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

[Polymath257]

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.

And you have yet to prove there is a butcher or a father. It is better to not buy from a butcher if they don't practice good hygiene. And it can be a good idea to forgo an inheritance if the demands of the father are unreasonable and too controlling.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

The rejected part is a norm and not sicence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is part of reality that I have beliefs. But the content of those beliefs does not correspond with reality.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?

If I am thinking of a unicorn, the thought is a real thought. The thought exists in reality (as far as we can tell, as a pattern of processes in the brain). But the content of that thought (the referent) is not (since unicorns do not exist). The fact that I am thinking about unicorns does NOT imply that unicorns exist in reality.

The mind is in reality. As far as we can tell, the mind is constructed of patterns of neuron firings in the brain. That is being in reality. But that does not mean that the *model* the brain makes of reality is always (or even usually) correct.

Yeah, the problem I have is that some of the words you use in your text as to how you explain reality don't live up to the rule you use.

E.g. I can't observe correct to correspond to reality as indepedent of the mind. Rather as far as I can tell correct is a norm and belief in the mind that doesn't correspond with reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Reality, as far as we know today, is physical energy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality, as far as we know today, is physical energy.

That "is" is as far as I can tell not correspondence or evidence, but rather a subjecitve idea in your mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, that has the best evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, that has the best evidence.

No, it doesn't and there is further for best, no evidence for what best is, because that is not a fact, but an opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Polymath257

Here is a text in German:

Wissenschaft – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

I can help you understand if you need help but the point is that it is another way of understand sceince. There is always that in these debates.

 

[Madsaac]

Maybe everything can't be explained objectively but science is always getting closer and closer. There are suggestions that even pain will be measured objectively soon. So the question is, how far can science take us when trying to understand humanity and the universe?

How an objective measure of pain could counter bias in medicine

The science of pain is complex and its assessment subjective, leading to bias and health inequality. Now, researchers are searching for a reliable, objective measure of pain.

www.bbc.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then there are those claim that science is the only form or the best form for knowledge. I have never seen evidence for that.

Really? You haven't seen any evidence of how the scientific method yields reliable answers to questions about the workings of the world / universe / nature?
You haven't seen any evidence of how that method yields more reliable answers then some other method (pick one)?

Are your eyes shut, by any chance?

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.

Science can't say that an idea is false? Are you joking?
Off course it depends on the idea, more specifically if it is testable, but a as a general statement like that, surely you must realize how ridiculously false that is..........

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.

It's a method of inquiry. Not an object.

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.

Call it whatever you wish.
It doesn't change the fact that it is a method of inquiry designed specifically to remove human bias as much as humanly possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both science and philosophy seek the endless pursuit of truth in their own ways.

As a famous scientist once said: Philosophy is great at asking questions. Science is great at actually answering them.

Fine, but science absolutely does not have a working theory about the mind

That's not entirely accurate, but let's run with it.
So what?

Science didn't have a working theory about the origins of species before Darwin either.
Science didn't have a working theory about the cause of disease before germ theory either.
Science didn't have a working theory about atoms before atomic theory either.

So what?
Argument from ignorance?

as it deals with all of those non physical elements I described earlier. Here's why.

You assume there are non-physical elements.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? You haven't seen any evidence of how the scientific method yields reliable answers to questions about the workings of the world / universe / nature?
You haven't seen any evidence of how that method yields more reliable answers then some other method (pick one)?

,,,

Not for everything. That is all. In pratice science is a powerfull, yet limited method.
As long as you understand that differently, then that is that.

In effect it seems that you don't understand when you use feelings, norms, usefulness and other personal evaluations of what matters.

In short I have never seen evidence using science for the word that sceince is the best method we have. That you do that different and apply your thinking and feelings to best and then claim that is in effect objective is your problem, not mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe everything can't be explained objectively but science is always getting closer and closer. There are suggestions that even pain will be measured objectively soon. So the question is, how far can science take us when trying to understand humanity and the universe?

How an objective measure of pain could counter bias in medicine

The science of pain is complex and its assessment subjective, leading to bias and health inequality. Now, researchers are searching for a reliable, objective measure of pain.

www.bbc.com

It won't matter for the overall problem of in effect subjective, because a subjective process in a brain is natural, psychical, chemical, biological, cultural, psychological, but not objective.

We can go through how that is and how it appears to remain so as long as humans are humans.
So for words like rights, good, meaningful, useful and so on, I have never come acroos an objective methodology in either science, philosophy or religion.
And I can explain how that is, if you accept that subjective can in some cases be true, real and with evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not for everything. That is all.

So your "argument" is just a strawman, then.

In pratice science is a powerfull, yet limited method.
As long as you understand that differently, then that is that.

I thought the point of this thread was to discuss the quote by Neil deGrass Tyson?
Don't tell me I was right that this thread isn't actually about said quote, but that you simply used the quote as a trojan horse to spew your usual rethoric?

In effect it seems that you don't understand when you use feelings, norms, usefulness and other personal evaluations of what matters.

In effect it seems that you constantly insist on putting words in people's mouth instead of replying to what they are actually saying.

In short I have never seen evidence using science for the word that sceince is the best method we have. That you do that different and apply your thinking and feelings to best and then claim that is in effect objective is your problem, not mine.

I said: ...of how the scientific method yields reliable answers to questions about the workings of the world / universe / nature

I suggest you stop arguing strawmen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So your "argument" is just a strawman, then.



I thought the point of this thread was to discuss the quote by Neil deGrass Tyson?
Don't tell me I was right that this thread isn't actually about said quote, but that you simply used the quote as a trojan horse to spew your usual rethoric?



In effect it seems that you constantly insist on putting words in people's mouth instead of replying to what they are actually saying.


I said: ...of how the scientific method yields reliable answers to questions about the workings of the world / universe / nature

I suggest you stop arguing strawmen.

Edit for this line - From above by you: "Are your eyes shut, by any chance?"

Yeah, but as long as you conflate in effect 2 different defintions of to see and in effect seem to believe that you can see the universe through your eyes as some form of naive empiricism we won't get any further.

Definition of SEE

to perceive by the eye; to perceive or detect as if by sight; to be aware of : recognize… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So I do see how the universe works, but I don't just see it in one sense of see. Once you get that, we can move on.

 

[Polymath257]

Not for everything. That is all. In pratice science is a powerfull, yet limited method.

Yes. It is limited to matters of fact. It cannot deal with those things that are mostly opinions. For example, aesthetics are an important part of life, but science itself can say nothing about whether something is beautiful or not. It *can* determine the chance that a person will consider it to be beautiful. But those are very different questions.

The same is true for morality. Science cannot determine whether an action is moral or not. it *can* say what the likely consequences of various actions would be. It can say what percentage of people would consider that action to be moral and, perhaps, what personality characteristics lead to different judgements. But morality as such isn't within the domain of science.

There are many other aspects of our existence that science cannot address. But the *reason* it cannot address those things is that there is no way to *test* them. There is no way to determine which of two opposing viewpoints is, at least, wrong. And that is *precisely* what separates subjective opinions from objective facts.

As long as you understand that differently, then that is that.

In effect it seems that you don't understand when you use feelings, norms, usefulness and other personal evaluations of what matters.

That is partly because there are a few different meanings to those concepts. Science, more specifically logic, *can* say what sorts of evidence would be relevant to saying a particular theory or hypothesis is wrong. It *can* say what sorts of things need to be considered to determine the possible consequences of actions. It *can* say what risks are associated with various actions.

But what science *cannot* deal with is matters of 'should': if you simply are not interested in the facts, then science will be irrelevant to you. If you don't care what the consequences of your actions are, then science cannot help you. If you want to know what you *should* do, then science cannot help past showing you what the likely outcomes will be.

But, for most people, those consequences *are* relevant and useful to know about.

In short I have never seen evidence using science for the word that sceince is the best method we have. That you do that different and apply your thinking and feelings to best and then claim that is in effect objective is your problem, not mine.

I would *love* to see a better method! What method do you propose that guards against known failures of how people think and judge? How do you deal with confirmation bias? How do you deal with it when people have different opinions on some matter?

The only way we know about, currently, is to *test* the ideas we get and limit ourselves to those ideas that can be tested. And, ultimately, that testability is used to *define* what it means to be 'true' or 'false'. It is ultimately used to *define* what the word 'reality' (as opposed to fantasy or opinion) means.

 

[Polymath257]

It won't matter for the overall problem of in effect subjective, because a subjective process in a brain is natural, psychical, chemical, biological, cultural, psychological, but not objective.

I would disagree with that, to some extent. I would say that a process in the brain has two aspects: one that is objective and the other is subjective.

The objective part can be accessed by brain scans, chemical analysis, etc. The patterns of neural firing is objective. So, the chemical, physical, interactional aspects are objective.

But there is also an internal aspect that is subjective. This is ultimately the *model* the brain produces of the external world. This model may, however, not correspond to the objective aspects of the world. In this case, the subjective belief is wrong.

We can go through how that is and how it appears to remain so as long as humans are humans.
So for words like rights, good, meaningful, useful and so on, I have never come acroos an objective methodology in either science, philosophy or religion.
And I can explain how that is, if you accept that subjective can in some cases be true, real and with evidence.

Not completely true. Utility can be objectively judged based on whether a statement or data has logical consequences for some hypothesis.

For example, in mathematics, we know that certain hypotheses will logically lead to certain conclusions while their negations will not. In that sense, those hypotheses are *useful* for obtaining the conclusion and *meaningful* when discussing such a conclusion. This is true independent of the many philosophical issues with the terms 'meaning' and 'useful'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would disagree with that, to some extent. I would say that a process in the brain has two aspects: one that is objective and the other is subjective.

The objective part can be accessed by brain scans, chemical analysis, etc. The patterns of neural firing is objective. So, the chemical, physical, interactional aspects are objective.

But there is also an internal aspect that is subjective. This is ultimately the *model* the brain produces of the external world. This model may, however, not correspond to the objective aspects of the world. In this case, the subjective belief is wrong.

Not completely true. Utility can be objectively judged based on whether a statement or data has logical consequences for some hypothesis.

For example, in mathematics, we know that certain hypotheses will logically lead to certain conclusions while their negations will not. In that sense, those hypotheses are *useful* for obtaining the conclusion and *meaningful* when discussing such a conclusion. This is true independent of the many philosophical issues with the terms 'meaning' and 'useful'.

Not as I understand it for at least some standard defintions of objective and subjective.
Because you end in the following contradiction if you accept that subjectivity is a brain process, then that process can't also be objective.
One example of it:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

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

-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

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

The problem is that if you describe that I am subjective and it is all in my brain, then that process is not objective, since what my brain is doing is subjective.
You have to learn that objective and subjective describes relationsship involving brains and in effect humans and something else.
I have never come across an example of neither objective not subjective that didn't involve in effect a brain and something else. And not just something else and not a brain.

And even if you in effect cheat and claim that brains are not relevant, then the word relevant requires a brain to decide what is relevant.
The same with useful, it is always useful to somebody as it subjectively matters to that person.
In effect that math makes sense to you as you is in part conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states that you share with some other humans intersubjectively, but not all humans.
And yes, math is objective in some sense, but not all, because if it was truely independent of brains, then you would have different levels of skill in different humans.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

If he doesn't the conflict remains, right?
Isn't having a system of resolving the conflicts, evidence of existence of the conflicts, please, 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.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. It is limited to matters of fact. It cannot deal with those things that are mostly opinions. For example, aesthetics are an important part of life, but science itself can say nothing about whether something is beautiful or not. It *can* determine the chance that a person will consider it to be beautiful. But those are very different questions.

The same is true for morality. Science cannot determine whether an action is moral or not. it *can* say what the likely consequences of various actions would be. It can say what percentage of people would consider that action to be moral and, perhaps, what personality characteristics lead to different judgements. But morality as such isn't within the domain of science.

There are many other aspects of our existence that science cannot address. But the *reason* it cannot address those things is that there is no way to *test* them. There is no way to determine which of two opposing viewpoints is, at least, wrong. And that is *precisely* what separates subjective opinions from objective facts.

That is partly because there are a few different meanings to those concepts. Science, more specifically logic, *can* say what sorts of evidence would be relevant to saying a particular theory or hypothesis is wrong. It *can* say what sorts of things need to be considered to determine the possible consequences of actions. It *can* say what risks are associated with various actions.

But what science *cannot* deal with is matters of 'should': if you simply are not interested in the facts, then science will be irrelevant to you. If you don't care what the consequences of your actions are, then science cannot help you. If you want to know what you *should* do, then science cannot help past showing you what the likely outcomes will be.

But, for most people, those consequences *are* relevant and useful to know about.


I would *love* to see a better method! What method do you propose that guards against known failures of how people think and judge? How do you deal with confirmation bias? How do you deal with it when people have different opinions on some matter?

The only way we know about, currently, is to *test* the ideas we get and limit ourselves to those ideas that can be tested. And, ultimately, that testability is used to *define* what it means to be 'true' or 'false'. It is ultimately used to *define* what the word 'reality' (as opposed to fantasy or opinion) means.

Well, you can't see better as see through your eyes. You can understand better be describing better in part in objective terms using science in a broad sense, but that dependens on your brain as much as it depends on how you subjectively experience better.
The only version of better, that I know, is normative and not really better. It is better to understand better as subjective and sometimes diverse in different humans, because you might harm another human if you assume that better is always the same in all cases for all humans.

But that is as close as I can get and it is not objective. It is just a version of intersubjective.