Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[PureX]

By definition a fact cannot be relative. It's an oxymoron.

All facts are relative (as opposed to being absolute). They are only true relative to other facts; that are also only true relative to other facts, that are also ... you get the picture.

 

[Audie]

A facile study of philosophy does this kind
of thing to people.

Those who have graced the ivy covrred walls with
their presence noted that the phil. manors are
the most tiresome people on campus.

So some besotted souls say.

A more nuanced sort might say SOME
are, allowing for such as 1 plus1 equals two
it's place as reliably immune to mere opinions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand that sentence. Can you rephrase?

If you want to do something, you can use science to figure out, if you can do it and thus how you do it. But whether you want to do it or not, can't be answered by science. So what is best as what you want to do as between 2 or more possible behaviors can't be answered by science.

Let me give you an example for want to do, where there are at least 3 options:
It involves a legal guardian, which will inherent the person, she, the aunt, is the guardian of, her nephew.

She want to inherent him and she gets lucky. She find him unconscious under water in the bathtub.
She can now try to save him, wait and see if he drowns or actively keep his head under water.
Science can tell her that she has these 3 options, but not which one to choose.

 

[epronovost]

All facts are relative (as opposed to being absolute). They are only true relative to other facts; that are also only true relative to other facts, that are also ... you get the picture.

Than the qualificator ''relative'' is useless. It would be like saying humans with head. All humans have head. It's useless to precise ''with head'' and leads to confusion (as if you believed there were such a thing as a human without a head).

 

[Left Coast]

All facts are relative. Meaning that they are only true relative to other facts that are in turn also only relatively true. Thus, facts can be both true and untrue depending on relevance, and can therefor become very misleading.

That is definitionally irrational. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time. Either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't. There's no third option.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So some besotted souls say.

A more nuanced sort might say SOME
are, allowing for such as 1 plus1 equals two
it's place as reliably immune to mere opinions.

Well, that is relative. 1 plus 1 could also be 10.
Further the ability to understand 1+1=10 is relative to the person understanding it. Thus it is only true relative to the person's cognition, unless you are a Platonic idealist.

As for math, there is such a cognitive condition as dyscalculia.
So 1+1+=2 is relative to the context for there be humans or other entities able to do math. In my world view 1+1=2 would not be either true or false without cognition and I do believe that you believe there was a time in the past, that the universe was without entities with cognition.

All truth are conditional on entities being able to use an abstract concept like truth. In fact before humans there were no facts, truth or world, because all are abstract concepts.
So here is some philosophy on cognitive relativism or if you like that as long as humans are a condition for truth, all truth is relative to a point of view.

"There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In effect what this quotes say that truth is an cognitive abstract and not an objective, actual thing. Truth is a belief in your brain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Than the qualificator ''relative'' is useless. It would be like saying humans with head. All humans have head. It's useless to precise ''with head'' and leads to confusion (as if you believed there were such a thing as a human without a head).

Well, there are babies born without complete heads or brains. They just don't live that long normally. But don't let facts get in your way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is definitionally irrational. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time. Either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't. There's no third option.

Stay with science.
You are assuming that you have solved solipsism, the problem of e.g. a brain in vat and things-in-themselves.
Objective reality as real is an unprovable axiomatic assumption. I do share it, but is doesn't make it absolute true that either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't. It is only relatively true if objective reality is real.

The world is an abstract concept as you can't see the world. It is an idea in your mind. Now I believe as you do, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.
It makes it conditionally or relatively true as if and only if objective reality is real, then that either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't.
Even rationality has a limit.

 

[Left Coast]

Stay with science.
You are assuming that you have solved solipsism, the problem of e.g. a brain in vat and things-in-themselves.
Objective reality as real is an unprovable axiomatic assumption. I do share it, but is doesn't make it absolute true that either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't. It is only relatively true if objective reality is real.

The world is an abstract concept as you can't see the world. It is an idea in your mind. Now I believe as you do, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.
It makes it conditionally or relatively true as if and only if objective reality is real, then that either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't.
Even rationality has a limit.

Whether objective reality is "really real" actually does not change what I said. It's a basic feature of logic. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time. Even conceptually. Even if everything is an illusion in my head or yours. It's literally incoherent.

 

[PureX]

Than the qualificator ''relative'' is useless. It would be like saying humans with head. All humans have head. It's useless to precise ''with head'' and leads to confusion (as if you believed there were such a thing as a human without a head).

"Relative" in this case means relatively true: true relative to a specific set of conditions and circumstances, while not true relative to other conditions and circumstances. All facts are relative by this understanding of the term.

This qualifier should not be necessary for thinking humans, but in many instances it is necessary to remind us that facts are NOT absolutely true, nor always true. Nor should they be taken that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whether objective reality is "really real" actually does not change what I said. It's a basic feature of logic. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time. Even conceptually. Even if everything is an illusion in my head or yours. It's literally incoherent.

You don't know that, because you don't know with absolute truth that there are things.
Logic is cognitive, in your brain. If the physical world cheats and you are a computer simulation by an alien race, you know nothing about the physical world. You only know your cognition.
Again learn to be precise. Logic is abstract and things are concrete.
Logic only applies to things if the objective reality is real.

 

[epronovost]

Well, there are babies born without complete heads or brains.

A brain isn't a head. A deformed or underdevelopped head is still a head, but don't let facts get in your way.

 

[PureX]

That is definitionally irrational. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time.

Who said anything about "the same way at the same time"? Relative truthfulness means true in this way, but not in that. Relative context determines truthfulness.

Either my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it ain't. There's no third option.

There are many options. The truth of such a claim depends on the length of the "inch" being used, the stability of the pen's length, and the validity of it's ownership. All of which can change. Thus, such a statement is NOT absolute. And can be both true and false simultaneously, depending on the variable conditions being applied as the criteria of truthfulness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A brain isn't a head. A deformed or underdevelopped head is still a head, but don't let facts get in your way.

So it is relative if it is a complete head or not.

 

[Left Coast]

You don't know that, because you don't know with absolute truth that there are things.

For that sentence to make any sense, what I said has to hold true.

Logic is cognitive, in your brain. If the physical world cheats and you are a computer simulation by an alien race, you know nothing about the physical world. You only know your cognition.
Again learn to be precise. Logic is abstract and things are concrete.
Logic only applies to things if the objective reality is real.

I'm being precise, Mikkel. You, yet again, don't actually know what you're talking about, while thinking you do. Read and think through what I'm saying.

Whether we're in the Matrix does not change the basic logical principle I stated. It's irrelevant.

 

[Left Coast]

Who said anything about "the same way at the same time"? Relative truthfulness means true in this way, but not in that. Relative context determines truthfulness.

Then you agree with me, it seems. Right now, at this moment, my pen is either longer than three inches, or it isn't.

There are many options. The truth of such a claim depends on the length of the "inch" being used,

No actually, it doesn't. Whatever length you pick, the statement remains the same: my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it isn't.

the stability of the pen's length,

note: currently.

and the validity of it's ownership.

The pen's ownership does not change its length.

All of which can change. Thus, such a statement is NOT absolute. And can be both true and false simultaneously, depending on the variable conditions being applied as the criteria of truthfulness.

No, the statement cannot be both true and false simultaneously, in the same way. Again, this is basic logic. Yes, obviously any statements truth or falsehood is contingent on what those terms mean and the condition of the things being discussed. That doesn't change the basic logical principle at work. Either my pen is longer than 3 inches, or it isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For that sentence to make any sense, what I said has to hold true.



I'm being precise, Mikkel. You, yet again, don't actually know what you're talking about, while thinking you do. Read and think through what I'm saying.

Whether we're in the Matrix does not change the basic logical principle I stated. It's irrelevant.

Yes, cognitively. Concrete for real things, no.

Edit: For the Matrix you are right. For an alien computer simulated universe we are in, it is unknown.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No, the statement cannot be both true and false simultaneously, in the same way. Again, this is basic logic. Yes, obviously any statements truth or falsehood is contingent on what those terms mean and the condition of the things being discussed. That doesn't change the basic logical principle at work. Either my pen is longer than 3 inches, or it isn't.

That is what is relative. If we are discussing as share inter-subjective experience of the simulated things in a simulated universe or not.
Logical applies to cognition. Not things in themselves, but your experiences in your mind.
Stop confusing logic and metaphysics/ontology.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, cognitively. Concrete for real things, no.

Edit: For the Matrix you are right. For an alien computer simulated universe we are in, it is unknown.

No, it isn't unknown. An alien simulated universe is irrelevant to the question for the same reason that the Matrix is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it isn't unknown. An alien simulated universe is irrelevant to the question for the same reason that the Matrix is.

A statement about a thing and whether it is logical, is not the-thing-in-itself.
You are confusing logic with metaphysics/ontology and epistemology.