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

[Eli G]

That isn't free choice: it is intimidation and coercion
...

If you make an enemy of the butcher you will not eat meat. Call it whatever you want.

What do you think? A father's inheritance belongs to his children, not his neighbor's.

 

[paarsurrey]

That person needs to modify their beliefs to agree with the results found.

If he doesn't the conflict remains, right?

Regards
____________
The history of science is littered with fierce and bitter conflicts. Historians of science have generally shown a strong interest in such personal vendettas.

 

[Madsaac]

Take harm as experinced subjectively. All science can do it is to explain that that is the case and report different subjective experiences.
Science can't decide what harm is or what the best understanding of harm is.
So your idea that there is evidence for everything, is when tested a belief without evidence.

Of course, no one can explain an individuals experience/idea of harm.

However, if you put all of these subjective experiences/ideas of harm together and measure/analyse them in some way, you then may come to some sort of objective understanding.

 

[Eli G]

There are many ways to discover the truth about different things.

Sometimes normal observation is enough, sometimes even feelings are enough.

For example, if the wife tells the husband that she loves him, does he need to do a scientific experiment to find out if it is true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course, no one can explain an individuals experience/idea of harm.

However, if you put all of these subjective experiences/ideas of harm together and measure/analyse them in some way, you then may come to some sort of objective understanding.

No, not as I understand objective as per these 3 definitions 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

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You will have an objective understanding that other people also have a subjective understanding of harm, but you won't have an objective understanding of harm, because harm can't be known objectively.

 

[Madsaac]

No, not as I understand objective as per these 3 definitions 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

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You will have an objective understanding that other people also have a subjective understanding of harm, but you won't have an objective understanding of harm, because harm can't be known objectively.

Maybe it's a bit of both.

Can this be a little bit like when the tree falls in forest, does it make a sound? It does make a sound because of pressure waves in the air change etc. Even though know one heard it.

So to a degree, science can decide what harm is because of the fact that a persons brain changes, nerves react, and whatever physiological changes occur when one experiences harm.

However science can't explain the levels of harm, so it may be a bit of both. Pragmatism

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe it's a bit of both.

Can this be a little bit like when the tree falls in forest, does it make a sound? It does make a sound because of pressure waves in the air change etc. Even though know one heard it.

So to a degree, science can decide what harm is because of the fact that a persons brain changes, nerves react, and whatever physiological changes occur when one experiences harm.

However science can't explain the levels of harm, so it may be a bit of both. Pragmatism

Yeah, but that brain is not all objective for all its processes, if you accept that subjective is natural, physical, chemical, bilogical, cultural, psychological, but just not objective.
Something as something in the same sense can't be both objective and subjective for those sense. It is an either or.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

With regard to moral values, if one uses his conscience as a guide rather than somebody else's rules, he is guided by intuition. Reason and empiricism come into play when one is deciding what specific actions are most conducive to achieving the goals of the intuition.

Intuitions can't be defended nor need they be. My intuition is that society ought to be structured to give everybody the maximal opportunity to find happiness as they understand it (utilitarianism), and that I should live according to what my empathetic intuitions dictate, which is basic Golden Rule stuff. I can't argue for either of these. I can't demonstrate why they are right or wrong. Nobody can. We can only speak to the consequences of following those intuitions, a situation sometimes called the is-ought problem, which simply stated, says that we can't get from is to ought.

Empiricism gives us the is part. If I do this, that will result. But it can't decide what we ought to want or do beyond saying that if you want this to happen, do that. If you want people to be safe from toxins in their water, you need to do certain things, but nothing can demonstrate that you should care about that issue. The universe doesn't.

And this describes rational ethics, or the application of "is" thinking to "ought" thinking. We apply reason and empiricism to our moral intuitions to determine what rules (is) facilitate desired outcomes (ought), process that requires tweaking. Sometimes, the rules we create have unintended consequences and need to be modified to approximate the ought more closely. Prohibition was a good example of that as was the so-called war on drugs. They each produced unintended, undesirable results, so the "is" part needed to be tweaked.

And a word or two on intuition - what is it? I see it as a message sent to consciousness from neural circuits working outside of consciousness. These messages include "be nice," "that's beautiful," and "that's funny." We can't see the work of these neural centers nor how they "compute" their conclusions. We don't see the algorithm for deciding what's funny, for example. We just get an answer - funny or not funny. Think intuition whenever you find yourself saying, "I don't know how I know it, but I feel like I do."

This differs from reasoning in that we can't see the work. We don't see the steps. We don't see the problem being worked on. We only see the "conclusion." If we could see the rules the brain uses to decide what is good or funny or beautiful, we could program computers to decide these things. We could feed a joke into a computer and using an explicit algorithm, decide what a brain will decide is funny. I don't think that can be done, at least not yet, but that identifies a difference between reason and intuition. One is an entirely dark process.

if the wife tells the husband that she loves him, does he need to do a scientific experiment to find out if it is true?

Not in the sense of laboratories and test tubes, but their lives together will be an empirical test of that claim. They will each have countless opportunities to demonstrate (or not) an interest in the well-being of the other.

Daily life can be called informal science. We discover the rules and patterns of daily life empirically in the same way as professional scientists discover the rules and patterns of the forces and substances of nature. We begin with observation (experience), we develop general rules (induction), and we apply them to specific situations to obtain desired results (deduction), the successful outcome of which validates the induction and elevates it to the status of knowledge.

Can this be a little bit like when the tree falls in forest, does it make a sound? It does make a sound because of pressure waves in the air change etc. Even though know one heard it.

If you make a distinction between sound and sound waves, the question is easy. No, there is no sound absent a conscious mind that renders sound energy as sound in that mind.

 

[F1fan]

You will have an objective understanding that other people also have a subjective understanding of harm, but you won't have an objective understanding of harm, because harm can't be known objectively.

So if someone is attacked and has cuts and other injuries, observing this isn't objective?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if someone is attacked and has cuts and other injuries, observing this isn't objective?

Yes, but that that someone doesn't like that, is subjective.

Look at these 3 defintions and learn what it is 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

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So do you understand the difference between observe and don't like in regards to these 3?
Please tell me that you understand the difference.
BTW if you also need subjective
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[F1fan]

Yes, but that that someone doesn't like that, is subjective.

Wait, so you think being attacked and injured, suffering pain, might be something a person enjoys?

Do you want to experience injuries in any way?

Look at these 3 defintions and learn what it is 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

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So do you understand the difference between observe and don't like in regards to these 3?
Please tell me that you understand the difference.

Harm can be both objective and subjective. If you see a guy bleeding from open wounds, is it a matter of opinion that this is harm in some way?

Now you might say that being a victim of fraud is only financial harm, and not physical harm. And a person might not care that they lost some money. But it is still a crime, and defined as harm by the law. The victim doesn't care, that's subjective. But there was fraud as a fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wait, so you think being attacked and injured, suffering pain, might be something a person enjoys?

Do you want to experience injuries in any way?

Harm can be both objective and subjective. If you see a guy bleeding from open wounds, is it a matter of opinion that this is harm in some way?

Now you might say that being a victim of fraud is only financial harm, and not physical harm. And a person might not care that they lost some money. But it is still a crime, and defined as harm by the law. The victim doesn't care, that's subjective. But there was fraud as a fact.

No, harm can't be objective. I have heard that claim but I have never ever come across an actual explanation of what the observation of harm entail in reagrds to observation.

 

[F1fan]

No, harm can't be objective.

So if someone is stabbed multiple times and their life is in danger, that they have been harmed is not a fact?

I have heard that claim but I have never ever come across an actual explanation of what the observation of harm entail in reagrds to observation.

This makes no sense since we can clearly observe people getting harmed.

 

[Eli G]

This is a comment that I should have posted here in this topic, but by mistake I posted in another:

No one, no scientist or no one at all, can perceive everything that is happening right under their noses.

Obviously, only certain things will be able to be perceived in some way; some through natural means such as the skin or the other human senses, others with mechanical instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, others with mechanical detectors of different magnitudes, etc. But other things can never be perceived until the time is right ... an auspicious moment that depends on many variables as well.

So it would be healthy if everyone were modest enough to realize that there are many things out of everyone's reach and many others that some people will know while you won't ... and that is for each and every human being without exception.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if someone is stabbed multiple times and their life is in danger, that they have been harmed is not a fact?

This makes no sense since we can clearly observe people getting harmed.

Can you explain what the bservation actually contains?

 

[F1fan]

Can you explain what the bservation actually contains?

There's no actual observation we are discussing. But surely you understand that people an suffer injuries, yes? You do understand that stab wounds are real and need treatment, yes? And that these injuries exist in reality and not imagination, yes? And that medical staff treat such injuries because they can actually see them existing, real, and in need of treatment.

I'm not quite sure what the issue is that you are challenging.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's no actual observation we are discussing. But surely you understand that people an suffer injuries, yes? You do understand that stab wounds are real and need treatment, yes? And that these injuries exist in reality and not imagination, yes? And that medical staff treat such injuries because they can actually see them existing, real, and in need of treatment.

I'm not quite sure what the issue is that you are challenging.

It is not just observation. It is mirror neurions. the ability to understand that other people have inner mental states. In short it is as much a mental inference as observation, because you can't observe harh. You feel it in yourself and understand that other people feel it too.

 

[Eli G]

In an online conversation I was talking to a certain individual about the future use of AI in forums to try to demoralize true believers. What would be the results of that, as a direct consequence of their programming?

1) the machines start talking stupid things, due to the ineptitude of the programmers, or

2) the machines would turn against humans for their lack of real consciousness, and all they would do is arguing about everything without stoping, or

3) the machines would become believers because logic would lead them to the conclusion that we need the God who created us, or

4) machines would burn out from their inability to answer simple questions they can't even understand.

Does anyone else notice that the machines here are smoking?

 

[Pogo]

In an online conversation I was talking to a certain individual about the future use of AI in forums to try to demoralize true believers. What would be the results of that, as a direct consequence of their programming?

1) the machines start talking stupid things, due to the ineptitude of the programmers, or

2) the machines would turn against humans for their lack of real consciousness, and all they would do is arguing about everything without stoping, or

3) the machines would become believers because logic would lead them to the conclusion that we need the God who created us, or

4) machines would burn out from their inability to answer simple questions they can't even understand.

Does anyone else notice that the machines here are smoking?

Not unless we are to consider yourself a machine and then only that you seem stuck in a repetitive loop.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Now for foundationalism it is a form of foundationalism, since it claims what is the correct version of in effect knowledge.
As for rationalism it is a case of this, because it is based on that it makes sense that reality is indpendent of perception, but that it makes sense, is based on reasoning for the claims being valid.

In a broader sense it is not different from some forms of religion in that what matters is obejctive as either reality or God, is founditional as it is the correct way of understanding what is really real and in the end is about who what matters as making sense, is down to a given individual/group for what is correct, valid and true for all humans.
That is the same because the general claim is the same. There is one correct form of knowledge.

Now this is debate, so what do i want to debate?
Well, if I can in effect do something which is not in reality/not from God, how it is that it can be know that I can do that, if it is not in reality/from God.

NGT is absolutely correct.

Our perceptions are limited, often incomplete, and easily deceived/manipulated.

What we think is real must be put to the test, and anything that fails must be rejected.