Hard Problem of Formal Sciences

The paradox that formal systems like mathematics and logic, which are human creations of pure thought and symbol manipulation, describe and predict the physical universe with uncanny, often inexplicable accuracy. These sciences deal with abstract, necessary truths (2+2=4 is true in any possible universe). The hard problem is why these mind-born rule-sets, which require no empirical input, are so deeply "baked into" the fabric of our contingent, empirical reality. It's the question of whether we invent mathematics or discover it, and if we discover it, why is the universe inherently mathematical? The success of the formal sciences suggests a pre-established harmony between human reason and cosmic structure that borders on the mystical.

Example: A mathematician, working purely from axioms and logic, derives a strange, non-intuitive structure called a "Lie group." Decades later, a physicist finds that this exact mathematical structure perfectly describes the behavior of fundamental particles and forces in the Standard Model. The hard problem: How did a game of intellectual symbols, played out on notebooks, anticipate the operational code of the cosmos? It's as if the universe runs on software written in a programming language that the human brain, by sheer coincidence, independently invented for fun. This "unreasonable effectiveness" is the foundational shock of the formal sciences. Hard Problem of Formal Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences

The meta-problem of self-reference: Cognitive sciences (psychology, neuroscience, linguistics) use the human mind to study the human mind. This creates a loop where the instrument of investigation is the same as the object under investigation. The hard problem is that any model the mind produces about itself is necessarily incomplete and shaped by the very cognitive biases, limitations, and structures it's trying to map. It's like a camera trying to take a perfect picture of its own lens—the act of observation changes and is constrained by the apparatus. We can never get a "view from outside" of cognition.

Example: A neuroscientist uses an fMRI machine (designed and operated by human brains) to study which brain regions activate during decision-making. The conclusions of the study are then processed, understood, and believed by other human brains. The hard problem: The entire epistemic chain is made of "brain stuff." If human cognition is systematically flawed in some way, that flaw would be baked into the scientific methods, instruments, and interpretations, making it invisible to us. We are using a potentially faulty compiler to debug its own source code. Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Science Slurs

Pejorative terms used within and against scientific discourse to shut down inquiry, attack researchers' motives, or caricature positions without engagement. They are rhetorical weapons that replace argument with dismissal. On one side, terms like "pseudoscientist," "crank," or "denier" can be applied too broadly to shut down heterodox but legitimate questioning. On the other, terms like "lab-coat priest," "scientism," or "so-called expert" are used to delegitimize scientific consensus itself by framing it as a dogmatic religion.

Example: In a debate on GMOs, a scientist is called a "Monsanto shill," instantly dismissing their data as corrupt. Conversely, a philosopher questioning the limits of reductionism is labeled a "woo-peddler" or "anti-science." Terms like "climate alarmist" or "evolutionist" are crafted to frame scientific consensus as ideological. These slurs pollute the epistemic commons, turning discussions into tribal warfare where identity, not evidence, determines belief. Science Slurs.

by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026

Science Bigotry

Also called Scientism: The dogmatic, uncritical belief that the scientific method is the only valid form of knowledge and can, in principle, answer all meaningful questions. It is an ideological overreach that dismisses the value of ethics, philosophy, art, history, and lived experience. This bigotry often comes with a hierarchy that views physics as "harder" (and therefore superior) than sociology, and views all non-scientific frameworks as inferior or merely "subjective opinion." It fails to see science as a powerful but limited tool within a broader humanistic enterprise.

Example: A science bigot declares, "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist," thereby dismissing love, beauty, justice, and meaning as irrelevant illusions. They argue morality should be solely derived from evolutionary psychology, or that consciousness is "just" neural activity, not recognizing that the "just" smuggles in a reductionist philosophy, not a scientific fact. This bigotry alienates the humanities, creates blind spots about the values driving science itself, and produces a cold, disenchanted worldview it mistakes for objectivity. Science Bigotry.

by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026