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

[Comradio251]

As by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

In one understanding it is scientism, foundationalism and rationalism,
It is scientism in both senses:
- thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

The latter is so, because it is declared as in fact fact, that what reality is and how to know about reality as only using science.
The problem is that the qoute is based on how somebody thinks as for what is valid for knowledge.

Neil Degrasse Tyson's perception of reality is not everyone elses reality. He bases his reality solely on science and ignores the non physical and metaphysical elements which make up a large portion of many people's reality. Science cannot explain purpose, faith, spirituality, the why, the mind, virtues, choice, the beginning etc. Reality is indeed what you make of it and can easily be independent of scientific thought.

Do you think a hindu's core beliefs have anything to do with science and materialism? No. And their reality works fine for them.

 

[firedragon]

Well, one version. You will find those who claim they that in effect philosophical naturalism is with evidence and that science is the best/only way to understand the universe.

Irrelevant.

 

[F1fan]

Neil Degrasse Tyson's perception of reality is not everyone elses reality.

He gets science right. If others get science wrong, and/or are ignorant of science, that is their problem.

He bases his reality solely on science and ignores the non physical and metaphysical elements which make up a large portion of many people's reality.

Give examples of non-physical and metaphysical elements that we can corfirm exist. If you can't, why should we consider these categories as relevant to describe the universe?

Science cannot explain purpose, faith, spirituality, the why, the mind, virtues, choice, the beginning etc.

So what? You can't use a baseball bat to cut an orange.

Reality is indeed what you make of it and can easily be independent of scientific thought.

Sure, you can be racist and total believe that you are correct, even though science explains that your beliefs are not based on fact, just cultural influence.

Do you think a hindu's core beliefs have anything to do with science and materialism? No. And their reality works fine for them.

Yet Hindus largely get science right. Many theists in the West (many Christians and some Muslims) have learned toxic ideas from their religions that they think can be used to misrepresent results in science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant.

Yeah, I know. That is an objective observation using methodlogical sceince and the instrument used is you and it is calibrated to your subjectivity, because that is how objective you are.
So when I google a list of instruements, how to calibrate them and their measuremnet standard the first one I get is you, oh most objective one.

 

[firedragon]

Well, one version. You will find those who claim they that in effect philosophical naturalism is with evidence and that science is the best/only way to understand the universe.

Irrelevant brother. I was not talking about science. And the axiom of science is not philosophical naturalism.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, I know. That is an objective observation using methodlogical sceince and the instrument used is you and it is calibrated to your subjectivity, because that is how objective you are.
So when I google a list of instruements, how to calibrate them and their measuremnet standard the first one I get is you, oh most objective one.

Hmm. Very good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Here is one:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
Keel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

Here is another one with links:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant brother. I was not talking about science. And the axiom of science is not philosophical naturalism.

Thanks.

Yeah, but this is my thread, so now you read this and make a meaningful answer more than just irrelevant:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[F1fan]

Here is one:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
Keel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

Here is another one with links:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And what is the problem? The universe is observed behaving in predictable ways, and it's the case whether on our planet, or on an asteroid, or the solar system, or our galaxy, and all other galaxies.

What observatives suggest the laws of physics is not constant everywhere?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Say W is a biologist and Z is a creationist.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, now use knows that methodological naturalism is the correct way to understand the universe versus philosophical natrualism, because we have both kinds here and for some of then neither are religious.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, but this is my thread, so now you read this and make a meaningful answer more than just irrelevant:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

That's also irrelevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And what is the problem? The universe is observed behaving in predictable ways, and it's the case whether on our planet, or on an asteroid, or the solar system, or our galaxy, and all other galaxies.

What observatives suggest the laws of physics is not constant everywhere?

Yeah, you don't understand the problems with epistemolgy.

So an atheist who know that for how to know as such in regards to the universe
versus an atheist how don't understand the limit of knowledge know in the same sense as for the universe.

That is so because the only people who have problem with knowledge are not rational objective atheists. They, the atheists, are special and all the same for how they undetstand the universe, science, knowledge and so on.
Well, no, you afre not special and neither am I. And I cope differently than you, because in some cases we have different cogntion.
And your cognition is not objective, absolute, universe or objectively rational for all humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's also irrelevant.

Yeah, it is all irrelevant and thus that I answer is irrelevant to I won't answer you any more.
I won't put you on ignore. I will just treat your posts as irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, it is all irrelevant and thus that I answer is irrelevant to I won't answer you any more.
I won't put you on ignore. I will just treat your posts as irrelevant.

Excellent. Thank you very much.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Yes.

Well, it then follows that you don't need to understand what the universe is to live in it.

Yes.

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.

That does not follow.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Yes. So?

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, now use knows that methodological naturalism is the correct way to understand the universe versus philosophical natrualism, because we have both kinds here and for some of then neither are religious.

So you don't rebut the observations that many humans hold assumptions and beliefs that are contrary to observations, and results in science.

Whatever method a person uses to determine what is true about how things are it needs to avoid unnecessary assumptions, and account for all facts and data. The method needs to be demonstrably reliable and repeatable.

Yeah, you don't understand the problems with epistemolgy.

You aren't doing a good job at proving this. Given your history of posts you seem to have a unique problem that others don't.

So an atheist who know that for how to know as such in regards to the universe
versus an atheist how don't understand the limit of knowledge know in the same sense as for the universe.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

That is so because the only people who have problem with knowledge are not rational objective atheists. They, the atheists, are special and all the same for how they undetstand the universe, science, knowledge and so on.

What does this have to do with atheists, exactly? And what knowledge are you referring to?

Let's note that many theists get science right, and religious belief is not an issue to what they can know.

Well, no, you afre not special and neither am I. And I cope differently than you, because in some cases we have different cogntion.
And your cognition is not objective, absolute, universe or objectively rational for all humans.

I never claimed to be special. I'm not sure what your point is with this line of thought. Understanding science is a matter of a sort of mental discipline, and we observe that cultural beliefs can interfere with it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes.

Yes.

That does not follow.

So it follows that for 2 in effect contradictiory claims about universal knowledge, they are both true and both different persons know as know.
But that can't be the case if you want to use logic, so one of them doesn't know.

I just do that and claim I don't know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. So?

There can't be as known an in the strong sense independent objective reality, if it requires at least one mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you don't rebut the observations that many humans hold assumptions and beliefs that are contrary to observations, and results in science.

Whatever method a person uses to determine what is true about how things are it needs to avoid unnecessary assumptions, and account for all facts and data. The method needs to be demonstrably reliable and repeatable.


You aren't doing a good job at proving this. Given your history of posts you seem to have a unique problem that others don't.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

What does this have to do with atheists, exactly? And what knowledge are you referring to?

Let's note that many theists get science right, and religious belief is not an issue to what they can know.

I never claimed to be special. I'm not sure what your point is with this line of thought. Understanding science is a matter of a sort of mental discipline, and we observe that cultural beliefs can interfere with it.

Here is the problem. You only accept positive proof.
But if there is no positve proof, then your bias result in that you can't understand that.

If there is no strong objective knowledge, but you only accept that, then you can't understand if there is none.