Hi Gregg:
Your taxonomy is most fascinating, and roughly parallels the first or second chapters in my Unified Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Metaphysics, Ethics, and Liberal Arts  (Cognella).   My taxonomy below is based on the ergonomic/human factors engineering model. It is also from cybernetics, and from mereology, etc.
My taxonomy is:
A or First,  mere reduction.  Mereologically, mere parts. Each part is totally isolated, unlimited in number and kind.   This appears parallel to your  First or A reduction. Only one reality.   Cybernetically, mere feedback, reality is totally outside the holistic.   Ergonomics calls this user-friendly.  
B or Second, generally reducible.   Holistic parts.  Generally parts.  Limited number and kinds of parts.  Generally, not totally isolated.  This seems to include your B or second, C or third, maybe D or fourth.  One holistic, embodied, limited reality or pars.   Feedback/feedforward continuum or integration.   Philosophically, this is phenomenology rejecting Cartesian dualism.   This is user-friendly.   Art and science integrated; technology and humanity integrated.  This looks like your fine chapter on Fifth Joint Point? 
C or Third,  dualism,   Part and whole are mutually distinct.  Descartes' Cartesian dualism.  Mind and body dualism.  Two realities.
D or Fourth,   postmodernism.  Many realities exist.  I don't know if your taxonomy has a postmodernism on it.  I have, however, seen in your writing that you reject postmodernism. So, maybe my first and fourth poles of my taxonomy are mere modernism, and mere wholes.   Mere wholes, mere feedfoward.   I get the feeling you and I (and others?) reject mere parts, and mere wholes;  mere feedback and mere feedforward.  This is user-too-friendly.
Thanks,
Regards,Michael M. Kazanjian


    On Thursday, April 22, 2021, 08:18:10 AM CDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
 
 #yiv5484105331 #yiv5484105331 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv5484105331 #yiv5484105331 p.yiv5484105331MsoNormal, #yiv5484105331 li.yiv5484105331MsoNormal, #yiv5484105331 div.yiv5484105331MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv5484105331 a:link, #yiv5484105331 span.yiv5484105331MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5484105331 span.yiv5484105331EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv5484105331 .yiv5484105331MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv5484105331 div.yiv5484105331WordSection1 {}#yiv5484105331 
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=4gvuCYwoiBoeFj48BQbQh2HcAuQaGQxxiwzgvG5V1Vk&s=ZpqXkfhfQyC2qEJL1Qv0nQ49jLucHGVm4iOIIBl4VHQ&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” (modern, empirical, natural, science methods) and argues we need a shift toWisdom Oriented MENS knowledge (WOMENS) in the 21st Century. 
 
  
 
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. 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 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). 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 and  Sean Esbjörn-Hargens work in the “Integral Exo Studies.” 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=4gvuCYwoiBoeFj48BQbQh2HcAuQaGQxxiwzgvG5V1Vk&s=8ZqIaD-lO4A1q-ZdU0OaPCzqqwQdiOC3eKDWzFmxoB8&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] 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