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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I must say that I can't follow most of what you are saying.

Seems to me that you are misunderstanding the statement alltogether.

All it says is that what one perceives isn't necessarily what is. This is so because our senses can quite easily trick us.
Science, as a methodology of objectively testing ideas, serves as an answer to this trickery of our senses.

To quote another scientist (prof Krauss if I'm not mistaken): Our brains evolved to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa, not to understand quantum mechanics

Do you agree that our senses can, quite easily at times, trick us?
Do you agree that objective methods of testing our perception can reveal this trickery and correct our mistakes?

If so, then you agree to the spirit of what the quote in your thread title is trying to communicate.
If not, then I'll ask you why not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I must say that I can't follow most of what you are saying.

Seems to me that you are misunderstanding the statement alltogether.

All it says is that what one perceives isn't necessarily what is. This is so because our senses can quite easily trick us.
Science, as a methodology of objectively testing ideas, serves as an answer to this trickery of our senses.

To quote another scientist (prof Krauss if I'm not mistaken): Our brains evolved to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa, not to understand quantum mechanics

Do you agree that our senses can, quite easily at times, trick us?
Do you agree that objective methods of testing our perception can reveal this trickery and correct our mistakes?

If so, then you agree to the spirit of what the quote in your thread title is trying to communicate.
If not, then I'll ask you why not.

Yeah, but what is, is philosophy in the end.
But I think differently in some case as for how I understand what the world is than you.

So it is not that everything is only what we percieve as objective, but rather it is a part of being a human in regards to the objective, but not all.
And here is what you can't do using science, yet I would consider that parts of the world.

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

So you are in effect doing navie empericism and realism for what is really real as reality.
And here is the proof: "Do you agree..."
If I agree then it is not objective and in fact it is a mistake, because I am not using science. So I can't agree with you, because it is not a part of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, but what is, is philosophy in the end.
But I think differently in some case as for how I understand what the world is than you.

So it is not that everything is only what we percieve as objective, but rather it is a part of being a human in regards to the objective, but not all.
And here is what you can't do using science, yet I would consider that parts of the world.

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

The quote is talking about objective reality.
Things like aesthetics isn't objective reality. It's ultimately subjective opinion.

So you are in effect doing navie empericism and realism for what is really real as reality.

Empiricism, it seems to me, is the best tool we have to discern objective reality.
And I offer the extreme success track record of science as evidence of that.

And here is the proof: "Do you agree..."
If I agree then it is not objective and in fact it is a mistake, because I am not using science. So I can't agree with you, because it is not a part of reality.

What do you disagree with?
That your senses can trick you into false beliefs?
Or that objective testing methods can reveal / correct these false beliefs?

 

[PureX]

We aren't actually talking about science, here, we're talking about philosophical materialism. Science does not "define reality". It simply explores the mechanics of material interactions. This in no way implies that it is any more "realistic" than any other way we humans might choose to explore our understanding of reality.

It's the philosophical materialists that have falsely elevated science to being some sort of truth-seeking godless religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We aren't actually talking about science, here, we're talking about philosophical materialism

No, it's definitely about science.

. Science does not "define reality".

Nobody said it does.

It simply explores the mechanics of material interactions. This in no way implies that it is any more "realistic" than any other way we humans might choose to explore our understanding if reality.

Science's track record more then proves that its methodology is far more successful in obtaining accurate & useful answer to questions about the workings and nature of objective reality then any other method that humans have tried so far.

If you think you have a method that does an even better job, by all means.... show and demonstrate it.

It's the philosophical materialists that have falsely elevated science to being some sort of truth-seeking godless religion.

No, that's just you and your obsession again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The quote is talking about objective reality.
Things like aesthetics isn't objective reality. It's ultimately subjective opinion.



Empiricism, it seems to me, is the best tool we have to discern objective reality.
And I offer the extreme success track record of science as evidence of that.


What do you disagree with?
That your senses can trick you into false beliefs?
Or that objective testing methods can reveal / correct these false beliefs?

Yeah, so here is my problem. The Internet is in part a part of objective reality, but you can throught the Internet communicate the idea of subjective opinion. How can the idea as subjective about subjective opinion move through something objective.

I reject the 2 factor explaination of either subjective opinion or objective reality, I think it is too simple as a worldview.
Bý the way correct is an sujbective opinion and not a part of objective reality. The same with false. That is also in your brain as not objective according to your model.

In effect you take your subjective cognition for granted and don't understand that what you claim is reality, is an opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If you think you have a method that does an even better job, by all means.... show and demonstrate it.

...

Better is as far as I can tell a subjective opinion and thus a false belief in regards to objective reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, so here is my problem. The Internet is in part a part of objective reality, but you can throught the Internet communicate the idea of subjective opinion. How can the idea as subjective about subjective opinion move through something objective.

I reject the 2 factor explaination of either subjective opinion or objective reality, I think it is too simple as a worldview.
Bý the way correct is an sujbective opinion and not a part of objective reality. The same with false. That is also in your brain as not objective according to your model.

In effect you take your subjective cognition for granted and don't understand that what you claim is reality, is an opinion.

You don't actually wish to discuss the quote you have written in the title of this topic, do you?

Sounds more like you are trying to use it as some kind of Trojan horse to fall back on your subjective / objective drivel again.

Sorry, I'm not interested in that.
I've been down that rabbit hole before. It's very unproductive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Better is as far as I can tell a subjective opinion and thus a false belief in regards to objective reality.

You might want to look up what a methodology actually is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might want to look up what a methodology actually is.

Yeah, and you might explain how better is a part of objective reality and what tools and what measurement unit you do better in?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, and you might explain how better is a part of objective reality and what tools and what measurement unit you do better in?

Try reformulating that into a sentence that actually makes sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try reformulating that into a sentence that actually makes sense.

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.

 

[PureX]

No, it's definitely about science.

Nobody said it does.

Science's track record more then proves that its methodology is far more successful in obtaining accurate & useful answer to questions about the workings and nature of objective reality then any other method that humans have tried so far.

If you think you have a method that does an even better job, by all means.... show and demonstrate it.

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.

No, that's just you and your obsession again.

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.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..


Science's track record more then proves that its methodology is far more successful in obtaining accurate & useful answer to questions about the workings and nature of objective reality then any other method that humans have tried so far.

If you think you have a method that does an even better job, by all means.... show and demonstrate it.


...

Take #2:
The question is if to you objective reality is the world as such. If yes, your claim is a case of scientism as per this defintion:
-excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be" is not a particularly contentious statement, when you look at the evidence; the seemingly solid table at which I sit typing this, is in reality a swirling mass of protons, electrons and neutrons held together by unseen forces. And the sun outside my window, contrary to appearances, neither rises in the east nor sets in the west. So yeah, reality is not what it seems to us to be. Science tells us this.

“Instead, it’s what the tools and methods of science reveal” is a far more controversial statement. What science offers us are approximate representations of reality, which is pretty much exactly what our senses do anyway. The tools and methods of science may allow us to dig a little deeper, get a little closer, to that which is deeply hidden; but to claim that the laws of science tell us truths about reality is a considerable overreach imo.

Newtonian physics reveals to us that our planet is kept in orbit around the sun outside my window, by a force of attraction directly proportional to the the sum of their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them; or at least it did. General Relativity tells us that the Newtonian picture is false, and it’s not a force of attraction holding our planet in orbit around the sun, but rather a distortion of space time in proximity to mass and energy. And so we are presented with a new paradigm, a new way of looking at the world, which will doubtless serve until it too is replaced by a new perception. And so on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be" is not a particularly contentious statement, when you look at the evidence; the seemingly solid table at which I sit typing this, is in reality a swirling mass of protons, electrons and neutrons held together by unseen forces. And the sun outside my window, contrary to appearances, neither rises in the east nor sets in the west. So yeah, reality is not what it seems to us to be.

“Instead, it’s what the tools and methods of science reveal” is a far more controversial statement. What science offers us are approximate representations of reality, which is pretty much exactly what our senses do anyway. The tools and methods of science may allow us to dig a little deeper, get a little closer, to that which is deeply hidden; but to claim that the laws of science tell us truths about reality is a considerable overreach imo.

Newtonian physics reveals to us that our planet is kept in orbit around the sun outside my window, by a force of attraction directly proportional to the the sum of their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them; or at least it did. General Relativity tells us that the Newtonian picture is false, and it’s not a force of attraction holding our planet in orbit around the sun, but rather a distortion of space time in proximity to mass and energy. And so we are presented with a new paradigm, a new way of looking at the world, which will doubtless serve until it too is replaced by a new perception. And so on.

Yeah, but that is only a part of the everyday world.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah, but that is only a part of the everyday world.

Yeah, the material world is only one facet of the human experience, sure. And for all it’s successes in that sphere, when it comes to questions of what is real, science affords us only a glimpse, a lifting of the veil.

And that’s the material world; the mind still remains mostly a mystery to science, including medical science; and the spirit is beyond it’s remit altogether.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's the philosophical materialists that have falsely elevated science to being some sort of truth-seeking godless religion.

This is you bemoaning again the fact that empiricists don't respect the other-ways-of-knowing many claim to have, the ones who imply that they see further and have discovered realms invisible to empirical methods populated with invisible denizens or deep "spiritual" truths. When those claims are rejected, some are offended and go on the attack against empiricism and make this claim that those who reject them are overly reliant on critical evaluation of the evidence of the senses.

But examine that statement a bit. Can one trust the knowledge arrived at through critical analysis of experience too much? Only in the sense that one doesn't understand the limits of his ability to do that and believes what he sees without the requisite degree of uncertainty inherent to the use of the mind to interpret the significance of evidence. But that doesn't mean that other softer methods of "knowing" that range from intuition to blind guessing should be trusted. And isn't that really what you object to with your comment?

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

Empiricism is the ONLY path to knowledge about how the world is and how it works. Ideas generated otherwise simply aren't useful, and it's because the methods utilized to arrive at them aren't rooted in observation. Once one diverts his gaze from reality to the imaginings of his mind and assigns them equal status, he is no longer tethered to that reality and is free to float wherever his imagination takes him, where he accumulates ideas that range from wrong to not even wrong.

You have that in common with the wannabe healers who rely on nonscientific methods such as various incantations and rituals to heal disease, whose methods routinely fail or at best have a placebo effect in those who trust them. Their complaint is just like yours regarding scientific medicine. They also resent their methods being poo-pooed away by those practicing empirical (scientific) medicine exclusively. They also claim that their is too much reliance on scientific methods when what they really mean is that they want more respect for their own nonscientific alternatives.

Like they say, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, and occasionally, such people stumble onto a substance that does have therapeutic value. Guess what. As soon as it is demonstrated that this substance has a benefit beyond placebo, it becomes part of scientific medicine. That's where the empiricism comes in without which we just have empty, ineffectual claims. That is, there is no such thig as alternative medicine. There is just scientific medicine and wishful thinking. Likewise with all knowledge. There is that which has been confirmed empirically and wishful thinking, with the wishers upset at not being respected by the empiricists and crying "scientism!"

 

[sayak83]

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.

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.