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

[Nakosis]

It's like we share one brain....one not up
to the task of understanding the OP.

As I see things....
If something isn't possible to address by science,
then that something isn't really relevant to my life,
ie, it can't be detected, it makes no testable
predictions, thus it isn't "useful".
The tricky part is defining just what "science" is,
& recognizing that today's limits of the method
aren't tomorrow's limits. This makes science
broader than the slice of the larger whole that
is as yet unseen.
Example of something irrelevant....
The number of gods & their role in our lives.

Yes, philosophy. Not for those wanting to engage in practical conversations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is making sense a part of objective reality? To me it is a subjective silly game of in the end feeling good, but that is not sicence and objective reality.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to twist everything just so you can call objective things "subjective" only to be able to then brush them of as "just an opinion".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So in fact you do believe and you are saying that science is the most accurate determiner of reality and truth.

By definition, this is called 'scientism', not science. And it is the result of philosophical materialism. Not the philosophy of science. Just as I stated.

Why can't you just be honest about what you believe? You keep insisting it isn't what it is and then you prove that it is by every word you post. That's just weird.

Let's play a hypothetical.
We both have to build an airplane.
We both have unlimited budget. We can hire whoever we want. We can outsource anything we want.

There's just one rule.

I get to use science. You don't.


Which plane will actually fly, do you think? Mine or yours?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Take #2:
The question is if to you objective reality is the world as such.

By definition, "objective reality" refers to reality as it actually is instead of how we subjectively perceive it.

If yes, your claim is a case of scientism as per this defintion:
-excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the context of the quote?
If Neil De Grass Tyson is talking on a science show explaining say QM or GR to the general audience, then a statement like that makes perfect sense.

It's explained in post 2.

Unsurprisingly, it has been completely ignored.

"Unsurprisingly" because this thread is obviously just a trojan horse style excuse to engage in their raving rants about "scientism" and raping the word "objective" to the point that it somehow means "subjective" so that they can then dismiss it at face value as if it is "just an opinion".

 

[sayak83]

How can a truth claim ever be mind independent?

Without getting into the question of what we mean by truth, claims are necessarily made, assessed, and validated in the mind of the observer.

This is not only true of terms and concepts - and let us not forget that truth is a concept, rather than an observable entity - it’s also true of more fundamental phenomena, such as time and space. General Relativity for example, tells us that facts about time are not absolute but depend upon a frame of reference; and without an observer there is no frame of reference.

No of the scientific theories, including QM and GR, require minded observer. One particle can interact with and hence observe another particle. Observation, in science is a generalized concept and refers to physical interactions between systems...mind is not required.

Truth claims can obviously be mind independent. The truth claim that earth spins around its axis over a regular time period, does not require the existence of a mind to be true or false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From another poster here in this thread, That poster seem to have another understanding of it than your understanding. But I will look into it.

I explained it in LITERALLY THE SECOND POST in this thread.

It was reply NUMBER ONE.

It talks about perception of how things are vs how things actually are.

Yes, that is for example the context where we "perceive" time to be a constant, while it isn't.
It's the context where we "perceive" the earth to be flat, while it isn't.
It's the context where we "perceive" the box to be empty, while it's actually littered with molecules.
It's the context where we "perceive" the sun to orbit the earth, while the earth orbits the sun and just rotates on its own axis.

In more general terms, and as I said in the FIRST REPLY in this thread: it's the context where our perception doesn't match what actually is going on, because our senses can so easily trick / delude us.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, that contradicts this version of science written in part by scientists:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

"...
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. ..."

As for true that is philosophy as you use it. But I won't go into that, because it appears that you don't understand that truth is not mind independent.
So you are just of one those, who can't understand when they do philosophy.

Water boils when heated on a stove.

Explain how this truth claim is mind dependent.
Thanks.
Oh and don't tell me that stove needs a mind to build it. Then I will just claim "water boils on a surface of the Sun" ....

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, that contradicts this version of science written in part by scientists:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

"...
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. ..."

As for true that is philosophy as you use it. But I won't go into that, because it appears that you don't understand that truth is not mind independent.
So you are just of one those, who can't understand when they do philosophy.

No it does not contradict the article.
Assume there is a phenomena X. Assume that currently there is no adequate explanation Y for this phenomenon X. What Tyson says that this does not automatically mean that the phenomenon X is supernatural in origin. If X is to be explained through a supernatural explanation Z, then this Z must be well fleshed out, predictive of X and demonstrable through evidence or falsifiable by counterevidence. Supernatural explanations cannot be held to be true by default, they must be demonstrably true as well just like any "natural explanation".
Nobody is ruling out supernatural explanation. But they must be "explanations" not "just so stories".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Water boils when heated on a stove.

Explain how this truth claim is mind dependent.
Thanks.

It is mind dependent because that it is true for the concept of true requires a mind to state the claim.

Here is the problem. You don't understand how words work, because you confuse their referents versus their defintions.
If you define truth to be indpendent of the mind, then it doesn't follow that it as such is independent of the mind. That is something else.

You are a scientist, right. From there only follows that you have learn in practice to do science in the sense for the activity of science.
The moment we enter philosophy of science because that is where we are now, you might not have learned anything about that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it does not contradict the article.
Assume there is a phenomena X. Assume that currently there is no adequate explanation Y for this phenomenon X. What Tyson says that this does not automatically mean that the phenomenon X is supernatural in origin. If X is to be explained through a supernatural explanation Z, then this Z must be well fleshed out, predictive of X and demonstrable through evidence or falsifiable by counterevidence. Supernatural explanations cannot be held to be true by default, they must be demonstrably true as well just like any "natural explanation".
Nobody is ruling out supernatural explanation. But they must be "explanations" not "just so stories".

Yeah, you have no true evidence that they must be "explanations" not "just so stories". That is a norm and those are not true, as they are not independent of the mind.
You are so easy. You confuse your norms as a human with science as such.

 

[sayak83]

It is mind dependent because that it is true for the concept of true requires a mind to state the claim.

Here is the problem. You don't understand how words work, because you confuse their referents versus their defintions.
If you define truth to be indpendent of the mind, then it doesn't follow that it as such is independent of the mind. That is something else.

You are a scientist, right. From there only follows that you have learn in practice to do science in the sense for the activity of science.
The moment we enter philosophy of science because that is where we are now, you might not have learned anything about that.

The belief that "X is true" requires a mind.
"X" itself does not require a mind.
So the belief that "water boils when heated is True" requires a mind.
But "Water boils when heated" does not require a mind to be true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I couldn't find it. So you have to ask the other poster, who uses the qoute.

Here, it took me about 10sec of scrolling after a google to find a clip where he uses the quote.
I originally saw it in another interview though.

In this clip, he's just answering twitter questions.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson answers your common questions about our universe on Twitter. | By WIRED | Facebook

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson answers your common questions about our universe on Twitter.

www.facebook.com

Go to the question asked at 2:47
He gives his answer and then concludes his answer with a more general comment about science and ends with the quote in question in that particular general context at about 4:00

You're welcome.

//thread?

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, you have no true evidence that they must be "explanations" not "just so stories". That is a norm and those are not true, as they are not independent of the mind.
You are so easy. You confuse your norms as a human with science as such.

If you think combustion theory is a mind dependent just so story...feel free to put your hand inside a fire. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The belief that "X is true" requires a mind.
"X" itself does not require a mind.
So the belief that "water boils when heated is True" requires a mind.
But "Water boils when heated" does not require a mind to be true.

Something as itself in itslef is empty of any characteristics other than be in itself, otherwise it is not in itself.
You are doing philosophy about the thing in itself. Look it up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you think combustion theory is a mind dependent just so story...feel free to put your hand inside a fire. Thanks.

Well, I have been death since I was born, since I jump out from a cliff believing I could fly.

Okay, gloves off. You are assuming that objective reality is epistemologically fair and knowable.
If that is the case you can give evidence for being in the universe you claim to be in and not in a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
The problem is that you think that the axiom that objective reality is epistemologically fair and knowable, is in fact true. It is not.
There is a good reason that we have these 2 different concepts of natural.
Methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism. That you confuse the 2, is not my problem.

 

[sayak83]

Something as itself in itslef is empty of any characteristics other than be in itself, otherwise it is not in itself.
You are doing philosophy about the thing in itself. Look it up.

Is this supposed to be an answer to my post?
I have some passing familiarity with Kant, and it explains why nobody can understand you.
Try William James for a change

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is this supposed to be an answer to my post?
I have some passing familiarity with Kant, and it explains why nobody can understand you.
Try William James for a change

Yeah, say sometihng about some mind indepdent and in itself, when you saying it requires a mind and a relationship for which is then not in itself.
Your understanding makes sense in your mind for how to understand the concepts, but then they can't be independent and in themselves.

 

[sayak83]

Well, I have been death since I was born, since I jump out from a cliff believing I could fly.

Okay, gloves off. You are assuming that objective reality is epistemologically fair and knowable.
If that is the case you can give evidence for being in the universe you claim to be in and not in a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
The problem is that you think that the axiom that objective reality is epistemologically fair and knowable, is in fact true. It is not.
There is a good reason that we have these 2 different concepts of natural.
Methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism. That you confuse the 2, is not my problem.

If I believe that I am a Boltzmann brain then there is no reason why my beliefs not affect the world that I perceive. Why does a glass of water not appear when I want one to appear? Hence the Boltzmann brain theory has less explanatory power than a brain in an external world theory.
There. Done.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's play a hypothetical.
We both have to build an airplane.
We both have unlimited budget. We can hire whoever we want. We can outsource anything we want.

There's just one rule.

I get to use science. You don't.


Which plane will actually fly, do you think? Mine or yours?

View attachment 91683

This is fun!

Let's say there's a plague to stop.
You use science.
He gets to use....