One Answer

  1. Unfortunately, the dominant worldview in the scientific community, at least in natural science, is far from ” skepticism “or”empirio-criticism”. On the contrary, most “natural scientists” are naive realists in their philosophical attitudes.

    Think about it: systematic skepticism requires the researcher to consistently question everything, right down to the very foundations of our knowledge of the world. At a minimum, we need to doubt both the sensory data and the adequacy of our scientific theories of “reality” – after all, natural science theories and hypotheses are built using inductive conclusions that are probabilistic in nature, so de facto there are serious reasons to doubt that such hypothetical entities as” dark energy ” exist in reality itself.

    And this is not to mention the fact that in reality itself there are no sounds, no colors, nothing like that – after all, colors and sounds are constructed by our brain, this is nothing more than our subjective way of internetizing some stimuli, which is not always unambiguous and reliable (think about the fashionable dress last spring, which some thought was purple-black, and others-white – gold).

    So, my experience of communicating with students, future engineers, shows that these ideas, in general, quite understandable for those who are familiar with modern neuropsychology, for a second-year student of a technical university, as a rule, seem very exotic. This shows that our modern ” common sense “is somewhere at the level of the XVIII century and has not yet” digested ” the ideas of even Kant, let alone later or more complex authors.

    Therefore, it is hardly possible to call the scientific worldview of the average modern natural scientist “skepticism”. Rather, it is worth saying that the actual task is to move from naive realism to more complex philosophical models that take Kant seriously.

    Attempts to make this step from the 18th to the 19th century have already been quite successful in foreign “neuroscience” (this is noticeable in the lectures of such not at all marginal authors as Dale Purves), and in recent years they have been taking place in other areas as well. Notable examples of this kind are Lanza and Bergman's book “Biocentrism”, as well as Sheldrake's book” Science Delusion “(aka”Science Set Free”). However, it seems that there is still quite a long way to go for natural science to be seriously considered “skeptical”.

Leave a Reply