You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[idav]

To an extent. But I´ll give you an example. Tell me if this could be true:

Everything that you read is false.

Could this be true? This is an affirmation that curses itself through its own logic. this is what senses tend to do to us, show us how they are flawed. Just than instead of showing us that it is imposible that they are true (like affirmation above) they tell us that there is no reason to trust in them.

That is such an over-generalization that it is an impossibility. I would start by acknowledging that we agree on what language to use. We are both able to read and responds pretty well for it being false. Your senses aren't saying it is flawed it is your imagination and paranoia doing that.

 

[Me Myself]

That is such an over-generalization that it is an impossibility. I would start by acknowledging that we agree on what language to use. We are both able to read and responds pretty well for it being false. Your senses aren't saying it is flawed it is your imagination and paranoia doing that.

Well, senses ARE flawed. We do know that. Limited (to say the least)

Now if you ever had waked up of a dreamed you thought was your life and was completely convinced in the dream that the in-logic dream was natural, then you understand how unreliable our senses are, because in the dream, we could "sense" everything while it turned out to be false when we woke up.

 

[Me Myself]

No, if I believed this existence was bull, that would require faith, because there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

No, to think that what your 5 senses perceive is reality requires faith, because there is no way you can know for sure without relying on these same 5 senses for reafirmation.

Even if we recur to memory, that too is forged at dreams and is quite agreed on psychology that what one beleives that he remembers, could be a distorted form of what actually hapened, distorted if we have any fact that we specifically need to deny or beleive.

 

[Tristesse]

Well, senses ARE flawed. We do know that. Limited (to say the least)

Now if you ever had waked up of a dreamed you thought was your life and was completely convinced in the dream that the in-logic dream was natural, then you understand how unreliable our senses are, because in the dream, we could "sense" everything while it turned out to be false when we woke up.

As real as some dreams may appear while you're dreaming, they are very inconsistent with reality. Of course our senses are limited, but so what?

 

[Me Myself]

As real as some dreams may appear while you're dreaming, they are very inconsistent with reality. Of course our senses are limited, but so what?

so what what? So everything that I told you xD. They are unreliable, and if you are relying on them you are acting in a way that requires faith xD.

Never had a dream within a dream and had the first dream very inconsistent with the reality of the other dream and then you woke up and see both were nuts? maybe this one is too.

 

[Tristesse]

No, to think that what your 5 senses perceive is reality requires faith, because there is no way you can know for sure without relying on these same 5 senses for reafirmation.

Even if we recur to memory, that too is forged at dreams and is quite agreed on psychology that what one beleives that he remembers, could be a distorted form of what actually hapened, distorted if we have any fact that we specifically need to deny or beleive.

Yes, we have to rely on our senses, but this does not mean that they are unreliable. Each one of our senses perfoms a different function and when all of them confirm a single reality, thats what we have to rely on. We have no other option. This does not mean that we jump to the conclusion that this reality is a dream, because that is the unsubstantiated claim.

 

[idav]

Well, senses ARE flawed. We do know that. Limited (to say the least)

Limited yes but doesn't mean it is flawed. This doesn't apply to your example about things we read. Is reading flawed in relation to our senses?

Now if you ever had waked up of a dreamed you thought was your life and was completely convinced in the dream that the in-logic dream was natural, then you understand how unreliable our senses are, because in the dream, we could "sense" everything while it turned out to be false when we woke up.

Sure and then when you come to your senses you realize what was really going on. Your example shows what I'm saying. Your senses don't tell you it isn't real whether in a dream or waking state. Nothing about what you are sensing is telling you it is false it is just you imagination doing that.

 

[Tristesse]

so what what? So everything that I told you xD. They are unreliable, and if you are relying on them you are acting in a way that requires faith xD.

Never had a dream within a dream and had the first dream very inconsistent with the reality of the other dream and then you woke up and see both were nuts? maybe this one is too.

Not at all. How are the senses unreliable?

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, we have to rely on our senses, but this does not mean that they are unreliable. Each one of our senses perfoms a different function and when all of them confirm a single reality, thats what we have to rely on. We have no other option. This does not mean that we jump to the conclusion that this reality is a dream, because that is the unsubstantiated claim.

I did not say this. I just say that to say "this we perceive is actual reality" is faith. Now if yuo say it is a dream, that is faith also because you cannot prove it is a dream neither. You cannot prove that it is a dream nor that it is not, so any of those that you beleive in you would be having faith in it.

 

[Me Myself]

Limited yes but doesn't mean it is flawed. This doesn't apply to your example about things we read. Is reading flawed in relation to our senses?

Sure and then when you come to your senses you realize what was really going on. Your example shows what I'm saying. Your senses don't tell you it isn't real whether in a dream or waking state. Nothing about what you are sensing is telling you it is false it is just you imagination doing that.

but when you are on your imagination, you are imagining the senses. Dreams tend to be visual and audio inputs, and if you have more vivid dreams they involve the 5 senses AND memory fabrication.

The reading thing was just supposed to be an analogy, so I´ll just dropp it if it was not clear as I thought it would be xD

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Well, which methods are we using if not our 5 senses might you tell me?

Too lazy to type on my own:

Simply put, dark matter cannot be seen by astronomers with telescopes. It doesn't emit or reflect enough light to detect, so it's not bright, like a star. Atoms, molecules and subatomic particles are dark matter. You and I are dark matter. Everything on Earth is dark matter. Planets, brown dwarf stars and black holes are dark matter. Basically, dark matter cannot be seen -- scientists can only estimate where it is based on gravitational effects on what they can see.

We can't see dark matter, but we can detect it by its effects on normal matter through gravity (rotation, gravitational-lensing) and by the X-rays emitted by hot, dark matter.

HowStuffWorks "How Dark Matter Works"

 

[Tristesse]

I did not say this. I just say that to say "this we perceive is actual reality" is faith. Now if yuo say it is a dream, that is faith also because you cannot prove it is a dream neither. You cannot prove that it is a dream nor that it is not, so any of those that you beleive in you would be having faith in it.

If you're arguing from the concept that we can't prove anything, then you can't prove the statement that you can't prove anything. That my friend is a true circular argument. But instead of "prove" why not use evidence and reason?

 

[Me Myself]

Not at all. How are the senses unreliable?

o.o for real? never had your senses tricked in anyway? are you superman ? o.o

Does this looks static to you?

 

[Me Myself]

If you're arguing from the concept that we can't prove anything, then you can't prove the statement that you can't prove anything. That my friend is a true circular argument. But instead of "prove" why not use evidence and reason?

I just did :yes:

 

[Me Myself]

Too lazy to type on my own:


HowStuffWorks "How Dark Matter Works"

On better reading of your previos post, yuo said we don´t use our senses directly

This discoveries still rely at least underictly in our senses, as the veracity of everything in our world.

 

[idav]

but when you are on your imagination, you are imagining the senses. Dreams tend to be visual and audio inputs, and if you have more vivid dreams they involve the 5 senses AND memory fabrication.

Right but you senses are not able to tell you that what your sensing is a fabrication. Logic maybe if your lucky. Until we are able to wake from a waking state we have no reason to doubt that the waking state is reality.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

On better reading of your previos post, yuo said we don´t use our senses directly

This discoveries still rely at least underictly in our senses, as the veracity of everything in our world.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that we can't cut down on the inaccuracies of the human senses by doing studies that only indirectly involve our perception.

 

[Tristesse]

o.o for real? never had your senses tricked in anyway? are you superman ? o.o

Does this looks static to you?

Who said reliable means they can't be decieved? Of course they can. What I'm talking about is a reasonable expectation of our senses.

 

[Tristesse]

I just did :yes:

No, you used assertion. Not quite the same.

 

[Me Myself]

Right but you senses are not able to tell you that what your sensing is a fabrication. Logic maybe if your lucky. Until we are able to wake from a waking state we have no reason to doubt that the waking state is reality.

Idk, I think doubt is a reason in itself

Of course, but that doesn't mean that we can't cut down on the inaccuracies of the human senses by doing studies that only indirectly involve our perception.

The thread says you can´t have "perfect" knowledge and I agree with it. Your affirmation does so to I take. Scicne has proven to be at least reasonable enough knowledge to live by.

Who said reliable means they can't be decieved? Of course they can. What I'm talking about is a reasonable expectation of our senses.

"reasonable expectation" is subjective.