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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong. One person knows because the evidence supports their belief and the other does not know because it doesn't.

Yes, one of them does not know.

OK, but we *can* know, based on evidence, that some ideas are wrong.

Yeah, I will try to answer you.
Rewrite that as a deduction with premises and the conclussion and check for valid and sound.

 

[sayak83]

@sayak83 @TagliatelliMonster @Polymath257 @gnostic @F1fan

It has gotten to the point where I can't answer you all.

So here are some points.
Over the years I have come across different people claiming to understand natural science and knowledge.
They have respectivley claimed it being about logical postivism, falsifiable, coherence, pragmatic and a cultural practice.
Now they can't all know because they contradict each other.

Then there are those claim that science is the only form or the best form for knowledge. I have never seen evidence for that.
Then there is the familiy of variants of false ideas. The problem is that ideas are only in the mind, so science can't say that an idea is false.
The same with all those other words which belong to the mind as cogntion or feelings.

And here it is as simple as I can do it. You can point to a cat if you can see a cat. But you can't point to science, knowledge, evidence, truth, logic, reason and all those other words used by you guys.
We are doing cognition and mega-cognition in part besides those parts of our experince which comes to us as objective.

So if you please with evidence for all those cognitive words could give evidence for the true ones, I will listen. Until that happens, I point out that if you started to observe your group for who you are, then you are not an uniform objective group, and you could learn what is known in cultural science as a standard observation: Science as a human behavior is a social construct.

I would like to note that my discussion has not been about science at all, but on the point that knowledge that a world exists which is independent of the observer can be shown to be true based on the observations themselves. You have claimed to the contrary, but have failed to provide evidence to support your claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would like to note that my discussion has not been about science at all, but on the point that knowledge that a world exists which is independent of the observer can be shown to be true based on the observations themselves. You have claimed to the contrary, but have failed to provide evidence to support your claim.

Yeah, because true is an idea in your mind and this one too.
Here is the problem: If a world is independent of the observer, then the observer can't know about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So this claim of yours can be rejected since it denies its own content.

That is why the scientific method exists, and very strong standards are applied to experiments.

Have you never taken an experimental science course? I did. We learned how to identify and control for variables.

Well, let us try with 3 versions of objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
-having reality independent of the mind.

But your version of knowledge is a personal interpretaion shared by some other people, not independent of individual thought, not perceptible by all observers and doesn't have reality independent of the mind.

See, your version of knowledge is not objective for any of the 3 ones.
Now for the word exists, that is this:

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You can't point to that something exists as per observation since it is an idea from philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The whole point of objective knowledge is that it is not reliant on any single mind, but it is the consensus of those minds that have thoroughly tested the relevant ideas.

Yeah, but as per this post to @F1fan "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."
knowledge is as knowledge not objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Notice I say that it is SOME theists. And I acknowledge that some theists get science right. These are observations, not judgments. It's notable that there are no atheist creationists, and that is because creationism is a religious framework, and is a huge liability for those who adopt it, and try to defend it. I don't see you pointing out this cultural bias to what can be known about biology, and other sciences.

Well, biology as a bias is general survial of the strongest, biology is about the survial of the group and we are top of the evolution.
So yes, you can find bias in some versions of biology.
So for point out against some theists. I do do that.
For example I have yet to see evidence for design and before I derail that thtread, I was debating against design.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is irrelevant to us whether it is a simulation or not *until* we have actual evidence of it being so. And, until we have such evidence, it is unreasonable to conclude it is a simulation.

Yeah, that is in your mind as your cogntion.
MY point is that it is unknown. Not a fact, just as it is unknown if there is a we and our universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would disagree. A chair exists whether or not anyone sees it or observes it. A planet orbiting another star exists whether or not anyone knows it is there.

yes, to *confirm* it. Not for it to happen.

No, it would be unknown.

 

[F1fan]

Well, let us try with 3 versions of objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
-having reality independent of the mind.

But your version of knowledge is a personal interpretaion shared by some other people, not independent of individual thought, not perceptible by all observers and doesn't have reality independent of the mind.

I claim no such thing. This is highly prejudiced and inaccurate.

What I do is defer to experts in various fields of study. These experts exist as a consensus among their peers.

See, your version of knowledge is not objective for any of the 3 ones.
Now for the word exists, that is this:

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You can't point to that something exists as per observation since it is an idea from philosophy.

I have no idea what you mean here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I claim no such thing. This is highly prejudiced and inaccurate.

What I do is defer to experts in various fields of study. These experts exist as a consensus among their peers.


I have no idea what you mean here.

Yeah, but you haven't shown how knowledge as knowledge can be objective or what exists is.
You have only stated that you disagree.

 

[F1fan]

Well, biology as a bias

How is biology a bias?

is general survial of the strongest, biology is about the survial of the group and we are top of the evolution.

Are you claiming that humans as a species is on top of all species? If so, what is your standard for this?

I suggest sharks are a contender since they have few predators and have remained the same for about 25 million years.

So yes, you can find bias in some versions of biology.

It’s not as good as yours.

So for point out against some theists. I do do that.
For example I have yet to see evidence for design and before I derail that thtread, I was debating against design.

So what’s the problem? They have assumptions and beliefs that actually are biased, yet you are focusing criticism against those who accept the functional nature of science.

 

[firedragon]

I think I got a problem with that quote. The quote is based on a materialist assumption.

In my philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, Consciousness/Brahman is fundamental and the ultimate reality, but it is not revealed by the tools and methods of science.

Very interesting.

Please be kind enough to allow me to arm your statement firmer with all due respect.

Brahman is has no image, and neither is he or it like anything. Brahman is a transcended being. Not physical. But metaphysical.

Science has a primary axiom. That is "Methodological Naturalism".

Thus, it's like looking for plastic using a metal detector if one is looking for Brahman using science.

Only the absolutely ignorant in the philosophy of science would try to do that.

Peace.

(BTW, I am no expert in Sanathana Dharma so correct my ignorance if you may)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is biology a bias?


Are you claiming that humans as a species is on top of all species? If so, what is your standard for this?

I suggest sharks are a contender since they have few predators and have remained the same for about 25 million years.


It’s not as good as yours.


So what’s the problem? They have assumptions and beliefs that actually are biased, yet you are focusing criticism against those who accept the functional nature of science.

No, I am pointed out that I have seem people claim what goes against biology and I will do science if relevant.
What I won't accept that is you claim to know how you know as per an objective standard.
You don't and neither do I.
That is how we got methodlogical naturalism.
Now if you have already answered about that and the axiomatic asumptions just point me to your post.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, but you haven't shown how knowledge as knowledge can be objective or what exists is.

The fruits of science shows objective results. You can doubt this all you want. It’s got nothing to do with me. Science describes what we call oranges, and can do tests on a collection of samples that explain percentages of water, cellulose, sugars, vitamins, minerals, etc. I accept the results. Do you reject them for some reason? How would the methods and instruments used be unreliable?

The irony is that you seem confident in your own understanding of how you know anything, and show no basis that your claims are objective and true themselves.

You have only stated that you disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fruits of science shows objective results. You can doubt this all you want. It’s got nothing to do with me. Science describes what we call oranges, and can do tests on a collection of samples that explain percentages of water, cellulose, sugars, vitamins, minerals, etc. I accept the results. Do you reject them for some reason? How would the methods and instruments used be unreliable?

The irony is that you seem confident in your own understanding of how you know anything, and show no basis that your claims are objective and true themselves.

Well, yes. If you want to limit it to parts of the universe and not the universe as such, we are done as we agree.
But if you want to claim the universe as such, we will contuine.

 

[F1fan]

No, I am pointed out that I have seem people claim what goes against biology and I will do science if relevant.

Do you acknowledge that science is objective and reliable? If not then why cite it?

What I won't accept that is you claim to know how you know as per an objective standard.
You don't and neither do I.

But you just admitted you will “do science” to rebut creationism. So why can you use science but I can’t?

That is how we got methodlogical naturalism.
Now if you have already answered about that and the axiomatic asumptions just point me to your post.

Methodological naturalism shows its work and how it is reliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you acknowledge that science is objective and reliable? If not then why cite it?


But you just admitted you will “do science” to rebut creationism. So why can you use science but I can’t?


Methodological naturalism shows its work and how it is reliable.

Because it is to me not universal, but rather limited and not the only or best form of knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

Well, yes. If you want to limit it to parts of the universe and not the universe as such, we are done as we agree.

What parts don’t you think are off limits? I can’t agree to vague statements.

But if you want to claim the universe as such, we will contuine.

Claim what? I defer to experts, the only claim I make is that their work follows an objective standard. Otherwise it has nothing to do with me.

 

[shunyadragon]

That philosophical position comes from the direct experience of those that reached the deepest level of consciousness.

Personal experience is subjective and extremely variable without any evidence to confirm such claims.

Nobody is claiming 'science' should accept or reject that position. But it argues reality may not be revealed by the tools and methods of science.

Science can only falsify the physical nature of our existence, That is where the claim of Intelligent Design, and Irreducible Complexity is based on the nature of our physical existence must be demonstrated scientifically to have a valid argument.

The Discovery Institute has tried to do this for many years and failed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What parts don’t you think are off limits? I can’t agree to vague statements.


Claim what? I defer to experts, the only claim I make is that their work follows an objective standard. Otherwise it has nothing to do with me.

Well, this covers it including religion and the limit of naturalism.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

And remember I use scientists too.