" Indeed, the UTOK frames science as “MENS knowledge
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202007_theory-2Dmens-2Dknowledge-23-3A-7E-3Atext-3DWhat-2520is-2520the-2520relationship-2520between-2520a-2520human-2520knower-252C-2520groups-2520of-2Cwhich-2520is-2520-2522objectively-2522-2520known-253F-26text-3DAs-2520a-2520theory-2520of-2520MENS-2Cscientific-2520knowledge-2520were-2520not-2520success&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=WoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8&s=WzK_zYo7q3s08altfnwGTknWyoawc8z4jmYrxvdHMaY&e= .>”
(modern, empirical, natural, science methods) and argues we need a
shift to Wisdom
Oriented MENS knowledge (WOMENS) in the 21st Century
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_toward-2Dwomens-2Dknowledge-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dcultivation-2Dof-2Dwisdom-2Denergy-2Din-2Dthe-2D21st-2Dcentury-2Dfb6528a54f35&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=WoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8&s=e-CFIgPIcxNIXB2JGKqoCNPhZFdlR5KBBpoutOYENz4&e= >
."

Very clever 😀

Joan

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 14:19, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Excellent point, Joan. And I should have clarified. Also, not
> confrontational at all! You should see some to the email lists I am on
> …this does not even register 😊. We should have started with that. So, if
> we go with a broad definition of science, then yes, things are complicated.
> Consider, for example, this presentation that Gien shared of Sadhguru:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_w7irEcQHChw&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=WoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8&s=oWn74AqttrF1DpIzIBLx9IbR0p3QDdz4yh2SsmA5Unc&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_w7irEcQHChw&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qn6Jpy56-9RL98VqXtsQD-LkjeksL4UPKq7a8nQ1sHA&s=oxd7hi08iAn4mStqzVHMsiWwqWwbxB8tWAKGQzAv2ms&e=>.
> He is grounded in the yogic sciences, and that is not what I would mean.
>
>
> I mean “modern, empirical, natural, science” that stems from natural
> philosophy and has the lineage from Copernicus into Descartes/Galileo into
> Newton/Hook that gave rise to classical physics. It is the kind of
> onto-epistemology that I argue frames modern psychology and gives us the
> problem of psychology. So, I should have said I start there. Indeed, the
> UTOK frames science as “MENS knowledge
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202007_theory-2Dmens-2Dknowledge-23-3A-7E-3Atext-3DWhat-2520is-2520the-2520relationship-2520between-2520a-2520human-2520knower-252C-2520groups-2520of-2Cwhich-2520is-2520-2522objectively-2522-2520known-253F-26text-3DAs-2520a-2520theory-2520of-2520MENS-2Cscientific-2520knowledge-2520were-2520not-2520success&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=WoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8&s=WzK_zYo7q3s08altfnwGTknWyoawc8z4jmYrxvdHMaY&e= .>”
> (modern, empirical, natural, science methods) and argues we need a shift to Wisdom
> Oriented MENS knowledge (WOMENS) in the 21st Century
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_toward-2Dwomens-2Dknowledge-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dcultivation-2Dof-2Dwisdom-2Denergy-2Din-2Dthe-2D21st-2Dcentury-2Dfb6528a54f35&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=WoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8&s=e-CFIgPIcxNIXB2JGKqoCNPhZFdlR5KBBpoutOYENz4&e= >.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Joan Walton
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:57 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK 4 Scientific Worldviews
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi Gregg
>
>
>
> A very quick response.  The main point I want to make is - it all depends
> how you define 'science'.  The etymology of science is Latin *scientia
> (knowledge) and* *scire* ‘to know’.
>
>
>
> How science is defined, and what are seen as acceptable ways of knowing
> (epistemological questions) are culturally shaped, as are understandings of
> what constitutes valid 'evidence'.    And all of these emerge from our
> ontological views of the world, none of which are proven.
>
>
>
> You write:   "I don’t think it gives enough metaphysical/ontological
> coherence and at the same time raises too many questions".
>
>
>
> Personally, my way of understanding the world, and the nature of reality,
> is contained somewhere within one of the options provided by Worldview D
> (as you will doubtless be aware).  And for me, it gives more metaphysical
> and ontological coherence than any other I have explored (and I have spent
> a lifetime exploring).  In fact, it is the only way of seeing things that
> offers me any coherence at all.    I have come to it as a consequence of
> daily experience as well as intellectualising about it all.    I don't
> think 'raises too many questions' is ultimately a valid critique.   I could
> say that your interpretation of science raises (too?) many questions for
> me.
>
>
>
> So I'm back to that term 'science'.  What do you mean by it?  Is your
> definition of it an 'objective truth' or 'culturally derived'?   If it is
> culturally derived, then that - I would suggest - undermines the rest of
> your argument.  Because culture consists of norms, beliefs and values, none
> of which are ultimately provable as 'truth'.
>
>
>
> I hate emails, because they can sound confrontational, when they are not
> intended to be.  I think this debate is important for all kinds of
> reasons,  and I'm intending my contributions to be friendly and
> constructive in nature.   I hope they are read in that light :-)
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Joan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 13:30, 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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BilrJ-9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-MdAFX0Vw43m-i8&s=uMreu9sOIqxnQ_p8-5hBB28ZbAOQBPmphZqg-G2bchg&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BilrJ-9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-MdAFX0Vw43m-i8&s=6VSA77jVLqMttadhGqgQC8Bdj2VZPk-WlPc5L4xL_2M&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BilrJ-9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-MdAFX0Vw43m-i8&s=HnZwG3rdMm8ZDKuqxec2V_cwkzl3m28AgVvhgIaQF80&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BilrJ-9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-MdAFX0Vw43m-i8&s=8ReP3eraNKzWtIzxhJ3gIAKP49DrPjyG8s3_6PcgftQ&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BilrJ-9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-MdAFX0Vw43m-i8&s=vIWbNwiCF009-EZ0hoRM3dDs73X-5w28mM2gArw6nY4&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=WoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8&s=6rPyPRnOwChJfpxSgDb4A7ClKPbsZl2N8C7tqhYHYag&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3BilrJ-9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-MdAFX0Vw43m-i8&s=_TWUx3nj7p1pH86fhNIFJ9vPindVmEkkMFvjWmbau_A&e=>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> ############################
>
> 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
>

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

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