Scientific Objectivity

[Atla]

In Atla's case, "The positive noumenon IS what science deals with, that IS the world of science,"
the above implied the world of science is independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology [the FSK].
Whereas the author's scientific and objectivity and its facts are not independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology.

I assume by scientists you mean the 'minds' of the scientists, and by scientific methodology you mean the 'thoughts of scientific methodology in the minds' of the scientists. (Only way how I can make sense of the above.)

In which case, what an unhinged lie. It is of course NOT implied that the noumenal world is independent from the phenomenal world, why on Earth would it be?

Where did you even get that? Did you roll a dice, with some random nonsense written on each side, and is this what you rolled?

Atla [and his likes] is not willing to concede scientists are merely assuming there is something out there, but rather insist there is something really real out there that scientists are directing their attention at.

You're a sad liar VA, you know very well that I said every single time that ultimately it's just assumed that there is something out there.

These are sad attempts. I guess it might start to dawn on you that I wasn't joking, you really lost the "debate" like 3-4 years ago and this is all just the aftermath.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Atla [and his likes] is not willing to concede scientists are merely assuming there is something out there, but rather insist there is something really real out there that scientists are directing their attention at.

You're a sad liar VA, you know very well that I said every single time that ultimately it's just assumed that there is something out there.

These are sad attempts. I guess it might start to dawn on you that I wasn't joking, you really lost the "debate" like 3-4 years ago and this is all just the aftermath.

I had decided not to respond to your posts because you are so obnoxious and bent on insulting me rather than having a proper discussion.
I make this an exception.

Note this post.

Kan't usage of these concepts was nonsense. He didn't consider the abstract/concrete dichotomy, and he didn't consider indirect realism (dual-object noumenon) as the default view.

As such, your insistence on using Kantian language is outdated and nonsensical.

In the above, it is implied your stance is that of Indirect Realism as the default.

• What is Indirect Realism?
  Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

The above scientific view refers to scientific realism [opposed by scientific anti-realism].
If your stance is indirect realism as above, you have to believe [not assume] there is an external world as it really is.

If you merely ASSUME there is an external world within science as a convenience, you cannot be an indirect realist but rather you would be an anti-realist like Kant.

"you really lost the "debate" like 3-4 years ago"
this is SO childish, considering I had been posting here regularly since 3-4 years ago while defending my position at all times without any concessions of my main arguments.

[Atla]

I had decided not to respond to your posts because you are so obnoxious and bent on insulting me rather than having a proper discussion.
I make this an exception.

Nah you're merely pissed that I treat you with same ad homs that you treat others with, treat you like the dog you are, it's what you want anyway. You know you can't handle a proper discussion as most philosophy is above your head, so you have to rely on just insults.

In the above, it is implied your stance is that of Indirect Realism as the default.
What is Indirect Realism?
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism
The above scientific view refers to scientific realism [opposed by scientific anti-realism].
If your stance is indirect realism as above, you have to believe [not assume] there is an external world as it really is.

If you merely ASSUME there is an external world within science as a convenience, you cannot be an indirect realist but rather you would be an anti-realist like Kant.

"you really lost the "debate" like 3-4 years ago"
this is SO childish, considering I had been posting here regularly since 3-4 years ago while defending my position at all times without any concessions of my main arguments.

Don't lie, Kant was an agnostic. I'm also an agnostic, just a somewhat different kind. Your claim that we have to choose between the extremes of certain existence and certain non-existence of the external world, is the kind of kindi gnat nonsense that you should have recognized 3-4 years ago, and quickly fix it so you don't make an ass out of yourself.