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

[Pogo]

I am making no such assumption. I am a neutral or dual aspect monist. That does not mean that reality stops existing when I am hit on the head.

But, but, we might be a brain in a vat or Boltzman Brain so your assumptions of reality may not include some of the things I consider.
That seems to me the gist of this conversation. Philosophically interesting to some but not to me.

We humans were created with our own perceptual senses that can detect a specific range of different types of realities. When our senses function correctly, our perception of reality is sufficient to understand our own reality. We can interact with our environment and survive without needing to expand our perception of the universe.

I don't need to know what wave magnitudes a bee perceives with the type of vision that its eyes allow for me to survive as a human being. I also don't need to develop a sense of smell like a dog's if the smells I perceive as a human are enough for me. Although human senses have natural limitations, we have many living beings at our disposal that provide what we need. For example, by learning that a dog smells deeper we can use it to track prey; or if we know that a pigeon has a better sense of direction, we can use it as messengers, etc.

Humans perceive reality to the extent that we need to perceive it. If we had all the senses developed to infinity, we would not be human but something else.

And we fall back on Hitchen's Razor, That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Got evidence?

 

[Eli G]

Yes, 'scientism' is the belief that scientists are the priests of societies. They are not.
All humans can perceive reality according to their own senses and rational thinking.

Scientism is a religion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This seems to be more of a dilemma for those who are indoctrinated in assumptions, and fail to learn critical thinking skill. These ideas get ingrained in thinking to such a degree tat the mind can't, or is unable, to separate the ideas from thinking. Those who have learned crititical thinking skill have a better chance to discern that they have learned assumptions that are tied to identity and meaning. those who don't have the skill will be in a loop of thinking that they can't escape. Examples of this are what we see creationists do, that they assume a God exists, they observe "design" in creation, therefore a God exists,

Truth is conceptual, but it is also highly contextual. Mickey Mouse is just a concept, but it's also true that it is a cartoon character that we know talks, and gets into all sorts of trouble. Yet Mickey is not an independent being that has autonomy. Replace Mickey Mouse with God and these statements are also truthful, as no Gods are known to exist independently of human minds. You might disagree, and why you disagree is the debate we engage in.

Yet the phenomenon observed is not dependent on an observer, it happens when there is no one looking. You should bring up Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle if you want to go down this path.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle places mathematical limits on how much information can be held about a system, sure. This is not the only principle, in science or logic, which dictates that neither a Laplace Demon nor a supercomputer, never mind a mortal human, can ever have a complete picture of the material world. Hulme’s Induction Problem effectively tells us that reason is only informed guesswork, based on the unsupported assumption that past observations will be repeated in future.

But you miss the point about observation; no description of a system, Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding, can ever be complete without a description of the context of the system; and that context must by definition extend to the consciousness of the observer.

Talk of mind independent realities fails to address the obvious truism, that our entire experience of reality occurs in the mind. Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for millennia; science is only just now beginning to recognise it’s significance.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Any interaction is an observation and exists independently of consciousness.
In the morning today, I became conscious when sunlight fell on my eyes. If consciousness is required for sunlight to come into exist in the first place, what was it that made me conscious today morning?

Consciousness is integral to your experience of sunlight, and vice versa. Any properties sunlight may manifest independently of your experience of it, will be defined by it’s interaction with other entities, as observed by you.

As for what made you conscious, very likely your consciousness emerged from the same underlying reality as the sunlight did. Whatever put the fire in those equations which the light obeys, lit the flame of consciousness in you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, everything is an airplane.
Now you don't seem to understand that I am already dead. As a newborn I denied reality and jumped off a cliff believing i could fly. Now reality is nothing but that cliff and you are still sitting there not wanting to jump.

It gets old tryinh to take a part of reality and then declare it everything.

 

[Pogo]

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle places mathematical limits on how much information can be held about a system, sure. This is not the only principle, in science or logic, which dictates that neither a Laplace Demon nor a supercomputer, never mind a mortal human, can ever have a complete picture of the material world. Hulme’s Induction Problem effectively tells us that reason is only informed guesswork, based on the unsupported assumption that past observations will be repeated in future.

But you miss the point about observation; no description of a system, Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding, can ever be complete without a description of the context of the system; and that context must by definition extend to the consciousness of the observer.

Talk of mind independent realities fails to address the obvious truism, that our entire experience of reality occurs in the mind. Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for millennia; science is only just now beginning to recognise it’s significance.

What is the significance of mind beyond a poorly as yet understood emergent property of the physical brain?
Where is the evidence that it is anything but?

 

[PureX]

Yes. I do indeed think this.

OK.

Nope. Philosophical materialism is the *conclusion* based on scientific exploration. The basic scientific method (hypothesize, test, rethink as necessary) has no necessary assumption of materialism.

The "test" part of the scientific process requires a physical medium, without which there is no science happening. So science is intrinsically tied to philosophical materialism in that no actual science can happen apart from material experimentation. So philosophical materialism is not the "conclusion of science", it is the prerequisite of scientific activity. It's why, for example, science cannot explore the possibility of God. Or of telepathy. Or of infinity.

The philosophy of science is that the scientific method is the best method for arriving at the truth.

That is only the philosophy of the scientism cultists.

Well, you distort the position by claiming it starts with materialism.

Without the material realm, no science can be engaged in.

Since I am not 100% sure what you would classify as 'material', this may or may not be the case. For example, is light 'material'? I would say not, but I would also say that it is physical.

Matter and energy are both physical properties. Philosophical materialism asserts that the truth of reality is defined by it's physicality.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, 'scientism' is the belief that scientists are the priests of societies. They are not.

No, they are not. Scientists do not determine public policy. They do not set societal goals. They do not determine what is beautiful or what music is good. In that way they are not at all like priests.

But they do use the scientific method to determine objective facts that policy makers and others can use to help them make their decisions and set their goals.

All humans can perceive reality according to their own senses and rational thinking.

Unfortunately, that is simply false. Most people are not nearly educated well enough to even know what the evidence is, let alone put it together to get a coherent explanation. Most people base their views on confirmation bias and emotional likes and dislikes. Instead, skepticism and testing is used in science to determine which ideas do and do not work to actually describe reality.

Scientism is a religion.

No, it is not. Religions take things on faith and then try to find evidence that fits that faith. Science is based on looking at the evidence and determining which explanations fit the evidence. Instead of taking things on faith, science relies of skepticism and demands that all ideas be tested (and usually retested and re-retested).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

But that is not all of the everyday world. It doesn't explain how I can do intellectual masturbation and you can know that as a part of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

The "test" part of the scientific process requires a physical medium, without which there is no science happening.

I disagree. Testing simply requires some sort of repeatable process that anyone can perform to see whether a viewpoint is false or not. There needs to be agreement *ahead* of time as to what would and would not support a position and there has to be *some* process that manages to test the idea. There is no a priori requirement that the testing be done 'physically': just that it can be performed by someone skeptical of the idea and that has definitive outcomes.

So science is intrinsically tied to philosophical materialism in that no actual science can happen apart from material experimentation. So philosophical materialism is not the "conclusion of science", it is the prerequisite of scientific activity. It's why, for example, science cannot explore the possibility of God. Or of telepathy. Or of infinity.

Then that is an issue with epistemology in general: how do we determine the truth or falsity of an idea? We know that 'feelings' are unreliable. We know that people can use logic to arrive at wildly differing conclusions. What science offers is a way to distinguish false from true: test the ideas based on objective results. Demand ideas be testable by skeptics and try to show all ideas *false* before accepting them.

That is only the philosophy of the scientism cultists.

What other reliable method do you have for finding truth?

Without the material realm, no science can be engaged in.

garbage. What is required is skepticism, objective testing, and being willing to modify viewpoints based on the results of that testing.

Matter and energy are both physical properties. Philosophical materialism asserts that the truth of reality is defined by it's physicality.

And that is the conclusion, not the assumption of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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".

How do you estabilish as a part of reality using science the bold part?

 

[Eli G]

@Polymath257 Are you serious?
Scientists don't dictate absolutly anything in societies.
Government is not based in science at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

He made a claim about what science is between 2.47 and 4.00 that is not the only one around.
But yes, I get it. He has one standard for science and I have a book by Danish scientist which has another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it your position that water doesn't boil if there is no mind present to observe it?

No, that it rests in the one the axiomatic assumption in part that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable, but that is not true or with evidence. That is cognitive base for doing one version of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As long as you in effect judge debates on what science is in part using your feelings, then yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mind is required for me to know of X's existence.
Mind is not required for X to exist.

You are confusing epistemic priors with ontological priors.

How do you know the bold ones?

 

[F1fan]

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle places mathematical limits on how much information can be held about a system, sure. This is not the only principle, in science or logic, which dictates that neither a Laplace Demon nor a supercomputer, never mind a mortal human, can ever have a complete picture of the material world. Hulme’s Induction Problem effectively tells us that reason is only informed guesswork, based on the unsupported assumption that past observations will be repeated in future.

But you miss the point about observation; no description of a system, Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding, can ever be complete without a description of the context of the system; and that context must by definition extend to the consciousness of the observer.

Is your consciousness and awareness in question? Is it irrelevant that others can see your posts and understand the words you wrote? You seem confident in yourself and others, so why wouldn’t that extend to science and what it can report as how things are in reality?

Talk of mind independent realities fails to address the obvious truism, that our entire experience of reality occurs in the mind.

Why wouldn’t it? We are aware of how minds can confuse understanding, but also that disciplined thinking can result in accurate understanding of how things are in the external world.

Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for millennia; science is only just now beginning to recognise it’s significance.

Let them tie themselves in knots and disagree with each other. It won’t affect the reliability of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But, but, we might be a brain in a vat or Boltzman Brain so your assumptions of reality may not include some of the things I consider.
That seems to me the gist of this conversation. Philosophically interesting to some but not to me.

Well, it is about this:
"... According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[54] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a reason we got science. We gave up on the concept of objectively true knowledge as independent of the mind and went with in effect the assumption that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am making no such assumption. I am a neutral or dual aspect monist. That does not mean that reality stops existing when I am hit on the head.

No, but it doesn't tell us what you can know as independent of the mind, since you know in the mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. Testing simply requires some sort of repeatable process that anyone can perform to see whether a viewpoint is false or not. There needs to be agreement *ahead* of time as to what would and would not support a position and there has to be *some* process that manages to test the idea. There is no a priori requirement that the testing be done 'physically': just that it can be performed by someone skeptical of the idea and that has definitive outcomes.

Then that is an issue with epistemology in general: how do we determine the truth or falsity of an idea? We know that 'feelings' are unreliable. We know that people can use logic to arrive at wildly differing conclusions. What science offers is a way to distinguish false from true: test the ideas based on objective results. Demand ideas be testable by skeptics and try to show all ideas *false* before accepting them.

What other reliable method do you have for finding truth?

garbage. What is required is skepticism, objective testing, and being willing to modify viewpoints based on the results of that testing.

And that is the conclusion, not the assumption of science.

You are at it again with your we and your skeptics. There is no we for the world. Learn to be skeptic of even the idea of truth, or you are not a skeptic, but using your postive feelings towards truth as if it matters without feelings.