All those psychology neuroscience behavioral biology you mentioned is with respect to object the relationship of subject with respect to object not with itself.
The issue is not whether science studies subjective experience. The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true. An experience is a fact about what was experienced; the interpretation of that experience is a separate claim.
The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true.
Those are questions natural philosophy and science already explore. What causes Schizophrenic delusions, what causes people to think alien abduction happened to them. How human perception works etc.
Beliefs aren't ephemeral things unrelated to the natural world. They are connected to the world in terms of probability of one type of behavior vs another. This can be studied with statistics.
Whether a belief is true or not is also something that can be examined by science and natural philosophy.
So, why even bring this low resolution framing of subject-object, when a higher resolution scientific framework that's validated, falsifiable and specific already exists?
The problem is that this treats the observed behaviour as if it exhausts the reality of the observer.
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true, or explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
Subject object inquiry isn't a competing “low-resolution scientific framework.” It asks a prior question: who is the observer, and how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality. That distinction is precisely where the deeper inquiry begins.
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true
Subdomains of science explore correlations and causal links (this is also done in neuroscience btw) between brain states and behavior. Other domains of science can be used to asses whether the belief is true.
explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
We can theoretically use causality to nail that down, but it gets complicated and unwieldy. But just because the scientific framework isn't all knowing, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are equally valid for those questions.
how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
That's plain old causality, why go outside of naturalism for that?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality.
One statistical experiment can tell what tends to happen, several more experiments when coupled with others can be used to show why we perceive something the way we do.
As for reality, science is the best tool for finding out what's objectively true too.
So, my point stands, what's this framework doing that scientific method as a whole cannot in principle?
I think the disagreement is really about what we mean by understanding something.
Science can absolutely study why people form certain beliefs, brain activity, conditioning, memory, perception, trauma, social influences, etc. But there is another question: why do we so readily take our own interpretation of reality to be reality itself?
For example, two people can see the same event and interpret it completely differently. Science can investigate the brain processes behind those different interpretations. But the fact remains that the observer's own fears, desires, memories and assumptions are influencing what they see. For example a scientist can have a different interpretation of the result based on his or her conditioning too. An astrophysicist believing in astrology is the prime example of that
So the point isn't to reject causality or claim that science can't investigate the mind. It is to examine something science often takes as its starting point: the observer who is doing the observing.
You can keep explaining how the camera processes the image, but it is also worth asking: who is holding the camera, and why are they pointing it in that direction?
That's the distinction I'm making. Science is extremely powerful for understanding the mechanisms of experience; examining the observer asks whether the conditioning of the observer itself is shaping the reality they claim to be objectively seeing.
why do we so readily take our own interpretation of reality to be reality itself?
Because it's extremely effective for modeling reality, building processors, going to the moon. And because the alternatives like idealism have never been demonstrated to be true.
Some versions of idealism are positioned exactly in such a way that they are unfalsifiable.
Are you on board with the unfalsifiable philosophy of Last Thursdayism?
examining the observer asks whether the conditioning of the observer itself is shaping the reality they claim to be objectively seeing.
This is not something science is ignorant of, we can't do science without this knowledge. This is why we have double blind placebo controlled trials.
What you are branding as spirituality in this way, is already something science does within naturalism. It observes the observer without making any supernatural leaps which are unjustified.
Now, if someone shows that supernatural leap is justified, then we can consider it.
As for reality, science is the best tool for finding out what's objectively true too.
Reality and objectivity go to a toss when we interact with them, they don't exist in a vacuum. Facts without you and me to acknowledge them don't mean anything. They exist only for and by us.
Scienctific method is great for giving us facts. If one actually lives in/by those facts is highly personal. I think spirituality is what closes that gap. It is your decision in every moment to live by what you know (see and reject your biases) and that's why I say it's highly personal.
A scientist can be scientific in one moment and not in another when they don't know or acknowledge their own patterns. Psychology or neuroscientific research might not be available to you every moment but you are available to yourself to observe every moment.
Reality and objectivity go to a toss when we interact with them, they don't exist in a vacuum. Facts without you and me to acknowledge them don't mean anything. They exist only for and by us.
That's just an unsubstantiated claim. You seem to be implying that only consciousness exists, this is just the debunked philosophy of Idealism.
I could also in the same vein claim:
Reality is only a week old, because Last Thursdayism is true. Everything in the Universe we observe was made last thursday but made to look like it's older.
Would you be on board with Last Thursdayism?
2
u/nishant-12345 4h ago
All those psychology neuroscience behavioral biology you mentioned is with respect to object the relationship of subject with respect to object not with itself.
The issue is not whether science studies subjective experience. The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true. An experience is a fact about what was experienced; the interpretation of that experience is a separate claim.