Luc Turpin

1- So, Richard Dawkins does not refute, but equates it to the "fog" of subjectivity. Daniel Dennet does not deny it either, but says it's an illusion fabricated by the brain. Sam Harris does not deny subjectivity and does not seem to put any caveats on it. As for Christopher Hitchens, he was all into atheism and I could not find anything on subjectivity coming out of him. 2-So, science does not refuse to investigate the metaphysical? Science has no preferred leaning towards materialism? And it has definitely resolved the living and consciousness? Show me the evidence! 3- Science holds a priviledge postion in western societies and uses this leverage very efficiently. It did set up the boudaries of what it can investigate and then bled through the boundaries by being strongly suggestive of how the world should be viewed through science. 4- No impact on identifying rocks and minerals, but the mind will be doing it through the brain, rather than the brain doing it itself. Neuroscience is starting to show evidence that I am using in my posts. I did takl about Wilder Penfield, did I not and his live experiences on humans. I did talk about Paul Pietsch and his shuffle brain experiences. etc. 5- Neuroscience and science have been trying to crack the mind from brain nut for centuries and have not done so. After trying for so long, it might be time to try something different that is supported by incomplete, but tantalizing partial evidence. 6- Nope, it will not. But maybe some equations might have to be revisited, but too early to tell as we don't know at this point what mind really is. 1- If it quacks and walks like a duck, its a duck. 2- "Measurable" was the word being used in posts, but I agree that quantifiable is better. 3- Bias is unevenly distributed, but found in all fields. As for consciousness, finding out what it really is would unlock locked doors. Agree with you on this matter. I also am interested in your likes and dislikes 😊

yes, the process reduces, but does not eliminate bias. its the individuals t not the method. studying it will help identify and control it, but it remains essentially a human affair. my main bone of contention is that science wishes to study only what is measurable (fair enough) and then inadvertently or otherwise, a determination is made on the predominant worldview without consideration for the subjective aspect of reality. This to me is the main bias in science. 1- agree that I have not supported other disciplines 2- yes, it is acceptable to not have an answer 3- those that have not moved on, seem to not be able to go beyond computer analogies. This observation comes from those that have moved on will continue tomorrow

Yes, yes, this is bias. This is exactly what I was implying from the get go. Not only in neuroscience, but in many disciplines. The brain is definitely not a computer, But when discussing this with many neuroscientists, they do not even have a fallback position, only being able to discuss the matter in a computer analogy context. I said that they probably did not, not that they definitely did. I will investigate. And you are correct that it would have been unsubstantiated if I stated it as a fact. However, I remember a Dennet talk that definitely implied that there was next to nothingness after the objective reality. This is a contention of mine, which, you are correct again, does not make it true. I put the statement up there to clarify my position on the matter under discussion. Putting someone in a scanner is a way of peering into the subjective nature of mind. It does even if some reject it. Polarization does not only exist in politics. If I tell you that mind expresses itself through brain, then what does stop it from having an effect on more elementary matter? Yes, letting panpsychism through the backdoor. Not saying that it is, but one shall not preliminarily disqualify it. A minority but growing number of neuroscientists are now contemplating this. Why is this? Because of contrary findings to a mind from brain model. I have given many intriguing areas of investigations on this matter in some of my posts. And these mind from brain inconsistencies can be empirically studied. Do remember that Wilder Penfield started his career as a staunch mind from brain proponent, made numerous prodding of the brain with electrodes and ended his carrer saying that he was no longer sure of this. When prodding his patients with electrodes, something would happen, but patients always replied, “its not me doing this, you are” which was unexpected. One of many odd results of neuroscience studies. Not smart enough to understand this.

It is maybe "I" that is the fatalist in all of this, not science. I think also that Dawkins is deluded. I am getting very dizzy being on the merry-go-round and soon will fall off into silence. Have any suggestions for a better question? I still think that mine is good as it seems to encourage thinking about bias. But, maybe, you know, all of this may be very all for nothing. Correction - But, maybe, you know, all of this may very well be all for nothing.

1- My indictment of science is this <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me. My beef is focussed, but broadly applicable. 2- Outcomes are part of reality. a = GM/r^2 does tell us something about gravity, which is part of reality. We would know less about reality without it. 3- When I use the "you" in my text it is about the broad based "you" as in all physicists, not you "swansont". You (as in you swansont this time) can have a lot of fun doing science, but the "you", as in all physicists, share a passion of wanting to know how the world or reality works. Is it not the case? 4- Electric fields and phonons are calculation tools that help us better understand reality. QM speaks loudly about our microscopic reality. So much so that we benefit from inventions based on QM. And these inventions affect our day to day reality. 5- There is an objective reality that can be measured and a subjective reality that can be indirectly measured. Consciousness can be indirectly measured through scanning devices. Meditators were placed in scanners and we learned something about this state of reality. All then that I am asking is a fair competition between the objective and subjective. I did mention that I thought that they did so, not that it was so. I will have to investigate this assertio. And I say "that some areas of knowledge will always yield usefull explanations of their objects if they are adequately studied, via indirect objective measurement." Scientists argued a while back ago that dogs did not really feel pain; that it was all reflexes, and that extended to us human for many scientists. I then stil cling to my idea that some scientists still believe that subjective reality is not real, but an artifice. Then why all this fatalism in science. When I read science, I feel excitement about the discovery itself, but less enchanted about its implication. According to most of science, I get the feel that we are pointless dots haphazardly floating in a vast ocean of pointless dots.

1- might be too tired, but I am not getting this one. The search for holistic types of studies would be fast as there is not too many and limited to social sciences types of studies. 2- if you need both to grasp at reality, then so be it. If nature has decided to incorporate both then who are we to decide that its too general. 3- some other research is needed to grasp at all of reality 4- ho, so why are you doing science?just to do science for science sake? I think not. You want to know how the world works, which is part of our living reality. World, universe are the same and are our reality

1- i disagree, it permeates most of science. I have followed you and most physicists on this forum. You could all dispense of subjectivity if you could. Some even say that they avoid the interpretation of their theory. You personally seem uninterested in consciousness, the holy grail of subjectivity. Subjectivity seems an avoidable nuisance for your discipline but not for most other sciences. And it is necessary to fully grasp reality. You cannot divorce yourself from it if you want to attain full meaning. 2- what a shame that they are missing out on so much more reality

As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen.

Ok then, that the domain of the subjective is not required to have a full grasp of reality. Some even contend that it does not exist.

Not Swansont, but many scientists.. I was talking in general terms. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Nothing to do with lasers and optical fibers. Bias in the general sense that a holistic approach is rarely used as a scientific investigative tool. Both, not mutually exclusive My beef is on the subjective and mostly on the living and consciousness not currently being well represented in science and when they do, this will have a significant impact on the current science paradigm and all of science in general. Let us not forget that the subjective is too part of reality, but summarily touched upon in science. And if it is not the domain of science, then you cannot claim to have a full grasp of reality.

My mistake, type Shuffle Brain - The Quest for the hologramic mind by Paul Pietsch. I know personnaly both Paul and Stanislov Grof and they have interesting, but "incredible' data on the subject of the holotropic mind.

!- Science does declare that these are limitations (which is true) and many scientists do declare that the world is materialistic and mechanistic (which remains to be seen). And fully agree with your statement that findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. I am not objecting to the findings of science, but that scientists have not taken into consideration all of the evidence before making such statements. 2- Again, I do not wish to have any new approach. All that I am advocating is for a broader look at all of the evidence, not only the ones that fall in line with current paradigm. And again, not looking for a revolution but an evolution. Nothing wrong with being biased towards what works; it is common sense to prefer things that work to things that do not work.

Now I think that I understand better. There is no bias in choosing to follow the process, but some scientists use the process and methodology with an intention of their own. The matter is this: if you put your values and beliefs in the process, it becomes less objective and therefore biased toward the interpretation that you want to obtain. Physics and chemistry are less prone to this I suppose.

General <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me Items a) and b) are correct statements. Add c) <a promising avenue of exploration with interesting preliminary evidence, but does not respect the current paradigm, so it went nowhere.> and I agree with this part of your statement Adding horizontal gene transfer to an exclusively vertical one should have shaken the grounds to the core of the selfishness part of evolution theory and it has barely made a dent. The core foundation of the theory of evolution had no place whatsoever for epigenetic and its requirement of environmental factors having to be taken into account in the theory. I have witnessed so many <surprises> over the years that I am <surprised> that the theory is still intact. I was not talking about the recent examples that I posted. Yes, observations, not research directions , I admit. The articles that I produced in other posts were not far fetched as the mitochondria example, just not in line with predominant paradigm. See my text under <General>. I predict significant paradigm shifts when issues related to the living and consciousness are satisfactorily resolved. I have not called for a revolution in science, but an evolution encompassing parts of reality that have been ignored so far. Unrelated to evolution theory, but to those outside the current paradigm trying to be inside. Again, I predict significant paradigm shifts when issues related to the living and consciousness are satisfactorily resolved. I posted numerous summaries of articles with citations and references to the actual article in numerous posts of mine with no feedback. And you did not respond to my question. I am asking you a question about any holism papers that you have ever encountered; meaning that there is none and that is a problem; and an example of biases. Again, Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; Is this a trick question? Yes, I consider this a form of bias. Why would you not be able to employ known physics? Now, now Dim, no swearing😊 Thinking as hard a I can (maybe I am just dim-witted) and with the amount of time at my disposal for posting. Trying hard to be as clear as possible, but admit that I am having communication problems.

I am saying that my positiion has shifted. I believed before that it was the process that was also at fault. Now I say that the three points indicated in the post are the ones that I share with those mentioned in my references,not the process. I am moving on my position! Have you ever moved on something that I have said? Maybe you should read your own caption for inspiration.

1- Good one; plead no contest 2-Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; Where is mind-searching for mind in nature-how does mind work through brain with 35 references; The Secret Language of Cells backed by numerous studies; An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity; are all examples of things that have merit, but are going nowhere is science. Other numerous studies that are out of the ordinary and that I have posted in past threads (met mostly with silence. My example of the Theory of evolution is as credible as your example of laser cooling and trapping, with different outcomes. 3- And if it has gone successfully through the falsification process and still does not get studied? Like the examples given above. 4- Have you seen any major paradigm shift lately in comparison to before? Is it because science is getting closer to the wholly grail or things have changed in science where new ideas are harder to come by. Before, It took one or two names on a paper, now it takes more, even hundreds (hadron collider papers). Where does creativity come from, a group or a few brilliant individuals with a dirrerent mind set. 5- Causality is true; I am not the one advancing this position, one of my references is. Have you seen many papers proposing holism as their basis for their studies? 6- Close-ended as refractory to ideas that run counter to the more agreed upon worldview. I will be off-line tomorrow. At 4- should have said "new paradigm ideas", because new ideas existing inside existing paragdims, there are plently.

1- <sigh> thought that I was moving towards firmer ground. 2- My evidence is not quantifiable, but at the very least, I am not the only one upholding these views 3, 4- I often see new ideas popping up in the literature, but when I look at the same literature a few years afterward, I rarely see any follow-up on them nor integration or movement of models. Best example for me in my reading through the years is Evolution Theory where it started as "evolution, one random mutation at a time" to an almost avalanche of processes for evolution being uncovered (from vertical to horizontal gene transfer; a big deal), but the theory, at least for me, seems generally unchanged, lying on top of the same foundation as before. I say that based on acquired evidence of the last few decades, this same foundation should have shifted, and it did not, at least not as much as it should have. 4, 5-Much less resistance to innovation of the same kind, much more resistance to innovation of a different kind. My first two points of contention indicated above would not slow down the quantity, quality of studies nor the speed of change, or immense success of science as long as these innovations were not putting into question models. If I have an idea based on different basic science assumptions it might not be given a fair chance, hence less possible paradigm shifts. Not saying that models cannot be challenged, but that you have to wake up really early to do so. 6- Causality, determinism and reductionism are ways of skinning a cat, but other ways exist as well that might bring a different-new perspective to things. 7- I think that the point is that the process is close-ended not open-ended

Upon more careful reading of the references that I provided, I am more inclined to believe that the scientific process has checks and balances to weed out many of the unwarranted effects of biases. However, I maintain my position that there aisle bias in science based on the following 1- that « many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. ». 2- « all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research » 3- that « The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. »

Need to keep my promise to swansont though; next post of mine might be helpful in restructuring the debate As promised Some references are in line with my contention, but one in particular, a meta-analysis appears to indicate that bias effects are minimal and contained in certain domains. The article that I could not copy-paste was especially enlightening. Maybe my limited review of literature can be helpful in our discussion. A search was conducted of Google, Google Scholar and PubMed. 1- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/#:~:text=In%20research%2C%20bias%20occurs%20when,and%20publication%20(Figure%201). Bias can occur in the planning, data collection, analysis, and publication phases of research. Understanding research bias allows readers to critically and independently review the scientific literature and avoid treatments which are suboptimal or potentially harmful. A thorough understanding of bias and how it affects study results is essential for the practice of evidence-based medicine. 2- https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18326/1/may-bias-in-science.pdf Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social— that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question. We have seen how many of the putative biases that affect science can be explained and illuminated in terms of motivated reasoning, which yields a general understanding of how a researcher’s goals and values can influence scientific practice (whether positively or negatively). ……………. In particular, one’s reasoning is more often motivated by a desire to gain social credit (e.g. recognition among peers) than a desire to promote a moral or political ideology. Although there may be discernible differences in the quality of research across scientific domains, all are influenced by researchers’ values, as manifested in their motivations. We began with the notion that bias in science is a problem, and a particularly pressing one given concerns about replicability and questionable research practices. However, I have not attempted to adjudicate whether the influence of any values in natural or social science is ultimately pernicious. My goal has only been to make the case that we ought to treat like cases alike. When value influences are detrimental, we should regard them as disconcerting in both areas of science; when values are innocuous or even beneficial, we ought to treat them as such in both domains. Whether scientific domains are companions in innocence or in guilt, we should recognize that motivated reasoning influences a wide range of research, which makes vivid how inherent values are to the whole enterprise of science. 3- https://communities.springernature.com/posts/ethics-of-hype-and-bias-in-science Scientists are only human. As such, they can fall prey to biases in their professional endeavors. Biased scientists are an inevitability, however the view of science as an objective enterprise assumes that these biases can be overcome by the scrutiny of a peer review process. Biased scientists need not necessarily give rise to biased research. The concept of self-correcting science should ensure this. This notion is associated with the idea of replication, where results that fail to replicate will not be propagated in the scientific literature. Another important step in this process are meta-analyses, in which an assembly of studies examining the same question, with varying degrees of individual error, are statistically analyzed in order to find a ‘true effect’. However, both these processes are dependent on the publication process. For this reason, publication bias is one of the biggest threats to the integrity of scientific knowledge. Another common type of bias resulting from the social dimension of science comes in the form of the scientific dogma. An essential part of being a scientist is acknowledging that knowledge is not absolute. Especially today, when methodology and scientific instruments evolve at a prompt pace, improving the resolution of the data obtained, there is always the possibility that some piece of knowledge needs to be reevaluated. In fact, this is one of the bases for self-correcting science. Still, many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. In this case, not only are scientists failing to uphold the principles of organized skepticism and disinterestedness, but they also fail to respect their fellow colleagues, many times on the basis of self-interest or for the sake of defeating a rival’s argument. 4- https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1618569114 Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis 5- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33871836/ Clinical epidemiological research entails assessing the burden and etiology of disease, the diagnosis and prognosis of disease, the efficacy of preventive measures or treatments, the analysis of the risks and benefits of diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers, and the evaluation of health care services. In all areas, the main focus is to describe the relationship between exposure and outcome and to determine one of the following: prevalence, incidence, cause, prognosis, or effect of treatment. The accuracy of these conclusions is determined by the validity of the study. Validity is determined by addressing potential biases and possible confounders that may be responsible for the observed association. Therefore, it is important to understand the types of bias that exist and also to be able to assess their impact on the magnitude and direction of the observed effect. The following chapter reviews the epidemiological concepts of selection bias, information bias, intervention bias, and confounding and discusses ways in which these sources of bias can be minimized. 6- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511249/ Both the natural and the social sciences are currently facing a deep "reproducibility crisis". Two important factors in this crisis have been the selective reporting of results and methodological problems. In this article, we examine a fusion of these two factors. More specifically, we demonstrate that the uncritical import of Boolean optimization algorithms from electrical engineering into some areas of the social sciences in the late 1980s has induced algorithmic bias on a considerable scale over the last quarter century. Potentially affected are all studies that have used a method nowadays known as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Drawing on replication material for 215 peer-reviewed QCA articles from across 109 high-profile management, political science and sociology journals, we estimate the extent this problem has assumed in empirical work. Our results suggest that one in three studies is affected, one in ten severely so. More generally, our article cautions scientists against letting methods and algorithms travel too easily across disparate disciplines without sufficient prior evaluation of their suitability for the context in hand. 7- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30990003/ The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The biomedical paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined in this paper as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. 8- https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yZmNCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=bias+in+science&ots=CS_hO0TlW1&sig=PrHZdhGxIeoLt002mVdMm2f5C6E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bias%20in%20science&f=false Cannot cut and paste, but a very good read. 9- https://elifesciences.org/articles/44929 Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science. 10- https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.2383041109 Bias is a form of systematic error that can affect scientific investigations and distort the measurement process. A biased study loses validity in relation to the degree of the bias. While some study designs are more prone to bias, its presence is universal. It is difficult or even impossible to completely eliminate bias. In the process of attempting to do so, new bias may be introduced or a study may be rendered less generalizable. Therefore, the goals are to minimize bias and for both investigators and readers to comprehend its residual effects, limiting misinterpretation and misuse of data. Numerous forms of bias have been described, and the terminology can be confusing, overlapping, and specific to a medical specialty. Much of the terminology is drawn from the epidemiology literature and may not be common parlance for radiologists. In this review, various types of bias are discussed, with emphasis on the radiology literature, and common study designs in which bias occurs are presented.

Data sets were provided to support or not my assumption of a homogenous view in science, which is what you asked me to provide evidence for. I did and my assumption does not hold up to the scrutiny of evidence. this has nothing to do with biases; I was just responding to your request that I was making up assumptions and not backing them with evidence. Again, evidence does not back up my assumption. as for biases, if I have the time this week, I will do a review of literature on pubmed and query “bias in science” and see what I can pull together. Both sides; articles saying that there is and articles that say that there is not; then we can have a discussion on the subject with data in hand. And, my last posts with you had nothing to do with biases or deity. Just homogeneity of views in science

On the contrary, not biased. I was ascertaining that my course of action was unbiased as I was pulling data in support and not in support of my assumption. So far, I am on the losing end with 2 of 3 in support of a mix of worldviews which is not conducive to the making of a homogenous view of science. Again, not quite what I expected What do you mean? The data does not support my assumption of a homogenous worldview. I am on the losing end of it and you say that I am cherry picking data that does not meet my expectations? why would I do that? Your immediate expectation of me having preconceived views and then seeking out data, may very well be your own biases towards me that are at play. 1- All of the data collected over the centuries has not contributed to the postulation of an accepted theory of mind. We still do not know how matter creates mind 2- If mind is all over nature or outside of brain, good luck trying to pull it into a materialistic worldview. At the very least, the predominant materialist hypothesis, that of an emergent property of nature, would be seriously in doubt. However, I agree that conjuring the supernatural, might not be needed if mind is all over nature, but materialism would be in trouble nonetheless. Think about it, a conscious field or force. That would upend a lot of things in science. And this is the hypothesis that a minority of neuroscientists are making. Now time to test and this can only happen if biases towards this hypothesis are lowered.

Doing much worse with scientists although this is old 2009 According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/#:~:text=According to the poll%2C just,universal spirit or higher power. The unbiased search continues and I am losing This one is more in line with my expectations But a recent survey published in the leading science journal Natureconclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population. trying to get the exacy reference

I have better than that and it is not in my favour, at least as it pertains to mind. “The 2020 PhilPapers Survey of Anglophone academic philosophers’ views has just been published. On the philosophy of mind, physicalism (AKA materialism) remains the view of the majority, but only just, with 51.9% of philosophers professing to accept/lean towards physicalism about the mind. However, a very large minority of 32.1% align with non-physicalism about the mind (15.9% are undecided, accept an alternative to both, or think the question is too unclear to answer*). There was also a more specific question on ‘Consciousness’ which allows us to dig a bit deeper. Among those who accept/lean towards non-physicalism, approximately 3/4 are dualists and 1/4 are panpsychists.” i need then to redact myself on his matter. https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2021/11/01/materialism-remains-the-majority-view-but-only-just/ 1- no entities, but something maybe going on beyond the realm of the purely material, yes. 2- why the automatic default to physicalism though. If one is to explore only the physical world than one expect to get only physical results. But does that mean that the world is only made up of the physical?. I contend that science neglected a whole area of reality that put in the mix would not necessarily favour physicalism. This shift has already started in consciousness research where a physical explanation of it is still lacking. Hence the biasness towards physicalism that I am talking about in science. Should have said in swansont reply that data provided was not in my favour at least as it stand.for the mind

Point well taken appearance of is not evidence of I will do a review of literature, but may take some time as I have an activity next week that will keep me away from electronic gadgets. homogeneity as in only one worldview permeating all of science entire fields of study; should have said fields of study outside of of predominating worldview. Gave many examples in the numerous references that I provided in former posts