"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. And that is the case. So?

Then that universe is unknowable, because knowledge requires humans.

 

[Polymath257]

There was no "Earth". Whatever existed was nameless, irrelevant, and meaningless. I find it very strange that you can't/won't recognize this.

And I find it very strange that you claim this. It seems obviously false. It existed. Whether it was 'meaningless, nameless, and irrelevant' is irrelevant to its existence.

Again, there was no "universe". And whatever there was, was nameless, irrelevant, and meaningless.

yes, there was a universe. And whether it was nameless, meaningless, and irrelevant is irrelevant to its existence.

There is no "out there" that is not a cognitive experience. No cognitive experience, no "out there", or "in here" or anywhere else. No relationship between anything and anything else because there are no "things" to relate.

There is *plenty* that is not cognitive experience. The far side of the moon, or planets around other stars existed *long* before anyone knew of them.

Of course you do, and you're going to fight to maintain that disagreement. And to learn nothing as a result.

Whether something is "nameless, meaningless, and irrelevant" has no bearing on its existence.

Meaning and importance are not the same things.

The universe learns nothing except through us. It knows nothing except through us. It is nameless, irrelevant and meaningless except through us.

So? Why does that mean it doesn't exist without us?

There were no years before we thought them into being. There wasn't even time because time is a cognitive experience of space and motion. And these are both cognitive experiences. No cognition, no experience of the relationship between motion and space. And so no time.

Sure there was. It's just that we weren't around to experience it.

 

[Polymath257]

Then that universe is unknowable, because knowledge requires humans.

Being knowable means it would be knowable if there were beings to know it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What alternative can you give to the scientific method to give an understanding of the universe?

Well, you are a skeptic, so you know that universal skepticism is one way to do it.
Let me explain it.
You have 3 people.
One like you who claims to know what the universe is as W and not Z. (Stands for different facts)
Another one who claims to know that the universe is Z and not W.

Well, one of them don't know what the universe is, but is still in the universe, right?
Well, it then follows that you don't need to understand what the universe is to live in it. You just have to have beliefs which to you appear to work. They don't even have to true, just appear to you to work.
I am the 3rd person. I don't know what the universe is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Being knowable means it would be knowable if there were beings to know it.

Yes, and thus a universe without beings to know it is there, it is then not known that it is there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... In fact, it does not mean that a simulation has anything at all to do with reality outside of that simulation.

That is strong ontological dualism, because it must have an actual border to the rest of the universe and in effect follow the laws of the universe.
Otherwise it is in another universe. How do you test for that?
In fact how do you test for your actual claim?
Please explain the actual test so I can replicate it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is where testing comes in. Even if we are in a simulation, we can study the science of that simulation. Since it is all we can experience, it is all that is relevant for discussions of truth. And, inside of the simulation, we can determine whether our hypotheses hold up to testing.

And, again, that is all that matters unless you find red and blue pills, in which case the evidence available changes and we expand our search for truth. But until then, we base our investigations on what is available.

Which axioms do you think are actually required? From what I can see, all that is required is the ability to make and test hypotheses. And that *should* be required in any search for truth.

Actually, there *are* ways to test this. And we *know* of some peculiarities of our specific position in the universe (such as drift velocity with respect to the background radiation). We *can* test to see if the laws of physics are the same in other places and times. For example, we can test whether the various 'constants' vary by a variety of tests. And, ultimately, we can test to determine whether the laws we see here and now actually apply to information we get from other places and times. More specifically, we can test whether the results we get are consistent. if they were not, that would be a good hint that the laws change.

Yeah, so the universe is the same regardless of being a simulation or not? Is that your claim?
BTW look up the cosmological principle.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that is precisely why 'harm' isn't an objective reality.

But how can the sign for it pass through objective reality as the Internet and you understand subjectively when I talk of harm?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

And that violates what is required to actually exist.

...

So something as subjective which is not in the objective reality, how does that actually exist? Or is e.g. harm something that doesn't actually exist?
If so, what are you talking about with say morality, if it doesn't exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OUR knowledge of the universe is dependent on the limitations of our senses and our thoughts. So what? That is only our limitation.

And if the cosmological principle holds among some of the problems in epistemology.

 

[F1fan]

Well, your belief that you can test the axiomatic assumptions is just that, a belief without evidence.

What axiomatic assumptions does science use that can't be tested?

You can't avoid philosophy of science. You can learn the limits of knowledge and be honest about them.

What philosophy of science can't be avoided? Do you think science isn't honest about what science can understand?

So something as subjective which is not in the objective reality, how does that actually exist? Or is e.g. harm something that doesn't actually exist?
If so, what are you talking about with say morality, if it doesn't exist?

Morality exists as a set of rules human decide is correct for a society. It's subjective because the rules might include that Jews can be arrested and killed in one country, but be rejected as immoral in the majority of others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can't know that.

I know it.
The answer is that YES, it boils regardless of minds being present to observe it or not.

We start with the assumptions as per axioms that the objective universe is fair, knowable and orderly. But that is not true.

If you say so.

You sound like a baby who cries when daddy goes hiding behind the couch, believing that things that disappear from his / her field of vision are removed from existence all together, though

 

[F1fan]

There was no "Earth". Whatever existed was nameless, irrelevant, and meaningless. I find it very strange that you can't/won't recognize this.

This is why you can't be taken seriously. He obviously meant the planet we call earth, not the name we have for it. You declare him wrong for some semantic strawman.

Again, there was no "universe". And whatever there was, was nameless, irrelevant, and meaningless.

This retort is irrelevant and meaningles, because you are creating an issue that wasn't intended.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We humans were created with our own perceptual senses that can detect a specific range of different types of realities. When our senses function correctly, our perception of reality is sufficient to understand our own reality.

This is incorrect.

A healthy brain with correctly working senses is still easily tricked into believing falsehoods.

We can interact with our environment and survive without needing to expand our perception of the universe.

Sure, our senses, flaws and all, are "sufficient" for basic survival.
Off course, we can survive while believing all kinds of falsehoods.

In fact, in some cases having a tendency to believe falsehoods is actually beneficial for survival.

But the point here is not mere surviving. The point is about having accurate beliefs.

I don't need to know what wave magnitudes a bee perceives with the type of vision that its eyes allow for me to survive as a human being. I also don't need to develop a sense of smell like a dog's if the smells I perceive as a human are enough for me.

Sure, sure.

And to survive on this planet where things move at medium speeds and are affected by medium gravity, you also don't need to realize that the flow of time relative to an observer is dependend on speed and gravity.
But not realizing that will effectively make it impossible for you to build a GPS system using satellites.

People who DO realize this, will thus have a much easier time doing navigation.

Although human senses have natural limitations, we have many living beings at our disposal that provide what we need. For example, by learning that a dog smells deeper we can use it to track prey; or if we know that a pigeon has a better sense of direction, we can use it as messengers, etc.

Sure, you can and we have don't that in the past.
But these days, we just sent an email or use some time of instant messaging. Which both are technologies that you can't obtain if you only rely on your flawed senses to understand the world, instead of a more objective methodology like science.

Humans perceive reality to the extent that we need to perceive it. If we had all the senses developed to infinity, we would not be human but something else.

Cool.
This has nothing to do with the topic however.

In fact, the quote in the topic is all about recognizing the limitations of human perception and what tools we have at our disposal to go beyond that and overcome those limitations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, 'scientism' is the belief that scientists are the priests of societies. They are not.
All humans can perceive reality according to their own senses and rational thinking.

Scientism is a religion.

Let's both create an airplane.

You get to only use your "senses".
I get to use science.

Which plane will actually fly in your opinion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you estabilish as a part of reality using science the bold part?

I don't understand your question.

Try rephrasing it into something more sensible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In short, science is important, but a limited methodlogy and it can't be used as the best or only way to know about the universe.

It's not the best?
Tell me about a better method and demonstrate how it's better.

 

[F1fan]

Well, you are a skeptic, so you know that universal skepticism is one way to do it.
Let me explain it.
You have 3 people.
One like you who claims to know what the universe is as W and not Z. (Stands for different facts)
Another one who claims to know that the universe is Z and not W.

Say W is a biologist and Z is a creationist.

Well, one of them don't know what the universe is, but is still in the universe, right?

Sure. Being ignorant of science is not a liability, whether a peasant in 1456 or a teenager in 2024. But as we see even ignorant people rely on and use things developed by science, and other experts in technology.

Well, it then follows that you don't need to understand what the universe is to live in it. You just have to have beliefs which to you appear to work. They don't even have to true, just appear to you to work.

Sure, creationists can still survive in a world where science exists and explains things they reject. Who cares? The creationists still take advantage of what science has created in the form of progress.

But if someone believes they can inject disinfectant in their body to get rid of Covid may not survive. Look at the Hale Bopp cult, they had beliefs, and they died. Look at Jonestown, they had beliefs and died. And there are some people who have addictions, and some may overdose. This is not necessarily belief that led to addiction, but it is poor thinking skill that allows poor judgment.

I am the 3rd person. I don't know what the universe is.

And what you think or experience is irrelevant to anyone else. The best approach for anyone is to defer to experts, and that includes science. You not knowing what the universe is is a very bad starting place to be critical of those who do, whether biologists or creationists. Yet you are critical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Something that defenders of scientism forget is that the tools that science uses are the same ones that are already used naturally by all humans. I explain:

A telescope and a microscope are extensions of our own vision, and are based on the fact that realities can be contemplated through the senses. A telescope or a microscope would be useless if humans could not see through them, and be able to interpret those observations obtained with their own rational thinking.

Science is much more then just tools that "extent" our senses.
It's also about methods of inquiry. Like experimentation, control parameters, etc, to "objectify" results.

Likewise, medicine is nothing more than the application of natural knowledge that others discovered long before modern science existed; peasants who used herbs for stomach ailments and obtained improvement, and then they discovered herbs for other ailments. There was no modern science when these things had already been discovered by simple experimentation.

One word: bloodletting.

I'll let you try to draw the obvious conclusion.

So defenders of scientism must learn to modestly discern what the real use of science is, which is not to replace/sustitute the natural observation, experimentation and reasoning of human beings, but to extend them a little more as far as possible.

It's to distinguish what works from what doesn't.
To remove human bias and put more focus on objective evidence instead.

"Anecdotal" evidence will tell you that homeopathy works.
Experimental objective evidence will tell you that it doesn't and that to extent that it does work in specific cases, it's just the placebo effect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is why you can't be taken seriously. He obviously meant the planet we call earth, not the name we have for it. You declare him wrong for some semantic strawman.

This retort is irrelevant and meaningles, because you are creating an issue that wasn't intended.

He has a very annoying habit of creating semantic strawmen and pretending he scored a field goal with it.