BothAndBlog Forum

Are there thoughts?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... houghts/p1

Now consider where your thoughts come from. What is the source and origin of thoughts? — Garrett Travers

I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. OP seems to assume the existence of brains. So his question regards the conditional existence of "thoughts" -- e.g. what do they consist of?. If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? Is there more than one way to be? If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? It's a theoretical philosophical query, not an empirical scientific slam-dunk.

Some people go so far as to reverse the hierarchy of material existence, postulating that Mind is more fundamental than Matter. Of course, they have no empirical evidence to support that position. So, it's just another age-old philosophical conundrum. Why then, does the notion of an immaterial aspect of reality persist in this day & age? It's easy to haughtily label such childlike questions as coming from ignorance or stupidity. But some proponents of a separate realm for invisible & intangible Ideas & Thoughts are manifestly of high IQ. Some are even highly credentialed mathematicians. Are they insane, or is there some philosophical meat to chew on?

My personal worldview is not Either-Or, but BothAnd. So, I can see the reasoning behind both perspectives. Which is why I accept that both Science and Philosophy have valid roles in human culture. And Quantum queerness has just added fuel to that long-burning fire. So, why can't we have an adult conversation about an idea that won't go away?

Mathematical Reality :
Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London, called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

Oh, because of Kant, and Heroclitus, and Descartes, and all manner of people who didn't understand that mind and body weren't seprate, but the very same entity. — Garrett Travers

If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence.

I don't know anyone who denies that there is a causal relationship between Brain & Mind. But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does. Which is how we know there's such a thing as Energy. It has no physical properties, only physical effects. That's also why Kant, Descartes, et al, made a categorical philosophical distinction between Mind & Body.

The Mind/Body problem only arises when some people attribute "non-physical" properties to Mind/Soul that are not rationally inferred, but emotionally imputed : such as Immortality & Ghosts. It's those unverifiable attributions that are debatable, not the intuitive functions such as verbally communicable Thoughts and Ideas. Yet, we can't find physical evidence to support or deny "non-physical" existence.

We simply take other people's thoughts for granted, because of our personal experience with the phenomenon of thinking. But, lacking direct experience with Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs. We may debate the mysterious hows & whys of Ideal existence, but that's also true of such presumably physical objects as Quarks & sub-quantum Strings.

There is no distinction. — Garrett Travers

For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference".

No, photons have mass, what are you talking about? Light and energy are material forces. — Garrett Travers

Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought.

Energy-in-general likewise transforms into mass only when it slows from lightspeed into velocities our senses can detect. They are different forms of the same fundamental force, which is neither light nor matter, but the potential for both. Their distinct measurable properties are how scientists distinguish between each form and give it a special name. For example, an electron is intermediate between photon and matter. Hence, deserves its own designation.

Unfortunately, Mind & Thought have no measurable properties apart from their associated material or energetic forms. Their existence must be inferred indirectly.

What is Mass? :
mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics

"But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does" — Gnomon
No. You need to brush up on cog-sci, this is an utterly unscientific assertion. Yes, we can see it through functional mri. — Garrett Travers

That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. :worry:

Yep, and they were wrong, all of them. I wish I could say it to their faces. — Garrett Travers

It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. But you could in theory tell Neurobiologist Christof Koch that he's wrong about The Feeling of Life Itself. The "feeling" he refers to is not a physical object, or a neuronal computation, but something else entirely. He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced. He even toys with the notion of Panpsychism (i.e. widespread). Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci".

The Feeling of Life Itself :
Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/feeling-life-itself

The thoughts are in fact the functions. There are no "thoughts," just computations which are observed through executive function, another brain function. — Garrett Travers

A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. See the Koch quotes above & below for his opinion on thoughts as computations. In what sense is a computation a material thing?

Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? . . .
In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations
http://cognet.mit.edu/book/consciousness

That's because that which does not exist leaves no evidence of itself having not existed, except the absence of evidence existence itself. — Garrett Travers

You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts.

Representationalism :
philosophical theory of knowledge based on the assertion that the mind perceives only mental images (representations) of material objects outside the mind, not the objects themselves.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/representationism

"Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs." — Gnomon
We actually can't even do that. — Garrett Travers

If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space?

Everything but Strings, yes. The domain of ideal existence exploration is here, right here on earth, — Garrett Travers

Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. :joke:

For this "difference that makes a difference," to be anything other than other than fabricated woo, each difference is going to have to be clearly explained, and then shown to exist outside of neural function. I'll wait for any explainer on earth to provide me this information. Hint: I'll not be getting any. — Garrett Travers

I agree with that last prediction. You won't be getting any empirical evidence for mental phenomena. Not due to absence of evidence, but to categorical rejection of Reasoning as evidential. It's also a rejection of common sense & intuition as evidence of something unseen, but obvious. Such hard-evidence skepticism is a good policy for scientific exploration of classical physical phenomena. But it breaks down at the Quantum level, where the evidence is mostly inference from circumstances. For example, atom-smashers don't directly reveal sub-atomic particles. Instead the existence & properties of such things must be inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g. tracks in a cloud chamber). So, scientific knowledge of such ephemeral entities depends on agreement between the opinions of experts doing the experiments. The rest of us must take their word for the existence of Quarks & Neutrinos. They can't show us the evidence, because it exists only as subjective ideas in their minds.

Likewise, no-one can show us direct evidence of other minds, because it's circumstantial & inferential. We know our own minds directly by the feeling of thinking (cogito ergo sum). The epistemological question of Solipsism only arises when we look for tangible evidence of Other Minds. We can cut their skulls open to see if they have a brain. But, even zombles have brains; which is, presumably, why they have to eat brains to keep their resurrected bodies going. Since you are holding out for empirical evidence of res cogitans, the only evidence you will find is for res extensa. That's why nobody doubts the existence of Brains, but a few hyper-skeptics will demand sensory evidence of Minds. They take their own thinking-thing for granted, but demand objective proof for all other minds. That's what we call Solipsism.

A solipsist seems to think of himself as a machine, running a program. In which case, he is a robot, and has no Will of his own. His cause & effect logic is impeccable, except that he denies the First Cause : the Programmer. Are you self-programmed? Do you think for yourself, or as directed by some outside force, such as Destiny? The Mind/Body problem turns on the question of Free Will. They go hand-in-hand. If you doubt your own Willpower, you will also doubt your own Mind. But, that's OK. According to the Constitution, brain-eating Zombies have equal rights with law-minding citizens. Except for the brain-eating thing : in a court of law, the mindless defense will not get you off for a murder rap .

Clear explanation of The Difference :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... s/bateson/

circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circum ... l-evidence

problem of other minds, in philosophy, the problem of justifying the commonsensical belief that others besides oneself possess minds and are capable of thinking or feeling somewhat as one does oneself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circum ... l-evidence

Why do most neuroscientists remain strict materialists? :
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Neuroscientists, like all scientists, are quantitatively driven. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Since you can't measure mind, you can't quantify mind—so by definition, it's not physical. . . .
This debate dates back to the early 1900’s and the quantum era, when physicists like Einstein and Heisenberg were exploring the tools we have to measure objective reality, and realized that there is a point where humans can never transcend their subjective assessment of reality. It’s impossible. There is no way out of that matrix, if you will.
___Dr. Jay Lombard, neurologist

No, you misunderstand, I have loads of empirical evidence of that — Garrett Travers

Your usage of "Empirical" seems to go beyond the literal meaning, to include Theoretical inferences. So, we are, as usual, talking past each other ; using different vocabularies (Science vs Philosophy). Empirical evidence would be a list of observed facts (theory-neutral raw data). But an interpretation of those facts (pro-or-con-Mind) would be a conjectural postulation, since no "load" of reductive empirical data will prove the physical existence of something holistic & hypothetical. So, the electro-chemical activities of neurons would be empirical, but attribution of a thought, connected to that behavior, would be theoretical. (Until MRIs can read minds directly, rather than by human inference, that is) Therefore, as non-specialist non-scientists, we can only discuss various theories about Brain & Mind, not empirical facts.

You can give me a list of experts who conclude Mind = Brain, and I could give you a list of experts who conclude Brain does not equate to Mind. The difference is not necessarily in the data, but in the interpretation. And It's not simply Materialism versus Spiritualism (as you may presume), but more like Classical Physics versus Post-Classical. Yet the primary difference between your theory of Mind and mine, is Reductionism (empirical trees) versus Holism (conceptual forest).

As an example of a classical approach to Mental phenomena, Behaviorism expected to explain Consciousness without resort to any Theory of Mind. But, while it produced some useful facts, it never explained how Matter could become aware of its environment, or of itself. Since I'm not a specialist, I can only say that in my skeptical opinion, the "loads of evidence" you refer to does not add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans -- an explanation for the phase transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter. Instead, the reductionist Materialism & Behaviorism theories actually took the conclusion as a premise. But, the current wave of Holistic theories (e.g. I.I.T) are looking beyond the bare facts toward a rational inference, that actually explains the distinction between a thinking brain, and an isolated brain-in-a-vat.

PS___If we took a vote of all Brain-Mind experts right now, I suspect that your side would win. But my experts are "on the side of the angels". :joke:
.

It is argued that a scientific theory, together with its concepts, is simply a postulated system of logical categories for conceptualizing a theory-neutral experimental datum. This entails that the mind-body problem is a methodological rather than an empirical or even a metaphysical issue regarding the logical adequacy of one or another theoretical framework for construing the relation between mental, bodily, and environmental categories.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03394144

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming :
In fact, we should not be surprised that our standard scientific method struggles to deal with consciousness. As I explore in my new book, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, modern science was explicitly designed to exclude consciousness. Phillip Goff, Gallileo's Error
https://theconversation.com/science-as- ... ing-126143

Why is behaviorism wrong? :
In this version of history, there was something wrong with behaviorism in the 1970s and 1980s – it became too focused on specific problems and lost the big picture.
Note -- the Reductionist approach has failed, so Holistic approaches, such as Tononi/Koch's Integrated Information Theory are now the cutting-edge of Mind Science.

By this standard, empirical evidence provided to you that would explain the "transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter," would " add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans," because you're a "numb & dumb," "explanation" "specialist." — Garrett Travers

GT, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a principled philosophical exchange of views on a controversial topic, without resorting to (much) name-calling and ad hominem aspersions. At least you mostly attribute my "numb & dumb" explanations to mere ignorance & stupidity instead of intentional malice.

Unfortunately, unlike empirical Science, theoretical Philosophy is not progressive but circular. We are still arguing about the same issues that Aristotle articulated 2500 years ago. And no impasse is more contentious than Physics versus Meta-Physics, AKA Science vs Religion. I am not a practicing scientist, and I don't practice any religion. But in this thread my arguing position is somewhere in between Materialistic Scientism and Spiritualistic Religionism. I suppose you could label it as Philosophism.

My purpose for exposing my heterodox worldview to opposing orthodox views is to help me weed-out my own ignorance & misunderstandings. That's how I learn to see both sides of many disputes. But my moderate stance places me in the middle of a circular firing squad. My religious family think I have gone over to Satan's side, while my scientific friends suspect that I may be a closet New Age nutcase. Se la vie. I can see where both are coming from, but I took the path less traveled by true-believers on either side. Thanks for playing the philosophy game of Virtual Dialogue.


"There are no 'good' or 'bad' people. Some are a little better or worse. but all are activated more by misunderstanding than malice."
___Tennessee Williams

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
___Joni Mitchell

". . . . since the human mind is capable of dealing with both empirical reality and intangible imagination. In fact, most people do indeed manage to hold both idealistic worldviews (religious myths, romantic stories, hypothetical conjectures) and pragmatic views (technical knowledge, scientific models of reality), although in discrete mental compartments. So in order to understand the whole truth of our existence, we need to look at both sides of every polarized worldview. In the non-fiction world, we don’t always have to choose either Good or Evil, but we can look for a moderate position near the Golden Mean, the sweet spot I call BothAnd."
____BothAnd Glossary

As far as New Age nutcase, what views are they specifically criticizing? — Garrett Travers

You can find the Black vs White critics replying to my BothAnd posts all over this forum. They try to push me to their side of the absolute Truth spectrum. Fortunately, most posters are somewhat humble & flexible in their philosophical opinions. Only a few are absolutely certain of their scientific or religious Truth.

Apparently, the Yin-Yang symbol is a badge of NewAgeism, even though Aristotle advised a similar middle-of-the-road approach, in order to avoid the Either/Or Fallacy. I try not to be peremptory (dogmatic) about Science vs Religion, or Real vs Ideal. There is good & bad on both sides. So, I get to sample the best of both worlds, without getting stuck in a pile of dogma. :joke:

Note -- There's an old saying : "I must be doing something right, if I get criticized from both extremes".

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.

* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
BothAnd Glossary

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/science ... 544037.jpg

Any truth that could be found in the not absolute category, would at that moment constitute a place in the absolute state of truth. It's completely reductive. — Garrett Travers

The last part of this assertion belies the first part. The "absolute category" would be inherently all-encompassing & Holistic, hence not piecemeal & Reductive. Which reminds me that these politically polarized threads (e.g. FreeWill vs Determinism : Mind vs Brain) tend to begin as philosophical dialogs with sharing of information & opinions. But they quickly devolve into political sniping across the dividing line. The opposing poles can be labeled as either Reductive or Holistic. But the BothAnd philosophy crosses the no-man's-land to unite those disparate worldviews. Unfortunately, the politicization of the discussion forces each participant to retreat into an Either/Or stance.


Go check out General Systems Theory, and Informationa Integration Theory to compliment some of the understandings you placed underneath this banner. — Garrett Travers

To "complement" your mis-understanding, you could check-out the BothAnd Blog to discover how Systems Theory and Information Theory are integrated into the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity. You may be surprised that your interlocutor is not quite as ignorant as your political jibes make him out to be. Of course, your Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy might be offended by the fraternization of opposing worldviews, such as Religion and Science. The moderate BA position doesn't accept the dogma of either side, but it does try to understand how they became entrenched in their defensive postures.

PS__ Are you politically conservative to match your conservative Science=Truth ideology? :joke:


BothAnd Blog :
* Individuals may have strong beliefs & principles. But interpersonal endeavors require more flexibility. So, this blog is an argument for Relativism, Negotiation, Compromise, & Cooperation.
* The usual alternative to these wavering wimpy ways is the unyielding dominant stand-point of Absolutism, Conflict, and Competition. Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values.
* Nationalism is a modern pseudo-democratic off-shoot of Royalism, with its divine right to rule a nation of pawns. Democracy and Socialism are imperfect attempts to accommodate the needs & wishes of all citizens from top to bottom.
* The Blog assumes that we will always have people on both sides of every issue. Yet, we can still have our private beliefs, even as we make public concessions to necessity.
BothAnd Glossary

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.

HOLISM IS COMPLEMENTARY
REDUCTIONISM IS INCOMPLETE
https://argoprep.com/wp-content/uploads ... es_5_1.svg

I have no place in this analysis. I don't give a shit about politics, except where it violates my freedom. — Garrett Travers

I referred to political polarization because you seem to be defending an ideological position, which some refer to as "Scientism". I'm reluctant to use such categorical labels, but your insistence on empirical evidence --- for Philosophical concepts that are not amenable to reductive dissection --- is a mis-application of a good policy. You portray my not-yet-orthodox cutting-edge "evidence" as in-admissible. But a Mind is not a lab rat.

In this thread, we are discussing a phenomenon (Thought) that is invisible & intangible -- only inferrable & theoretical -- yet you demand empirical evidence for its existence. Since, after 2500 years of speculating, there is no hard evidence forthcoming; from your ideological perspective this thread is an exercise in futility -- except as a political arena to display the superiority of the Scientism party. I apologize for using a shorthand label for your view. But, it omits the very essence of Philosophical Evidence : subjective experience & rational appraisal, in cases where objective testing is not applicable. Unfortunately, that includes most of the topics that politicians come to blows about.

PS__Even on Scientific forums, pioneering theories, such as Strings & Loops, are hotly debated, because the only evidence is mathematical (mental), not empirical (material). Some opponents say such theories are "not even wrong", but that's also true of all perennial philosophical questions. So why do we bother with philosophy anyway? Philosophy is not Natural Science, it's Cultural Science.


Phenomenon :
1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

Empirical vs Theoretical evidence :
Empirical: Based on data gathered by original experiments or observations. Theoretical: Analyzes and makes connections between empirical studies to define or advance a theoretical position.
https://coloradocollege.libguides.com/c ... &p=1911416

Scientism :
“Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.”
“Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.”
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/res ... scientism/

Philosophical Evidence :
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/

Philosophical Evidence :
According to the phenomenal conception of evidence, only one's experiences can serve as evidence.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

Evidence-based Medicine :
My sister has been suffering from a mysterious debilitating ailment that mainstream doctors have not been able to correctly diagnose & treat for over 40 years. It forced her to give-up her work toward a Phd. The affliction has been given various labels, such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Another, non-mainstream label, is Toxic Mold Syndrome. Her doctors have tried to treat it as a typical allergy with no success. Some people with this syndrome go to live in tents in the desert, to avoid contact with ubiquitous mold. So, she has been desperately seeking relief via "alternative medicine", which at least took her subjective-suffering-with-little-objective-evidence seriously.
Only recently has her quest found significant relief from a common vitamin (niacinamide), that is reputed to stimulate the energy-producing mitochondria in human cells. Ironically, one of the alternative non-MDs claims that his treatment is "evidence based", even though it is not reviewed or approved by the FDA. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of much "alternative" medicine. But for me, the evidence that counts is that she is a completely different person from the shell-of-a-self that has been dragging around for all those years. That's subjective, not empirical evidence.
To mirror your apolitical expression above : I don't give a sh*t about medical politics, except where it marginalizes what works subjectively as non-empirical.

I don't know what any of this means. Science, as per basic philosophical understanding, is never to be dismissed and should inform one's philosophical theories. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts. — Garrett Travers

That is a pretty good summary of the authoritarian worldview called "Scientism". Technically, it's not a religion, but a dogmatic philosophical position, based on the absolute authority of some intangible entity called "Science". However, it may be described as "puritanical", in that it rejects such unreal impurities as "theories" and "opinions". Scientism may be considered political, in that it is identified mostly with Left Wing political views. Until now, I had never concerned myself with Scientism, partly because those who espouse the gospel of materialistic Science, don't think of themselves as political or religious, just as Orthodox believers in scientifically revealed Truth.

Scientism preaches a narrow definition of Science, and rejects most of the "soft sciences", especially, the Humanities, such as Philosophy. Coincidentally, I read a Scientific American article this morning on the topic of Anthropology & Paleontology, comparing "Neanderthal Thinking" with modern human beliefs and behaviors. From examining ancient bones the "scientists" concluded that those cave men had primitive forms of symbolic art and religious rituals. But, if you demand to see their falsifiable evidence, you would be disappointed to learn that it consists mainly of expert interpretations (inferences ; opinions) from vague data such as scratches on bones, and holes in eagle claws that resemble a necklace. You could say that they had hard (petrified) evidence for the soft thoughts of long dead people.

In philosophical dialogs, arguments from Final Authority are a win-lose strategy. Hence, there is no incentive for someone with different views to play their no-win game. Except perhaps, for those who enjoy sharpening their flexible philosophical skills on the unyielding rock of flawless Diamond-Hard Science.

The Curse of Scientism :
Not only is current scientific knowledge treated as gospel, but non-scientific knowledge is considered oxymoronic. At best, this means that we can never verify any knowledge that could not be verified through scientific methods.
https://www.calais.news/lefts-strange-m ... -scientism

Dogmatic Philosophy :
To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dogmatic

Science as Ideology : Scientism. Finally, it is worth noting a sense in which science itself can form a basis of an ideology. When science is credited as the one and only way we have to describe reality, or to state truth, such restrictive epistemology might graduate into scientism.
https://iep.utm.edu/sci-ideo/

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Why did Karl Popper reject positivism? :
Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... rl-popper/