By the way, thanks to all who responded to Gregg’s taxonomy.
Your comments are helpful and clarifying.
Developing a rational and coherent worldview is important - and neither trivial nor easy!
At least, for me, there a lots of parts, lots of wholes, and getting them to coalesce is challenging.

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)

> On Apr 22, 2021, at 5:29 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi TOK Folks,
>  
> I have been writing a bit in my in-progress book, The Problem of Psychology and Its Solution, frames science (i.e., as a modernist, empirical, natural, scientific methods-based system of justification) and the kind of scientific worldview it offers.  I have identified four different broad scientific worldviews and would love to get your take.
>  
> First, there is the reductive physicalist flatland view, which we can call Scientific Worldview A. This is the view of people like John Watson and his neuro-reflexology, Alex Rosenberg and his embrace of scientism and physical reductionism, and the eliminative materialists. The most recent PT blog I did was on highlighting why I think this is silly <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202104_reductive-2Dphysicalism-2Dis-2Dsilly&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=Q6fopGt_hA__tjK2kw4ZfhLL997sp6l_HHdR-o_HK7g&e= >. I don’t think too many people really adopt this view or offer strong defenses of it. I think this is mostly a rhetorical position against any “fluffy” ways of thinking, although it can’t be taken seriously on its own terms, as strong versions end up arguing that arguments don’t really exist, thus it collapses in on itself.
>  
> Second, there is what I would call “weak epistemological emergentism” (Scientific Worldview B). These are the folks who embrace a broad materialist view of science, and, at the same time, they acknowledge that emergent properties are key and that we need to talk about them. This is someone like Sean Carroll and his poetic naturalism (or, what I would call, “poetic physicalism”). There is a lot of confusion about what exactly emergentism means. But the two weakest versions of emergentism are that (a) aggregate groups have properties that don’t appear in the individual units (i.e., fluidity emerges with lots of water molecules, but does not exist at the individual molecule level) and (b) that our vocabularies and epistemological approaches require us to talk about “higher level” phenomena. However, these folks argue that we could, in theory, reduce it all ontologically to quantum fluctuations. This is scientific worldview B, which I think would probably characterize the majority of big picture scientists. I think Big History generally falls here, as does Consilience, probably David Deutsch. Classifying these folks is hard to say, because I don’t think they understand the difference between their view and the ToK/UTOK view.  Many people on the TOK list lean in this direction, but I think most then find the ToK to be an upgrade (although I welcome defenses of Worldview B over C)
>  
> Third, there is the ToK/UTOK formulation, which gives a kind of “strong or ontological emergentism” (Scientific Worldview C). (Note, I will no longer be publicly using“strong emergence” as I did in this blog because <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202004_strong-2Demergence-2Dis-2Dvalid-2Dconcept&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=pLreWB5bKuIKswzUf-SOupiLzlb3gRmQ1HBNdTi3shY&e= > John V does not like the term, but it is useful here and consistent what how it is often described, such as here by Chalmers <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.consc.net_papers_emergence.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=81y2JB-iZ3rCCXaPWCU0NegjMYjFmJyEhsxn8g2BRoo&e= >). The difference between this and weak can be thought of in terms of the shape of the ToK. A weak version might give a single cone of complexification. The strong version argues that new causal properties emerge that are not reducible ontologically to the levels beneath them. Specifically, there are epistemic/communication/information processes at the level of Life, Mind, and Culture that cannot be ontologically reduced to the levels beneath them. The key here is that the ToK argues for two kinds of emergence. One weak/within, one “strong”/between dimensions. The ToK thus rejects physicalism or materialism, as it implies an ontological reduction akin to the kind of weak emergence that happens within a dimension. Rather, the ToK gives us a view that is “naturalistic” and “behavioral”. That is, science is about observing, describing, and explaining patterns of behavior in nature at various levels and dimensions of complexity, mapped by the ToK and Periodic Table of Behavior. Crucial to the ToK/UTOK is an ontological substance continuity—but new causal emergences as seen in the cosmic evolution from Energy to Matter to Life to Mind to Culture to the scientific knower. The strong version of the ToK/UTOK is that this is ontologically complete. The weak version is that this is ontologically sound (i.e., coherent naturalism) and we are agnostic about other possible realities that might influence the picture (anywhere from dark matter to an infinite cosmic consciousness). 
>  
> Fourth, there is the post-materialistic vision of science, Scientific Worldview D. Two examples are the Galileo Commission report <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__galileocommission.org_report_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=Pz0gyW1OeoFPAhX3HWEgWZWem9Lql_1d21dL2o5rkog&e= > and  Sean Esbjörn-Hargens work in the “Integral Exo Studies <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DcdRvOSyTJ0s&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=yw2N1-vI5NgSw5pA8xLe279Bpt8s70p5Qg36uAwzz7Q&e= >.” These perspectives see the need for a different metaphysics than given by a coherent naturalism. This domain is, of course, not homogenous, as it opens up many possible paths. One general way to characterize it would be an approach to science that argues that an emergent naturalistic behaviorism as given by the ToK is not adequate to explain empirically documentable phenomena that warrant belief. For example, NDEs that point to a life beyond, past lives/reincarnation, higher dimensions of a consciousness field that afford parapsychological phenomena, the existence of god/s, etc are enough evidence to conclude that the emergent naturalistic picture is not sufficient for coherence. (Note, I think that the Galileo report is hard to read here, because half of it is about criticizing Worldview A strongly and Worldview b weakly, but it is not really positioned in relationship to Worldview C. 
>  
> Finally, of course there are traditional theological worldviews, like Catholicism, but I am not considering them here because they are theological rather than scientific.
>  
> I am curious to hear what folks think of this taxonomy of scientific worldviews. It seems to me “A” is out. I don’t know how you could argue for a stronger version of reductionism that what Carroll puts out in The Big Picture. If anyone knows of works they consider to be strong examples of this that are well-done, please let me know. Obviously, I think Worldview C is better than B for a host of reasons, starting with the Enlightenment Gap and the problem of psychology.
>  
> Worldview D is interesting and worth deep consideration, and I know several people on the TOK list lean in this direction.
>  
> but I don’t think it warrants being called “scientific”. That is, although I appreciate the evidence that is offered for it and find it to be pointing to possible truths, I don’t think it gives enough metaphysical/ontological coherence and at the same time raises too many questions. That is, it works as an effective argument against Scientific Worldview A, and somewhat B. But once you have Scientific Worldview C, especially placed in the context of UTOK which frames science as a kind of justification system, rather than “The Truth about the Ontic Reality,” then the argument for Worldview D as science gets much more wobbly.
>  
> Welcome thoughts, per usual. Might do a blog on this.
>  
> Regards to all!
> G 
>  
> ___________________________________________
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
> 
> Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
> 
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=PAhTTX4tIgX1WRWS5CHv22pKLM181eGhJMiHt-9IigI&e=  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qkAun4AzLkyclKbFyefaP0Cq08JSN73Yplm-iD7bJI8&s=PAhTTX4tIgX1WRWS5CHv22pKLM181eGhJMiHt-9IigI&e= >
>  
> ############################
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1