaviour than the current state of neuroscience to predict what is happening. But, with the advancements in neuroscience, zoon sees no reason why more and more accuracy with these predictions will not be forthcoming - again, precisely because of the conviction that brain and mind are fundamentally of the same stuff; so the more that scientists learn about the brain, the more advanced they will become with their predictions. This ought to then inevitably - well into the future - lead to science being more reliable at predicting human behaviour than ToM. However, the current state of affairs with still so much to learn about the brain, means that the very best that humans can achieve is guess work when studying the awareness of their fellow humans... Zoon may, on occasion, overstate the case to make it seem as though ToM can give accurate scientific predictions, apparently because of her emotional ties to this theory, but ultimately she is not denying that it is just a theory - hence its name.

I reallyy cannot explain it any simpler than this. So this will be my final contribution on this topic.