Marduk

I vaguely remember a quote, something like “a butterfly dreaming it is a man or is it a man dreaming he is a butterfly”

stay focused grasshopper!

AdamWho

Is this discussion a science & skepticism discussion or a MRD?

If anyone wishes to define reality in terms of their subjective experience in opposition to objective reality then there can be no discussion about reality. They have retreated into irrationalism and no amount of dialog will convince them otherwise.

John Page

MRD?

Which scientifically proven objective reality were you refering to, mine or yours?

AdamWho

MRD = miscellaneous religious discussions

Are you making a joke?
Objective reality doesn't depend on an observer, that what makes it objective, opposed to "subjective reality" (a term which maybe meaningless) which depends upon subjective experience. The debate will ultimately be over faith vs. reason, that is why I suggested moving to MRD.

John Page

Many a true word.....

All observers are different therefore no truly objective reality can ever be known. Your ability to interpret the facts will always be colored by your previous experience, physical limits of your mind/brain or the incompleteness in experimental data.

Thus, subjective reality is all we can know. We can make our picture of reality less prone to "subjective error" through repeatability, control conditions, different observation points and comparing notes with others etc. That's the art of science.

I disagree with your faith vs. reason prognosis, if anything it might go in the direction of faith in science against philosophical reason. If you wish to continue, perhaps you could advise whether you subscribe to the existence of absolute truths to accompany the objective reality you claim exists?

Cheers, John

AdamWho

John Page:
Just because we don't know everything and scientific theories are incomplete doesn't mean that there is not an objective reality. You are using the "argument from ignorance", it is a fallacy.

You have a point in one way though: We as individuals have to decide whether or not we follow the path of reason. A person can have a completely self-contained and consistent irrational philosophy (as evidenced in Rants). Why would a person chose reason over non-reason, non-reason is So Much easier, you can believe any thing you want. The answer is in history, human nature and the fact that reason actual leads to answers. [Popper, A defense of reason]

Faith in science is irrelavant; I have no "faith in science". It is a contradiction in terms; Have faith in demonstrable phenomena???
You seem to be discounting reason as a method of gaining knowledge about the world under the guise of philosophical reason. (read: skepticism)
You seem to have two courses of action from here:
1. You can outright deny reason as a method of gaining knowledge about the world, possibly replacing reason with emotion or revelation as a way to gain knowledge about the world.(irrationalism)
2. You can say that reason is incomplete and needs supplementing, this is usually what Christians do: Deny reason to create a need for faith.
I don't even know what you mean by absolute truth. 1 + 1 = 2? Objective reality in no way implies that there are any absolute truths. Furthermore, the universe doesn't have the properties of meaning, truth, beauty, justice ect. Abstract entities depend on conscience individuals for their existence; (unless you want to argue for the existence of universals) Of course, if you are projecting your feeling, values, and beliefs onto objective reality then I can understand your confusions.
Or maybe you are just engaging in solipsism because you like to argue? I think this is the real answer, ok I’ll play.

John Page

I'm not saying there isn't such a thing as objective reality, just that its a concept that we can never prove. Doomed to our human ignorance (we do not appear to have the capacity to know and fully understand all things), the existence of an objective reality becomes supposition. Thus, I am making an argument from the knowledge of my ignorance, (or at least that my knowledge is limited) which is not strictly an argument from ignorance.

Science is a human endeavor that employs methods of inquiry developed by humans. Humans tend to make mistakes and have a habit of subverting the truth. I am not talking about "faith in demonstrable phenomena" so there is no contradiction.

I do not think there can exist a 100% accurate method for divining that which we do not know, exploration and trial and error are required. Thye discipline of objectivity permits us to make accurate statements about what we do know, but permits us to say nothing conclusive outside the domain of our controlled experiments.

What then is reason that it is so perfect? Is it a type of logic? Is it critical thinking? Is it being rational? My experience tells me to keep an open mind about reality, and this seems pefectly reasonable to me.

We seem to be in agreement on this, although the universe does contain the minds that perceive it - another reason why we cannot be completely objective about the nature of the universe.

BTW I think faith has a very important role, the act of believing in something enables one to test it out as a hypothesis. Powerful but dangerous, though, faith can lead to confabulation. But that's only what I believe....

Cheers, John

WJ

Adam!

I will be watching for your response to John's questions with great hope and anticipation. In the meantime, I have a few of my own.

1. What follows after ignorance?

2. Logic is actually easier; it is the opposite as you suggest. 1+1 is easy. To demonstrate as an appetite wetter; prove that the nature of your existence is logical?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Jesus, WJ you just keep baiting your pointless hook with the same fallacious questions over and over and over again.

How's that working out for you? Because, I gotta' tell ya', all it does is repeatedly show you up, so by all means, once more into the breach!

Koyaanisqatsi

My post and your post serve as all the compelling evidence necessary to accept that there is an "out there" out there, unless you choose to deny it, but that's ultimately all it will be; a personal decision on your part to deny what is extant.

Be my guest, but as WJ is painfully aware from the last time he/she pretended to step up to the plate with the same irrelevant Philosophy 101 primer, it's nothing more than a pointless digression into solipsism; aka, mental masturbation that addresses nothing and eventually cancels itself out.

It's a road to nowhere due to the inadequacies of semantics and the misinterpretation of the purpose and function of "proof," usually from people who think that exploded extremes exist in some manner in any relevant way to our lives.

They do not.

There is no necessity to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, or absolutely or any other such childish hyperbole, an "objective reality." None. It is a completely and utterly irrelevant game of semantics that, at best, gives the disingenuous appearance of existential stalemate, but, again as WJ ran away from, once directly challenged and deconstructed, trivially valid but worthless when applied.

So, like WJ, I extend a choice: argue for solipsism and therefore end the debate necessarily before it can continue, since solipsism means that only you exist, thus rendering debate pointless or simply cease to deny your senses and grant that the simple existence of this post is all the evidence required for you to accept an "out there" that exists independently of your perceptions.

If, that is, you're going to be arguing anything to do with solipsism, of course.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>