Science IS religion

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how about this: There are no privileged positive position for what objective reality really is and no right or wrong, because it is unknown.

Empiricism is a rather good approach for insights into objective reality.
"brain in vat" nonsense notwithstanding, off course.

It amounts to subjectivism in both cases, because in practice you can believe in your version of objective reality and I can believe in mine.

Consider the empire state building jump statements from my previous post.
Sure, you can believe that you'll just keep floating midair. But you'ld be factually wrong, off course.
And you know it. You don't merely believe that. You know that. In quite demonstrable ways.

How do we test that?
Well, we are both here, so it doesn't matter if objective reality is natural or supernatural.

Yet it either is or isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wrong the evidence agrees with the bible.

No, it really doesn't.

Believe what you like.

You're the one believing what you like.
I'm the one who "believes" whatever the evidence demonstrates - wether I like it or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is in your head

No, makebelief tales are in ones head.
Physical testing and gathering evidence is stuff happening in the external world, independent of what goes in your head.

I do not see it in your posts

My posts aren't scientific papers or reports either.

Enjoy your religion.

You seem confused. You're the one following a religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
To mangle a Philip K. Dick quote: objectivity is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Yes, I get it. Now remove all humans and these words have no meaning. That is how non-objective they are.

You have a model of reality, that starts with objective.
I have a model that includes objective, inter-subjective and subjective aspects of reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If a subjective belief being "accurate" / "correct" doesn't mean that it corresponds to objective reality, then the words "accurate" and "correct" are meaningless.

That's what the words mean. To match (objective) reality. That's what "true" is. That's what "accurate" means.

"If I jump from the Empire State building without technology, I'll plummet to my death. I'll accelerate towards earth at a spead of 9.81 meters per second per second, corrected by resistance, and I'll smash into the ground."

"If I jump from the Empire State building without technology, I'll just keep floating midair and be able to descend at a comfy pace making sure of a soft landing."

One of these statements, which I guess you would call subjective, does not correspond to the objective reality of how gravity works. One of these statement is thus not accurate, as it does not match objective reality.

All of reality is not objective. Words match objective, inter-subjective and subjective part of reality.
"If a subjective belief being "accurate" / "correct" doesn't mean that it corresponds to objective reality, then the words "accurate" and "correct" are meaningless." You are apparently unaware, that this sentence of yours are in your brain. It is only subjectively meaningful to you and does't correspond to objective reality. It corresponds to your idea of what are correct, accurate and meaningful. That sentence is only subjectively meaningful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Empiricism is a rather good approach for insights into objective reality.
...

A good approach is not in objective reality, because good is not objective.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, I get it. Now remove all humans and these words have no meaning. That is how non-objective they are.

I don't think you do get it:

1. That's why I'm using the word objective in the sense of intersubjective verification.
2. I'm not talking about words, I'm talking about the things we can intersubjectively agree about - the world of clouds and houses and stars and aardvarks.
3. According to the models we have been able to assemble and intersubjectively test, the intersubjective world did, and would continue to exist without humans.

You have a model of reality, that starts with objective.
I have a model that includes objective, inter-subjective and subjective aspects of reality.

I'm not trying to deny that there are subjective things - I'm pointing out that there are "objective" (intersubjectively verifiable) things we can agree on. It is not the case that everything is purely subjective. It's not the case that the observations that underpin science are purely subjective. It's not the case that the tests of science (which include technology based on science) are purely subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think you do get it:

1. That's why I'm using the word objective in the sense of intersubjective verification.
2. I'm not talking about words, I'm talking about the things we can intersubjectively agree about - the world of clouds and houses and stars and aardvarks.
3. According to the models we have been able to assemble and intersubjectively test, the intersubjective world did, and would continue to exist without humans.

I'm not trying to deny that there are subjective things - I'm pointing out that there are "objective" (intersubjectively verifiable) things we can agree on. It is not the case that everything is purely subjective. It's not the case that the observations that underpin science are purely subjective. It's not the case that the tests of science (which include technology based on science) are purely subjective.

And I am pointing out that not everything is "objective" (intersubjectively verifiable).
No, science is not purely subjective, but science can't turn some aspects of subjectivity into "objective".
I can agree with you on the intersubjective part, because I subjectively agree. But there are aspects of reality, where intersubjectivity as "objective" does not apply. That is my point.
So here it is: Can you using your intersubjectively verifiable method turn subjective thing into intersubjective verifiable claims? No! Because if we subjectively disagree, you can't turn that into intersubjective agreement.

So here is what you effectively are saying: For me being believing in God, that is to you not how you believe as you have no religion. That is two different cases of subjectivity, but you in effect judge me, based on a certain subjective model of yours. That model may be shared by others, but the model is not "objective". It is a shared intersubjective model of subjective things. How you personally make sense of reality and how some other humans personally make sense of things.
You don't seem to get that intersubjectivity can be about the "objective", but also the subjective. If intersubjectivity only was about the "objective", then God is a fact.
Then learn to spot your own subjective things in your thinking and don't believe that just because they are shared, they are objective. You don't believe that of humans using the word "God", yet it is intersubjectively shared otherwise they couldn't pass on the belief in God.
Now learn to spot your own subjective things in your mind.

So here it is: You can't reduce reality down to only intersubjectively verifiable "objectivity" and you can't do reality purely subjectively, but you can't avoid subjectivity.
It is a weird form of duality and I can hold both sides. You try to make it about only one side as "correct" or what ever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think you do get it:

1. That's why I'm using the word objective in the sense of intersubjective verification.
2. I'm not talking about words, I'm talking about the things we can intersubjectively agree about - the world of clouds and houses and stars and aardvarks.
3. According to the models we have been able to assemble and intersubjectively test, the intersubjective world did, and would continue to exist without humans.

I'm not trying to deny that there are subjective things - I'm pointing out that there are "objective" (intersubjectively verifiable) things we can agree on. It is not the case that everything is purely subjective. It's not the case that the observations that underpin science are purely subjective. It's not the case that the tests of science (which include technology based on science) are purely subjective.

Take 2:
When you are subjective as subjective, you ought to be able to spot it. But not all humans are and that has nothing to do with religion.
So when somebody do something, where objective in the sense of intersubjective verification doesn't apply, because they do a subjective thing for which I don't agree, I answer subjectively that I don't agree.
So let us tackle "God" in your model. Is "God" a subjective word in that it refers to subjectivity? Yes! Is "God" the only such word? No! There are a honest of words. I will use "correct" now. Is it verifiable as correct that some humans believe in gods? Yes! We have now verified, that it is so. So if you claim it is incorrect, then you mean something else. It has nothing to with the specific word "incorrect", it also applies to such words as wrong, false, bad, meaningless, absurd, nonsense and the list goes on. All of these words are subjective, because they refer to a subjective process in a given brain.
So you in effect overlook that in your model if something is subjective, objective in the sense of intersubjective verification doesn't apply. Because what is going on is subjective. That is it.

The rest is us going in circles, because you do something subjective that you can do. You do your model of subjective, intersubjective and "objective" differently that me. And when you do something subjective, which is not objective in the sense of intersubjective verification, then I only have to answer: No!

Your model is subjective and it works for you subjectively, but I don't have to agree, because I can do it differently. And the verification is that I am doing it right now. That is the problem in your model. You subjectively think, that all words can be objectively in the sense of intersubjective verification verified to be about the shared parts of the world. And I just answer: No!

You are a human and so am I. And we don't have to agree to be parts of the world. That can be verified by what is going on here. And we won't agree as long as we subjectively do this differently. I can verify that.

 

[ratiocinator]

And I am pointing out that not everything is "objective" (intersubjectively verifiable).
No, science is not purely subjective, but science can't turn some aspects of subjectivity into "objective".

I have never claimed anything else.

You don't seem to get that intersubjectivity can be about the "objective", but also the subjective. If intersubjectivity only was about the "objective", then God is a fact.

Now you're not making sense. Intersubjective verification is what makes things objective. They are interchangeable. Something is objective if and only if it is intersubjectively verifiable.

If I claim Mount Everest exists, that is a claim about the objective world - people can check, more to the point anybody (practical considerations aside) can check, regardless of their beliefs, feelings, or culture.

Provided you understand what they mean, the same is true of scientific claims. If I claim that General Relativity is a good model of space, time, and gravity, that too is a claim about the objective world (or more accurately, how it behaves). The practical constraints are greater but again, anybody with the necessary skills and resources can check. The experiments designed to test it and the calculations used to make the predictions (the evidence) is all part of the objective world. Further, the GPS system actually relies on the theory and that works for everyone regardless of whether they accept the theory or not. Note, in contrast, that the claim "General Relativity is true" is neither a scientific claim, nor an objective one.

Not every claim is objective. If I claim that Mark Rothko was a great artist, that's a subjective value judgement. There is no objective way to arrive at that conclusion.

Claims of god(s) may be attempts to claim an objective fact - a god or gods who exist regardless of anybody's beliefs, or more personal ideas that are important to the individual. If the claim is of the former, I feel entitled to ask where the intersubjectively testable evidence is, or on what other basis and I being asked to accept the idea. If the claims is of a more subjective and personal nature, such questions would be inappropriate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All of reality is not objective.

Nobody said otherwise. Try to maintain some focus on the points at hand.

"If a subjective belief being "accurate" / "correct" doesn't mean that it corresponds to objective reality, then the words "accurate" and "correct" are meaningless." You are apparently unaware, that this sentence of yours are in your brain. It is only subjectively meaningful to you and does't correspond to objective reality. It corresponds to your idea of what are correct, accurate and meaningful. That sentence is only subjectively meaningful.

Playing with words will missing the point. Again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A good approach is not in objective reality, because good is not objective.

Playing with words while missing the point. Again.

Also: if you wish to stay alive, not jumping from the empire state building without technology is a rather objectively good idea. Do you disagree?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Claims of god(s) may be attempts to claim an objective fact - a god or gods who exist regardless of anybody's beliefs, or more personal ideas that are important to the individual. If the claim is of the former, I feel entitled to ask where the intersubjectively testable evidence is, or on what other basis and I being asked to accept the idea. If the claims is of a more subjective and personal nature, such questions would be inappropriate.

So how do you verify if something is subjective? And how you verify this: "...such questions would be inappropriate."?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I am pointing out that not everything is "objective" (intersubjectively verifiable).

Nobody is saying it is.
And to be honest, it rather looks as if your point is that nothing is objective and everything subjective.

Not once have you acknowledge my empire state jump statements being objectively correct or wrong in relation to the objective workings of gravity, for example.

I think it's quite hilarious to see you dance around with word and meaning obfuscation, just to avoid having to acknowledge it.

So here it is: You can't reduce reality down to only intersubjectively verifiable "objectivity" and you can't do reality purely subjectively, but you can't avoid subjectivity.

You can't avoid objective reality either.
Go ahead and jump from the empire state building without technology while not plumetting to your death, to prove me wrong.

You try to make it about only one side as "correct" or what ever.

As said many times already, "correct" is that which corresponds to objective reality.
That is how you distinguish "correct" with "incorrect" : by contrasting it to objective reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Playing with words while missing the point. Again.

Also: if you wish to stay alive, not jumping from the empire state building without technology is a rather objectively good idea. Do you disagree?

Your version is subjectively good. It is in your example subjectively good.
Objective:
- 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
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Definition of OBJECTIVE

Objective does not apply to your version of good. It is subjectively good for me not jumping from the empire state building without technology if I don't want to die. Notice the bold, that is what makes it subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody is saying it is.
And to be honest, it rather looks as if your point is that nothing is objective and everything subjective.

Not once have you acknowledge my empire state jump statements being objectively correct or wrong in relation to the objective workings of gravity, for example.

I think it's quite hilarious to see you dance around with word and meaning obfuscation, just to avoid having to acknowledge it.

You can't avoid objective reality either.
Go ahead and jump from the empire state building without technology while not plumetting to your death, to prove me wrong.

As said many times already, "correct" is that which corresponds to objective reality.
That is how you distinguish "correct" with "incorrect" : by contrasting it to objective reality.

Yes, a part of reality is objective. The part of the Empire State building I have covered now in a previous post. And a part of reality is subjective and if you deny that you are subjective, then you can only deny it, because it is subjective.
So is it correct that you subjectively can deny subjectivity? Yes! So correct and incorrect can be about the subjective.
As for ""correct" is that which corresponds to objective reality." is also subjectively correct, as that is your subjective rule for correct. The problem is that the sentence is also subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody said otherwise. Try to maintain some focus on the points at hand.





Playing with words will missing the point. Again.

That, I can play with words ,is subjective and only correct because it is subjective. What makes this correct? Are you objective or subjective? What is correct here?

 

[ratiocinator]

So how do you verify if something is subjective?

I don't understand what the problem is. If it something that is true regardless of anybody's point of view (Mount Everest exists) then it's objective, if it depends on an individual belief or point of view (Rothko was a great artist) then it's subjective.

If somebody makes a claim, and there is some ambiguity (I believe in this god) then they have to clarify if they are making a claim that they think is true for everybody or if they are expressing a personal "truth" that's important to themselves (or some group).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand what the problem is. If it something that is true regardless of anybody's point of view (Mount Everest exists) then it's objective, if it depends on an individual belief or point of view (Rothko was a great artist) then it's subjective.

If somebody makes a claim, and there is some ambiguity (I believe in this god) then they have to clarify if they are making a claim that they think is true for everybody or if they are expressing a personal "truth" that's important to themselves (or some group).

I want to know how you verify that something is subjective? You have a model of the "objective". What is your model for the subjective?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your version is subjectively good. It is in your example subjectively good.

I don't know what "subjectively" is supposed to mean in this statement.

Objective:
- 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

like gravity

- having reality independent of the mind

like gravity

- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

like gravity

Objective does not apply to your version of good

If the goal is to stay alive, then NOT jumping from the empire state building without technology to guard against the effects of gravity, is objectively a good idea.

To disagree with that, is like raping the meaning of both the words "good" and "objective".

It is subjectively good for me not jumping from the empire state building without technology if I don't want to die. Notice the bold, that is what makes it subjective.

No. Not wanting to die is subjective, true, as it deals with personal preference.

But that isn't the idea in question. The idea in question is jumping from the empire state building without technology to guard against the effects of gravity.

And if staying alive is the goal, then it is objectively a good idea to not take the jump.

Taking the jump is the idea under discussion.
Not the personal preference of not wanting to die.

In fact, if suicide is the goal, then taking the jump is an objectively good idea - since it will result in certain death.


You really do seem to have a pretty hard time focussing on the point being made.
You're likely to busy wanting to argue for the sake of arguing.