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

[popeye1945]

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

You mean your subjective world is the only thing you believe
you can know that there is. Does that mean that it is the only thing that there is, in other words, that solipsism is true? Or do you mean by “our world” that there is a subjective world out there? If that can mean something.

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.
Certainly, what we call our everyday reality or apparent reality, is what is called in philosophy, naive realism.

[popeye1945]

That which science cannot answer has always left the door open to wonder, to speculation and to metaphysics. Things being precisely as they seem is called naive realism. One great argument by compatibilists is, the manifestation of the physical world as object is confirmed by our ability to measure it, why would one not be able to measure one's illusions, just part to the illusion? If we believed as a species that things are just what they seem to be we would still be in darkness and greater ignorance than we are in the present.

[Count Lucanor]

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

You mean your subjective world is the only thing you believe
you can know that there is. Does that mean that it is the only thing that there is, in other words, that solipsism is true? Or do you mean by “our world” that there is a subjective world out there? If that can mean something.

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.

The obvious follow-up question to each of those 3 statements is: how do you know? You said or implied that we cannot know what and how it is out there.

[Lagayascienza]

That which science cannot answer has always left the door open to wonder, to speculation and to metaphysics. Things being precisely as they seem is called naive realism. One great argument by compatibilists is, the manifestation of the physical world as object is confirmed by our ability to measure it, why would one not be able to measure one's illusions, just part to the illusion? If we believed as a species that things are just what they seem to be we would still be in darkness and greater ignorance than we are in the present.

Yes, that is why I leave the door to Transcendental Idealism slightly ajar. It is not a question of denying the physical world but of accepting that, as limited beings, we cannot know what is behind it or what it is "in itself".

[Sy Borg]

Corporate interest and politics have played a stronger role in science in recent times, or maybe it's just more apparent today? There was a time when I believed scientific claims implicitly. I still love science, but I'm becoming more choosy about my sources. There have been a lot of cases of scientific fraud of late.

It's a bit horrifying to me because I've known plenty of scientists and I've generally found them to be sincere and rigorously honest. Many of them were the kids who became obsessed with some aspect of nature and that love only grew as they learned more. Now, as money becomes tighter, the purity of the enterprise is compromised.

I've been amazed at what's come out with COVID. There was a major Fauci report early on that dismissed the idea of a lab leak. Yet that's what happened. Further, it was dodgy behind-the-scenes gain-of-function experiments by the Americans (under Fauci) with coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab that was the problem, not the poor old pangolins.

Then we find out that the 2-metre rule was arbitrary, with no evidence.

Then there's been issues with the vaccines, with the side-effects on young males being downplayed. Dare I say it, had young women mostly been suffering those problems, I suspect it would be taken more seriously. There's also apparently been bastardry by Big Pharma (shock, horror!). Short cuts. Slack testing. Price gouging.

I have more sympathy for the mask argument. Much has been made about how viruses are so much smaller than the mesh of masks, meaning that here is no scientific justification for the mandates. However, viruses travel on breath droplets, nnot by thhemselves, so they will be caught in masks without a lot of leak points.

Another issue in science is communication. There is a tremendous amount of junk science and pseudoscience infotainment available online, put together by people without knowledge, and sometimes it's AI gibberish.

[Lagayascienza]

Good science is about objective as we can get. I loved science as a kid and have followed it all my life, It’s always been my touchstone for truth. I have a subscription to the journal Nature which is great Journal, but the print edition is not cheap. The journal, Science is another great source of good science. However, the expense of subscribing to reputable publications such as these is probably hurdle to many, especially in poorer countries, and there’s a lot of junk science and pseudoscience on the web these days to muddy the waters.

As for actual hands-on science, the R&D departments of big corporations exist to develop products that will make money rather than for the sake of pure science. That’s why universities and reputable journals are so important. But even they are somewhat at the mercy of funding by big corporations these days.

Better science education and ways of communicating science to the masses are sorely needed. Richard Dawkins works and advocates for this. I agree with him that there’s far too much post-modernist nonsense masquerading as scholarship at universities these days. And I’m forever nonplussed at the number of people who, even today, would still rather consult a preacher or check their horoscope than use reason or read science to find out what is likely to be true.

I used to look at free online science digests, but such sites just peddle poorly edited rehashings of what’s available in proper science journals and they are, increasingly, swamped with ads for fad diets and dubious health products. However, the journal Nature has a science newsletter called “nature briefings” that is free to all and gives readable précis of their main stories each week. It’s well worth subscribing to. The journal Science might have something similar, and you can get a digital only subscription to Science which is cheaper than Nature’s print+digital subscription.

[popeye1945]

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

You mean your subjective world is the only thing you believe
you can know that there is. Does that mean that it is the only thing that there is, in other words, that solipsism is true? Or do you mean by “our world” that there is a subjective world out there? If that can mean something.

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.

The obvious follow-up question to each of those 3 statements is: how do you know? You said or implied that we cannot know what and how it is out there.

Ultimate reality is supposed to be that of energy where nothing is manifest, a place of no things. So, one must ask oneself how objects/things come about. Tesla said, if you wish to understand reality you must think about energy, frequency, and vibrations. If things were just as they seemed, there would be no call for wonder, no call for the disciplines of science. The best argument I have heard for a materialist view of the world is, we know the physical world because we can measure its objects. Well, if reality is an emergent quality, illusion if you like, it is as dependent upon the object as it is on the subject, as the subject's biological readout of apparent reality. As Einstein stated, "Reality is an illusion, be it a persistent one." That and it is my argument, that all creatures are reactionary creatures and this is the way our apparent reality comes about; the subject does not experience the source, the subject experiences the effects of the source upon its altered biological nature.

[popeye1945]

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

You mean your subjective world is the only thing you believe
you can know that there is. Does that mean that it is the only thing that there is, in other words, that solipsism is true? Or do you mean by “our world” that there is a subjective world out there? If that can mean something.

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.

The obvious follow-up question to each of those 3 statements is: how do you know? You said or implied that we cannot know what and how it is out there.

Ultimate reality is supposed to be that of energy where nothing is manifest, a place of no things. So, one must ask oneself how objects/things come about. Tesla said, if you wish to understand reality you must think about energy, frequency, and vibrations. If things were just as they seemed, there would be no call for wonder, no call for the disciplines of science. The best argument I have heard for a materialist view of the world is, we know the physical world because we can measure its objects. Well, if reality is an emergent quality, illusion if you like, it is as dependent upon the object as it is on the subject, as the subject's biological readout of apparent reality. As Einstein stated, "Reality is an illusion, be it a persistent one." That and it is my argument, that all creatures are reactionary creatures and this is the way our apparent reality comes about; the subject does not experience the source, the subject experiences the effects of the source upon its altered biological nature.

[popeye1945]

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

You mean your subjective world is the only thing you believe
you can know that there is. Does that mean that it is the only thing that there is, in other words, that solipsism is true? Or do you mean by “our world” that there is a subjective world out there? If that can mean something.

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.

The obvious follow-up question to each of those 3 statements is: how do you know? You said or implied that we cannot know what and how it is out there.

Ultimate reality is supposed to be that of energy where nothing is manifest, a place of no things. So, one must ask oneself how objects/things come about. Tesla said, if you wish to understand reality you must think about energy, frequency, and vibrations. If things were just as they seemed, there would be no call for wonder, no call for the disciplines of science. The best argument I have heard for a materialist view of the world is, we know the physical world because we can measure its objects. Well, if reality is an emergent quality, illusion if you like, it is as dependent upon the object as it is on the subject, as the subject's biological readout of apparent reality. As Einstein stated, "Reality is an illusion, be it a persistent one." That and it is my argument, that all creatures are reactionary creatures and this is the way our apparent reality comes about; the subject does not experience the source, the subject experiences the effects of the source upon its altered biological nature.

[Sy Borg]

Good science is about objective as we can get.

My emphasis.

As for actual hands-on science, the R&D departments of big corporations exist to develop products that will make money rather than for the sake of pure science. That’s why universities and reputable journals are so important. But even they are somewhat at the mercy of funding by big corporations these days.

This dynamic has somewhat shattered my world. Like you, I am an unabashed science fan, especially biology, evolution, geology, Earth sciences and, of course, SPACE!! :)

That there are dodgy papers slipping through by people who have falsified data and corporate distortion and hiding of scientific results pains me. I still want to think of scientists as big kids who never lost their fascination with nature, but the situation is more complex than my childish ideal.

Better science education and ways of communicating science to the masses are sorely needed. Richard Dawkins works and advocates for this. I agree with him that there’s far too much post-modernist nonsense masquerading as scholarship at universities these days. And I’m forever nonplussed at the number of people who, even today, would still rather consult a preacher or check their horoscope than use reason or read science to find out what is likely to be true.

Yep. Do we need a Master of Fat Studies, whose focus is not the medical situation but promotion of obesity as a lifestyle choice rather than a person problem with health implications? Perhaps a few more doctors, nurses, engineers and chemists wouldn't go astray.

[popeye1945]

Objective science is the collective subjective agreement of the truth or reality of something. It cannot prove anything on an objective level, but only on a subjective level, we know nothing else. What does peer reviewed mean?

[popeye1945]

That which science cannot answer has always left the door open to wonder, to speculation and to metaphysics. Things being precisely as they seem is called naive realism. One great argument by compatibilists is, the manifestation of the physical world as object is confirmed by our ability to measure it, why would one not be able to measure one's illusions, just part to the illusion? If we believed as a species that things are just what they seem to be we would still be in darkness and greater ignorance than we are in the present.

Yes, that is why I leave the door to Transcendental Idealism slightly ajar. It is not a question of denying the physical world but of accepting that, as limited beings, we cannot know what is behind it or what it is "in itself".

Lagayscienza,

We are on the same page here Lagayscienza!

[Count Lucanor]

You mean your subjective world is the only thing you believe
you can know that there is. Does that mean that it is the only thing that there is, in other words, that solipsism is true? Or do you mean by “our world” that there is a subjective world out there? If that can mean something.

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.

The obvious follow-up question to each of those 3 statements is: how do you know? You said or implied that we cannot know what and how it is out there.

Ultimate reality is supposed to be that of energy where nothing is manifest, a place of no things.

Says who and what would be the basis for that supposition? I mean, since you said no one knows what is out there and how it is.

So, one must ask oneself how objects/things come about. Tesla said, if you wish to understand reality you must think about energy, frequency, and vibrations. If things were just as they seemed, there would be no call for wonder, no call for the disciplines of science. The best argument I have heard for a materialist view of the world is, we know the physical world because we can measure its objects. Well, if reality is an emergent quality, illusion if you like, it is as dependent upon the object as it is on the subject, as the subject's biological readout of apparent reality. As Einstein stated, "Reality is an illusion, be it a persistent one." That and it is my argument, that all creatures are reactionary creatures and this is the way our apparent reality comes about; the subject does not experience the source, the subject experiences the effects of the source upon its altered biological nature.

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

[popeye1945]

There is something out there, it just is not what it appears to be, just as we are not what we appear to be.

The obvious follow-up question to each of those 3 statements is: how do you know? You said or implied that we cannot know what and how it is out there.

Ultimate reality is supposed to be that of energy where nothing is manifest, a place of no things.

Says who and what would be the basis for that supposition? I mean, since you said no one knows what is out there and how it is.

So, one must ask oneself how objects/things come about. Tesla said if you wish to understand reality you must think about energy, frequency, and vibrations. If things were just as they seemed, there would be no call for wonder, no call for the disciplines of science. The best argument I have heard for a materialist view of the world is, that we know the physical world because we can measure its objects. Well, if reality is an emergent quality, illusion if you like, it is as dependent upon the object as it is on the subject, as the subject's biological readout of apparent reality. As Einstein stated, "Reality is an illusion, be it a persistent one." That and it is my argument, that all creatures are reactionary creatures and this is the way our apparent reality comes about; the subject does not experience the source, the subject experiences the effects of the source upon its altered biological nature.

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

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.

[Lagayascienza]

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

[/quote]

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 which 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 place holders for a reality we cannot perceive.