Science IS religion

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What is your point, really?
What are you actually arguing for?

In literally almost every discussion I see you engage in, you start rambling about this nonsense in response of just about any factual scientific statement. I just don't get it. What are you hoping to accomplish here?

As for ""correct" is that which corresponds to objective reality." is also subjectively correct

No. That's not a "personal prefernce" or just mere opinion.
That's literally what "correct" means. It's what the word means.

Jumping from the skyscraper results in certain death. That's a correct statement.
Jumping from the skyscraper will result in floating midair with an at-will slow descending making sure of a soft-landing without use of any technology. That's an incorrect statement.

And in both case, "correct" and "incorrect" refers to contrasting these statements with obervable objective reality. If we had no way to test these or contrast them with objective reality, then we would lack all the required tools to distinguish "correct" from "incorrect".

, as that is your subjective rule for correct

Again, no. It's just what the word means.

The problem is that the sentence is also subjective.

It's not. What "correct" means is a matter of definition, not a matter of personal opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

The dictonary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
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.

That is subjective. Is it a good idea to stay alive? Well, yes, if you want to.

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

Not all of reality is objective. You just admitted so.
That is my point, not all of reality is objective and not all of reality is subjective.

Now if we can agree on that, we can move on.
Or you go - reality is objective.
And I answer . no.
And it can go on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The dictonary.

Good:
advancement of prosperity or well-being (and other subjective values).
It is good if it is good to you. That you used good as true in your example as objectively true has nothing to do with good to you.
The objective reality is not good. That kind of good is in you and that truth is good, means it works for you subjectively.

Trace the words: Objectively good means true, but truth only has subjective value to you. That facts and truth matters to you and that objective reality matters to you, is subjective.
Parts of reality is objective in relationship to humans.
Other parts are subjective in relationship to humans.
And we haven't come to intersubjectivity yet.

 

[ratiocinator]

I want to know how you verify that something is subjective?

I still don't get what you mean that I haven't already answered.

subjective
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

That is my point, not all of reality is objective and not all of reality is subjective.

Where has anybody said any different?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is subjective. Is it a good idea to stay alive? Well, yes, if you want to.

Again: not the idea under discussion.
Try to stay focused.

Not all of reality is objective. You just admitted so.
That is my point, not all of reality is objective and not all of reality is subjective.

Then your point is completely useless and a total waste of time, as nobody here has ever claimed otherwise.

And again I have to circle back to thinking that you're just here arguing for the sake of arguing.

Now if we can agree on that, we can move on.

Move on from what, exactly?
Your endless obfuscating, meaningless and pointless "philosophical" rambling?

I'ld love that though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good:
advancement of prosperity or well-being (and other subjective values).
It is good if it is good to you. That you used good as true in your example as objectively true has nothing to do with good to you.
The objective reality is not good. That kind of good is in you and that truth is good, means it works for you subjectively.

Trace the words: Objectively good means true, but truth only has subjective value to you. That facts and truth matters to you and that objective reality matters to you, is subjective.
Parts of reality is objective in relationship to humans.
Other parts are subjective in relationship to humans.
And we haven't come to intersubjectivity yet.

Playing with the multiple meanings of the word "good" to again ramble on about nothing relevant to the points at hand at all.

Priceless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I still don't get what you mean that I haven't already answered.

subjective
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
...

So that someone confuses subjective and "objective" and if it matters to you, then is that "it mattes to you" subjective or "objective"? Is it based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions? Is it your opinion that it matters or is it "objective" and out there with the sky, the clouds and what not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again: not the idea under discussion.
Try to stay focused.
...

So you decide what is relevant? Well, you can for you and I can do it differently.

What is the problem with religion?
What is the problem with science?
Do they have any overlap at all or are they as human behaviors not even at part of the same reality?
If they are both human behaviors, then what do they have in common?
And where are they different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Playing with the multiple meanings of the word "good" to again ramble on about nothing relevant to the points at hand at all.

Priceless.

I like that you are subjective.

 

[ratiocinator]

So that someone confuses subjective and "objective" and if it matters to you, then is that "it mattes to you" subjective or "objective"?

What matters to somebody is obviously subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

That is subjective. Is it a good idea to stay alive? Well, yes, if you want to.



Not all of reality is objective. You just admitted so.
That is my point, not all of reality is objective and not all of reality is subjective.

Now if we can agree on that, we can move on.
Or you go - reality is objective.
And I answer . no.
And it can go on.

No, reality is *defined* to be the objective part.

So, in your previous example, it is an objective fact that you are religious. That does NOT mean your religious beliefs are true. It simply means you believe them. It does not mean your beliefs are objective. It means that you have such beliefs is objective.

Subjectivity is also known as *opinion* to distinguish it from objectivity, which is *fact*. Reality is concerned with facts. Things like morality, aesthetics, etc, are concerned with opinions.

Both objective facts and subjective opinions are important in life. But there is a difference and 'reality' is, by definition, the first.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What matters to somebody is obviously subjective.

Good.
Now my model of reality, as simple as I can state it, is this:
Reality in practice comes in 4 parts:
Same, similar and/or different and the model of how they relate.
Objective, intersubjective and/or subjective and the model of how they relate.
Natural, cultural and/or individual and the model of how they relate.
Physical, social(biological) and/or mental(psychological) and the model of how they relate.
Science, philosophy and/or religion and the model of how they relate.

And now comes the joke: We can have similar, yet different models of reality and both get away with it.
You focus on the same, objective, natural, physical, science part of it.
I try to account for all 3 in my model.

So with that in mind, try answering these questions:
How many variants of wrong are in play for the claim that religion is wrong?
How many variants of wrong are in play for the claim that science is wrong?

For philosophy we just agree that it is a waste of time, though that is what we are doing here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, reality is *defined* to be the objective part.

...

But that is subjective, that you define it so, so the definition of reality is not a part of reality.
As long as you do that as a product of culture, then I use another culture and it can go on.
Look here: Definition of 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

Your definition is not objective, because you subjectively define it so. As long as I can't get you to understand that we are doing philosophy and not science with your definition, we can't move on to tackle both science, philosophy and religion as human behaviors in regards to other parts of realty.
As long as the really real is only the objective part, for which the word "real" is subjective, we are stuck.
As long as you insist on a part and not a relationship this goes one.
Subjective and objective are interconnected and in relationship with each other. They are not different parts.

 

[Polymath257]

But that is subjective, that you define it so, so the definition of reality is not a part of reality.

It is how we use the word. It is part of the definition we use to increase our ability to communicate. The distinction is between objective and subjective phenomena. Reality is *defined* to be the first.

As long as you do that as a product of culture, then I use another culture and it can go on.
Look here: Definition of 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

Precisely, so inter-subjective, which means objective.

Your definition is not objective, because you subjectively define it so.

What does it mean for a definition to be objective or subjective? All that is required of a definition is that it be consistently used.

As long as I can't get you to understand that we are doing philosophy and not science with your definition, we can't move on to tackle both science, philosophy and religion as human behaviors in regards to other parts of realty.

OK, so how do *you* define 'reality'? Why should we change the definition to make amends for your philosophy?

As long as the really real is only the objective part, for which the word "real" is subjective, we are stuck.

What does it mean to say a 'word is subjective'? Does it simply mean that we get to decide what it means? If so, then yes, but so what?

As long as you insist on a part and not a relationship this goes one.
Subjective and objective are interconnected and in relationship with each other. They are not different parts.

OK, that is true at the edges of both, but at the cores it isn't the case. There are real distinctions to be made and the words can be usefully used based on those distinctions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is how we use the word. It is part of the definition we use to increase our ability to communicate. The distinction is between objective and subjective phenomena. Reality is *defined* to be the first.

...

That is not how I use the word and I am not a part of your "we":
So here are the 2 different versions of reality as different that yours:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Reality as a whole or reality as of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

Stop claiming an universal "we".

 

[Polymath257]

That is not how I use the word and I am not a part of your "we":
So here are the 2 different versions of reality as different that yours:

philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Reality as a whole or reality as of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

Stop claiming an universal "we".

Notice the word 'or'. A distinction is being made. Reality is still the objective part of that human experience. Your link actually did NOT have the second as part of 'reality'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Notice the word 'or'. A distinction is being made. Reality is still the objective part of that human experience.

No, philosophy comes in 2 versions:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience


No, because it is the whole in part 1 and reality is meaningless in part 2. So yes, I misread and see your point, but my point still stands.
Reality is the objective part.
Reality is the whole, both subjective and objective otherwise it is not whole.
Reality is not necessary in explain the human condition.

So what is your "we". A cultural "we" that doesn't speak for all humans. Neither do I.

From German Wirklichkeit:
Mit dem Begriff Wirklichkeit wird all das beschrieben, was der Fall ist.[1] Gegenbegriffe zur Wirklichkeit sind Schein, Traum oder Phantasie. In der Philosophie unterscheidet man nach der Modalität des Seins zwischen Wirklichkeit, der „bloßen“ Möglichkeit, die nicht verwirklicht ist, und der Notwendigkeit. Eine Wirklichkeit, die nicht notwendig ist, ist kontingent, d. h., es wäre auch möglich gewesen, dass diese bestimmte Wirklichkeit so nicht eingetreten wäre. Wirklichkeit umfasst also Kontingentes und Notwendiges. Unmögliches kann niemals wirklich werden.

I can translate if you want. But the key part is: "...was der Fall ist" What the case is. The subjective parts are cases of something that is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you decide what is relevant?

No, I just don't allow moving the goalposts or otherwise confusing what the actual point under discussion is.

The idea being called "objectively good" here, is NOT the idea of wanting to stay alive, but rather the idea of jumping from a building in a context where wanting to stay alive is the goal.

I can't believe I needed to repeat this 3 times now.

Well, you can for you and I can do it differently.

Sure, you can engage in dishonest argumentation all you want. I can keep calling it out.

What is the problem with religion?

It's faith based, aka make belief.

What is the problem with science?

I dunno. Is there a problem with science?

Do they have any overlap at all

Not in any meaningfull way, no.

or are they as human behaviors not even at part of the same reality?

Science is a methodology to find rational answers to question concerning commonly observable reality. It's not a "behaviour". It is a method of inquiry.

I don't even see how calling religion a "behaviour" makes any sense either.
Religions are faith based belief systems.

If they are both human behaviors, then what do they have in common?

I don't agree they are behaviors.

And where are they different?

One is about faith based belief in assertions from "special" authority without any verifiable evidence.

The other is a method of inquiry specifically tailored to try and remove human bias from the equation.

They are completely different in every possible way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I like that you are subjective.

I don't like how you seem to be trolling.