Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

You’re still not saying how you know that what is out there is not as it appears to be.

Oh, but I do, if ultimate reality is unmanifested energies, there is nothing to appear, it is a place of no things. You would not even experience the energy itself, you would experience the alteration it makes to your resting biology as experience, which would manifest as objects in your apparent reality.

How do we know what a field or a force "appears to be"? We do not experience these things directly. We measure them with apparatus and get numerical values that accord (or not) with theory. But what is actually there, the reality, is not the pointer readings or equations or the theory. They are just placeholders for a reality we cannot perceive.
[/quote]

You have just described ultimate reality, a place of no things, the readings are of the energy field not of objects or things.

[Lagayascienza]

I agree, popeye1945. We perceive the underlying reality only indirectly. And not only at the micro but also at the macro level. We have no idea of what dark energy and dark matter are but, apparently they account for 90% of what's out there. It seems just obviously wrong to to say that reality is what we perceive it as. Reality is not pointer readings and datasets. But pointer readings and datasets are all we have to go on.

[Count Lucanor]

Science tells us it is all energy, that ultimate reality is a place of no things, so, if it appears to be, it is not ultimate reality. If things were just as they appeared there would be no need for the quests of science, no need for wonder. If ultimate reality is energy unmanifested as an object, then there are no things in ultimate reality. There are only things in apparent reality, which I have stated is a biological readout of experiences/reactions of the energies that surround us.

I’m still trying to make sense of your initial statement:

”We cannot know if there is an objective physical world out there, our world is entirely subjective.

So far, I’m getting from your following posts, that:
1. There’s a world out there, which includes objects, things happening (science, for example) and other subjects of a biological nature and physical shape (such as Tesla and Einstein).
2. It appears to you and other subjects as something (made of energy, frequency, vibrations, etc., in other words, physical stuff).
3. You and other subjects know that the reality of this world is different from that something that it appears to be.
4. Nevertheless, that world, that reality, has its own determinations which affect the subjects.
All of that points to an objective world (independent of the subjects) that is real and comes with its own determinations, dealt with by physical science. That looks far from your initial statement, so you may want to revisit that one.

Besides, you’re yet to explain how you do know that the world is not what it ultimately appears to be, but you’re pretty sure objects and subjects independent of you are real.

[popeye1945]

Science tells us it is all energy, that ultimate reality is a place of no things, so, if it appears to be, it is not ultimate reality. If things were just as they appeared there would be no need for the quests of science, no need for wonder. If ultimate reality is energy unmanifested as an object, then there are no things in ultimate reality. There are only things in apparent reality, which I have stated is a biological readout of experiences/reactions of the energies that surround us.

I’m still trying to make sense of your initial statement:

”We cannot know if there is an objective physical world out there, our world is entirely subjective.

So far, I’m getting from your following posts, that:
1. There’s a world out there, which includes objects, things happening (science, for example) and other subjects of a biological nature and physical shape (such as Tesla and Einstein).
2. It appears to you and other subjects as something (made of energy, frequency, vibrations, etc., in other words, physical stuff).
3. You and other subjects know that the reality of this world is different from that something that it appears to be.
4. Nevertheless, that world, that reality, has its own determinations which affect the subjects.
All of that points to an objective world (independent of the subjects) that is real and comes with its own determinations, dealt with by physical science. That looks far from your initial statement, so you may want to revisit that one.

Besides, you’re yet to explain how you do know that the world is not what it ultimately appears to be, but you’re pretty sure objects and subjects independent of you are real.

Yours is a grand incomprehension or a complete failure in communication on my part. This puzzles me as I have just tested it against AI which found it quite an insight. I will try again if you wish to take one issue at a time. I have never run into such a total misinterpretation, so you will need to be patient we me in my efforts to clarify.

[Count Lucanor]

Science tells us it is all energy, that ultimate reality is a place of no things, so, if it appears to be, it is not ultimate reality. If things were just as they appeared there would be no need for the quests of science, no need for wonder. If ultimate reality is energy unmanifested as an object, then there are no things in ultimate reality. There are only things in apparent reality, which I have stated is a biological readout of experiences/reactions of the energies that surround us.

I’m still trying to make sense of your initial statement:

”We cannot know if there is an objective physical world out there, our world is entirely subjective.

So far, I’m getting from your following posts, that:
1. There’s a world out there, which includes objects, things happening (science, for example) and other subjects of a biological nature and physical shape (such as Tesla and Einstein).
2. It appears to you and other subjects as something (made of energy, frequency, vibrations, etc., in other words, physical stuff).
3. You and other subjects know that the reality of this world is different from that something that it appears to be.
4. Nevertheless, that world, that reality, has its own determinations which affect the subjects.
All of that points to an objective world (independent of the subjects) that is real and comes with its own determinations, dealt with by physical science. That looks far from your initial statement, so you may want to revisit that one.

Besides, you’re yet to explain how you do know that the world is not what it ultimately appears to be, but you’re pretty sure objects and subjects independent of you are real.

Yours is a grand incomprehension or a complete failure in communication on my part. This puzzles me as I have just tested it against AI which found it quite an insight. I will try again if you wish to take one issue at a time. I have never run into such a total misinterpretation, so you will need to be patient we me in my efforts to clarify.

OK, I’ll wait patiently.

[Sy Borg]

I think this question has become over-complicated.

For the most part, scientists do their very best to be as objective as they can, knowing that perfect objectivity is impossible.

Alas, especially in this day and age, there's a growing number of scammers, taking shortcuts, falsifying data or making sensationalist interpretations of data that can be explained in a mundane way. Money taints everything. Big Pharma is a good example. The bodgy science of cigarette companies. Energy companies funding climate change denial. The latest "proof" that the Big Bang did not happen.

So, as with most things in life, the question has more than one answer. I've known many scientists and, as I said earlier, they tend to be big kids who never lost enthusiasm for their childhood fascination with nature. I've also met power-hungry types who I'd trust as far as I could throw them.

Science is as objective as it can be, within the limitations of human nature and epistemology. Even if our perceptions are tragically skewed and we are essentially wrong about everything, we will at least all be wrong in the same way together, and it won't matter for almost all intents and purposes.

[popeye1945]

Science tells us it is all energy, that ultimate reality is a place of no things, so, if it appears to be, it is not ultimate reality. If things were just as they appeared there would be no need for the quests of science, no need for wonder. If ultimate reality is energy unmanifested as an object, then there are no things in ultimate reality. There are only things in apparent reality, which I have stated is a biological readout of experiences/reactions of the energies that surround us.

I’m still trying to make sense of your initial statement:

”We cannot know if there is an objective physical world out there, our world is entirely subjective.

So far, I’m getting from your following posts, that:
1. There’s a world out there, which includes objects, things happening (science, for example) and other subjects of a biological nature and physical shape (such as Tesla and Einstein).
2. It appears to you and other subjects as something (made of energy, frequency, vibrations, etc., in other words, physical stuff).
3. You and other subjects know that the reality of this world is different from that something that it appears to be.
4. Nevertheless, that world, that reality, has its own determinations which affect the subjects.
All of that points to an objective world (independent of the subjects) that is real and comes with its own determinations, dealt with by physical science. That looks far from your initial statement, so you may want to revisit that one.

Besides, you’re yet to explain how you do know that the world is not what it ultimately appears to be, but you’re pretty sure objects and subjects independent of you are real.

Yours is a grand incomprehension or a complete failure in communication on my part. This puzzles me as I have just tested it against AI which found it quite an insight. I will try again if you wish to take one issue at a time. I have never run into such a total misinterpretation, so you will need to be patient we me in my efforts to clarify.

OK, I’ll wait patiently.

It is just I have never run into anyone who so totally didn't get any of it. Now, if you want to understand, take it one issue at a time, and I shall be pleased to engage.

[Count Lucanor]

It is just I have never run into anyone who so totally didn't get any of it. Now, if you want to understand, take it one issue at a time, and I shall be pleased to engage.

OK, let’s see where it goes. This is your original statement:

We cannot know if there is an objective physical world out there, our world is entirely subjective.

Now I ask: how does it compare with this other one of mine?:

1. There’s a world out there, which includes objects, things happening (science, for example) and other subjects of a biological nature and physical shape (such as Tesla and Einstein).
Are they entirely compatible, partially compatible or not compatible at all?

[Lagayascienza]

Is Science Objective? Well, perhaps not entirely; not all of the time. But it’s the most objective way of finding out what is likely to be true about the workings of the universe that humans have yet come up with. It’s not foolproof. Apart from outright fraud where a scientist falsifies data, human biases can creep in so that researchers see what they were expecting to see or what they were hoping to see. However, strategies such as double-blind trials, can help eliminate such biases. Sometimes honest mistakes are made, for example, an error in a calculation or in setting up an experiment. But, by and large, when the scientific method is adhered to and experiments are repeated, such errors are spotted and eliminated.

Talking about the power of the scientific method, physicist Richard Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." It is its ability to reduce the risk of us fooling ourselves that is the real power of the scientific method, and which sets it above all other systems that purport to deal in truth about the workings of the universe.

The other thing to be said for science is that it works. It got us to the Moon and Mars and Titan, and it’s why we can sit at our computers and exchange posts instantly with others half a world away. If the answers science provides us with were not objectively true in some sense, then why does science seem to work?

But science has its limitations. It can only answer properly posed questions. The question of how many angels can fit on the point of a needle is not one that science could, or would even be interested in, answering. Science cannot tell us whether donating to famine relief or not is morally right or wrong. But it can tell us what most people believe in respect of such a question and what the effects of giving or not giving are likely to be. Similarly, science cannot tell us whether Leonardo’s Virgin on the Rocks is a better painting that Van Gogh’s A Starry Night. It can, however, tell us what pigments were used in each painting, how it was made and perhaps, if a majority prefer one painting over the other, some of the reasons for that preference.

So science is not perfect, and it cannot answer all types of questions. But within its broad area of applicability, it does provide reliable answers, it works, and it does seem to be the best we can do in terms of objectivity.

[Sy Borg]

Well done, Lagaya. That strikes me as the most solid summary of the situation on the thread.

[Count Lucanor]

But science has its limitations. It can only answer properly posed questions. The question of how many angels can fit on the point of a needle is not one that science could, or would even be interested in, answering.

Cannot help but wonder: is there any field, discipline or simply any practice from everyday life that would be interested in such a question? That would find it important, relevant? That would be even competent to answer it? If so, what is it?

Science cannot tell us whether donating to famine relief or not is morally right or wrong. But it can tell us what most people believe in respect of such a question and what the effects of giving or not giving are likely to be. Similarly, science cannot tell us whether Leonardo’s Virgin on the Rocks is a better painting that Van Gogh’s A Starry Night. It can, however, tell us what pigments were used in each painting, how it was made and perhaps, if a majority prefer one painting over the other, some of the reasons for that preference.

It seems obvious that natural science is concerned with what and how the world is, not with what it ought to be, but I’m not sure that we can call that a limitation of science and that we are allowed to call it imperfect, in the sense that it “falls short” for being unable to obtain reliable knowledge. It’s just that it is outside the scope of its inquiries. More than that, it’s not like it is conceding that space to other disciplines that do get us reliable knowledge, and by that we could only mean an intersubjective agreement about what actually is. No known systematic discipline or practice can give us reliable knowledge about which painting is better, nor how good is donating to famine relief. In that sense all forms of inquiry are not perfect.

[Lagayascienza]

But science has its limitations. It can only answer properly posed questions. The question of how many angels can fit on the point of a needle is not one that science could, or would even be interested in, answering.

Cannot help but wonder: is there any field, discipline or simply any practice from everyday life that would be interested in such a question? That would find it important, relevant? That would be even competent to answer it? If so, what is it?

I did read somewhere, can't remember where, that theists have argued about such things.

Science cannot tell us whether donating to famine relief or not is morally right or wrong. But it can tell us what most people believe in respect of such a question and what the effects of giving or not giving are likely to be. Similarly, science cannot tell us whether Leonardo’s Virgin on the Rocks is a better painting that Van Gogh’s A Starry Night. It can, however, tell us what pigments were used in each painting, how it was made and perhaps, if a majority prefer one painting over the other, some of the reasons for that preference.

It seems obvious that natural science is concerned with what and how the world is, not with what it ought to be, but I’m not sure that we can call that a limitation of science and that we are allowed to call it imperfect, in the sense that it “falls short” for being unable to obtain reliable knowledge. It’s just that it is outside the scope of its inquiries. More than that, it’s not like it is conceding that space to other disciplines that do get us reliable knowledge, and by that we could only mean an intersubjective agreement about what actually is. No known systematic discipline or practice can give us reliable knowledge about which painting is better, nor how good is donating to famine relief. In that sense all forms of inquiry are not perfect.

I do not think, and did not say that science "falls short". I do say that, within its broad area of applicability, science is the gold standard.

[Count Lucanor]

But science has its limitations. It can only answer properly posed questions. The question of how many angels can fit on the point of a needle is not one that science could, or would even be interested in, answering.

Cannot help but wonder: is there any field, discipline or simply any practice from everyday life that would be interested in such a question? That would find it important, relevant? That would be even competent to answer it? If so, what is it?

I did read somewhere, can't remember where, that theists have argued about such things.

It is more likely than not that such speculations will find fertile ground in theology and all other theories and practices concerned with supernatural realms. That goes for concern or relevance alone, but whether they are in any way competent or not to provide reliable, objective answers, that’s another issue. I tend to believe they fail miserably in trying to justify their propositions from a logical and metaphysical point of view, not to mention the physical.

Science cannot tell us whether donating to famine relief or not is morally right or wrong. But it can tell us what most people believe in respect of such a question and what the effects of giving or not giving are likely to be. Similarly, science cannot tell us whether Leonardo’s Virgin on the Rocks is a better painting that Van Gogh’s A Starry Night. It can, however, tell us what pigments were used in each painting, how it was made and perhaps, if a majority prefer one painting over the other, some of the reasons for that preference.

It seems obvious that natural science is concerned with what and how the world is, not with what it ought to be, but I’m not sure that we can call that a limitation of science and that we are allowed to call it imperfect, in the sense that it “falls short” for being unable to obtain reliable knowledge. It’s just that it is outside the scope of its inquiries. More than that, it’s not like it is conceding that space to other disciplines that do get us reliable knowledge, and by that we could only mean an intersubjective agreement about what actually is. No known systematic discipline or practice can give us reliable knowledge about which painting is better, nor how good is donating to famine relief. In that sense all forms of inquiry are not perfect.

I do not think, and did not say that science "falls short". I do say that, within its broad area of applicability, science is the gold standard.

I trust that’s your “official” stance on the subject. I just point to the general tendency among Idealists and advocates of mysticism to minimize the value of science in order to inflate the value of their beliefs, as evidenced by several threads on this and other forums.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, that is my position. "Idealists and advocates of mysticism [who] minimize the value of science in order to inflate the value of their beliefs" are simply wrong. In the objectivity stakes, science is the best we can do. I am a materialist. I leave the metaphysical door ever-so-slightly ajar for idealism simply because, as limited beings, we cannot currently get the full picture of reality. But, in time, science may end up closing that door completely. Science is practical, it works. Idealism is just, well, an idea. It doesn't really achieve anything useful.

[Count Lucanor]

Yes, that is my position. "Idealists and advocates of mysticism [who] minimize the value of science in order to inflate the value of their beliefs" are simply wrong. In the objectivity stakes, science is the best we can do. I am a materialist. I leave the metaphysical door ever-so-slightly ajar for idealism simply because, as limited beings, we cannot currently get the full picture of reality. But, in time, science may end up closing that door completely. Science is practical, it works. Idealism is just, well, an idea. It doesn't really achieve anything useful.

I’m a materialist, too, but I understand this to be a metaphysical position. It’s the only ontology compatible with physical science, but one could have been a materialist even before modern science arrived. I cannot leave any door open to Idealism, which has dominated thought for millennia, because it is simply not compatible with science and makes for a poor philosophy, even though it gained in sophistication with Kant and Hegel. Science is limited in the sense that human knowledge is limited, but what we do know now has shredded to pieces most if not all the worldview that Idealists took from religion and held as their ruling paradigm for centuries.