The Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone deny a Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge [FSRK] exists within science?
PH as below deny the existence of a scientific FSRK that conditioned all scientific facts and enable them as Objective.

The sad thing is that VA knows damn well - and has often said - that empirical evidence of features of reality is what makes natural science credible and (provisionally) reliable. So why deflect?
Answer: VA has to defend the silly idea that features of reality - aka facts - are, as it were, products of FSKs, so they can't be independent from FSKs.
Hence: 'PH's What is Fact is Illusory'.

Whenever the question of whether scientific facts are objective, credible, reliable, trustworthy, and the like, e.g.

• Scientific evidence: What is it and how can we trust it?
  https://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evidence.html

• What is scientific objectivity?

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science).

....what is not mentioned most of the time is the objectivity, credibility and reliability that is claimed for Science, is conditioned upon a Framework and System [of reality and knowledge] [FSRK] comprising the main elements of the scientific methods and all other necessary conditions that qualify its resultant as an objective scientific fact.

At this point, who deny such a point re the necessity of a Framework and System of Reality and Knowledge [FSRK]?; where Physics, Chemistry, Biology and the social sciences has their own specific sub-scientific FSRK.

The scientific FSRK is human-based, sustained and conditioned by a collective-of-subjects.
Since it is based on a collective-of-subjects it is by definition, objective, i.e. not based on a subject's opinions, belief nor judgment.
As such, all objective scientific facts cannot be absolutely subject [mind] independent as claimed by scientific realists.

If there is any indication that all objective scientific facts represent something [PH's so called 'feature of reality'] that is objective and independent and exists beyond scientific facts, that is merely an ASSUMPTION.
This ontological thing is merely a metaphysical speculation. There is no way Science can justify this ontological thing is real.
In addition, this ASSUMPTION is not critical to science at all in arriving at its objective scientific facts.

My point,
is there anyone here who deny that science operates and is sustained via an implicit Scientific Framework and System [of reality and knowledge] FSRK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[nemos]

I will probably still be a materialist (in my own sense), and I will support the position of "scientific realists". I will allow myself to think that the word was not the one that started everything, not because I can or want to prove it, but because I like it. There must always be someone in the opposition, so that there is a basis for the movement.

Although, on the other hand, I do not dispute that consciousness can actually be considered as an additional dimension. Imagine, from the position of an unconscious 3D observer, it would be quite difficult to explain the behavior of such strange 3D objects as "people" endowed with consciousness, whose behavior is determined by ideas. It's about the same as it would be strange to observe the behavior of a 2D projection of a 3D object in plane(a slit with a plane, in this case), which can change shape, appear and disappear for seemingly no apparent reason. Therefore, things happening in the dimension of consciousness (subjectivity) can affect the "objectivity" of 3D in a strange way.
But I have a feeling that this is not what is being asked about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I will probably still be a materialist (in my own sense), and I will support the position of "scientific realists". I will allow myself to think that the word was not the one that started everything, not because I can or want to prove it, but because I like it. There must always be someone in the opposition, so that there is a basis for the movement.

If you are a "scientific realist" then you are like Einstein who insisted,
"the moon existed even when he wasn't looking at it"
or for other realists,
the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exist after humans are extinct"
see this;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

The above is very obvious from the common sense [even conventional] point of view, but there are philosophers [with good reasons and more refined philosophical thinking] who oppose such a common sense view.

The point here is, if you are doing philosophy, then you have to fully understand [not necessary agree with] why they are having such an opposing view before you counter or reject their views.

Most of the time, realists [philosophical] do not bother to fully understand the views of the antirealists [e.g. Kantian] but they quick to reject the antirealists argument because on the surface it does not align with their realists views.
Such a reaction is actually a very subliminal psychological instant reaction from an inherent defense mechanism because survival is at stake.

If you want to be philosophical, you'll need to dig deep to understand the above issue in detail rather than reacting instantaneously in accordance to what your 'like or feel' which is very subjective rather than objective.

Note this Problem of Philosophy,
What is the Chair-in-Itself Really Like?
viewtopic.php?t=41643

[Iwannaplato]

Anyone deny a Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge [FSRK] exists within science?
PH as below deny the existence of a scientific FSRK that conditioned all scientific facts and enable them as Objective.

The sad thing is that VA knows damn well - and has often said - that empirical evidence of features of reality is what makes natural science credible and (provisionally) reliable. So why deflect?
Answer: VA has to defend the silly idea that features of reality - aka facts - are, as it were, products of FSKs, so they can't be independent from FSKs.
Hence: 'PH's What is Fact is Illusory'.

Nothing in there that denies there is a framework (or, actually, set of frameworks) in Science.

By the way the phrase 'system of reality' is a terrible phrase in context. In the conglomerate name you have for FSK + FSR. Or you can ignore a native speaker. Whatever.

I say the plural, frameworks, because scientific conclusions have been reached through a variety of methodologies, some amounting to different epistemological approaches/understandings. And since you've cited Feyarabend somewhere, I believe, you oughta know this.

The scientific FSRK is human-based, sustained and conditioned by a collective-of-subjects.
Since it is based on a collective-of-subjects it is by definition, objective, i.e. not based on a subject's opinions, belief nor judgment.
As such, all objective scientific facts cannot be absolutely subject [mind] independent as claimed by scientific realists.

A realist need not deny that the facts are mind dependent. It depends on how facts is defined. If fact is defined as a real facet of reality, then generally realists would say these are not mind independent. If fact is defined as a conclusion, assertion about reality, then a realist can agree.

If there is any indication that all objective scientific facts represent something [PH's so called 'feature of reality'] that is objective and independent and exists beyond scientific facts, that is merely an ASSUMPTION.

We all make assumptions, even you. Perhaps especially you.

Assumptions about time, memory, intelligibility of reality, stability...every mind makes these assumptions or it cannot draw conclusions. For example.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone deny a Scientific Framework & System of Reality & Knowledge [FSRK] exists within science?
PH as below deny the existence of a scientific FSRK that conditioned all scientific facts and enable them as Objective.

The sad thing is that VA knows damn well - and has often said - that empirical evidence of features of reality is what makes natural science credible and (provisionally) reliable. So why deflect?
Answer: VA has to defend the silly idea that features of reality - aka facts - are, as it were, products of FSKs, so they can't be independent from FSKs.
Hence: 'PH's What is Fact is Illusory'.

Nothing in there that denies there is a framework (or, actually, set of frameworks) in Science.

By the way the phrase 'system of reality' is a terrible phrase in context. In the conglomerate name you have for FSK + FSR. Or you can ignore a native speaker. Whatever.

I say the plural, frameworks, because scientific conclusions have been reached through a variety of methodologies, some amounting to different epistemological approaches/understandings. And since you've cited Feyarabend somewhere, I believe, you oughta know this.

The scientific FSRK is human-based, sustained and conditioned by a collective-of-subjects.
Since it is based on a collective-of-subjects it is by definition, objective, i.e. not based on a subject's opinions, belief nor judgment.
As such, all objective scientific facts cannot be absolutely subject [mind] independent as claimed by scientific realists.

A realist need not deny that the facts are mind dependent. It depends on how facts is defined. If fact is defined as a real facet of reality, then generally realists would say these are not mind independent. If fact is defined as a conclusion, assertion about reality, then a realist can agree.

If there is any indication that all objective scientific facts represent something [PH's so called 'feature of reality'] that is objective and independent and exists beyond scientific facts, that is merely an ASSUMPTION.

We all make assumptions, even you. Perhaps especially you.

Assumptions about time, memory, intelligibility of reality, stability...every mind makes these assumptions or it cannot draw conclusions. For example.

The fundamental belief of a realist [philosophical or metaphysical] is this;
as implied by Einstein;
"The moon existed before humans and will continue to exist even if there are no humans."

Thus a scientific realist believe;
"scientists are merely inferring and describing a mind-independent reality out there, that regardless of whether there are humans or not."
- this cannot be human-mind-related at all.
-this is an ontological and metaphysical claims of a speculation and an illusion
This is the specific ASSUMPTION specific to scientific realism.
Other assumptions are not the issue.

Science per se is just a model i.e. a Framework and System [F&S] that takes in inputs and produce outputs via a system as qualified to that F&S.
What is critical to Science per se is to process empirical evidences via its specific FSRK and therefrom produce scientific facts; thereafter it is up to users to apply these scientific facts in practice in technology or whatever practical or theoretical.
Science per se as an F&S [reality and knowledge] do not have to give a damn to the ASSUMPTION of "whatever-there-is regardless of whether there are humans or not."
There is no such assumption in ALL [.. I am aware of] scientific papers to date.

At present Quantum Mechanics [as practice, explicitly] do not rely on such an ASSUMPTION, so does Model Dependent Realism re Stephen Hawkins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
and many other real scientists in their actual scientific work.

Since science works without that realists' assumption, it meant scientific realism is not an absolute necessity.

[nemos]

the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exist after humans are extinct...

Howe I see the opposite opinion, the month does not exist if I "don't want it", and if other people claim to see the moon, it has nothing to do with the moon I want or don't want to see.
It will be fair to generalize "the moon" to anything I can look at or not look at, right?
And what about other senses? If looking and not looking is relatively easy, then not hearing something is more difficult and not feeling is almost impossible without anesthesia.
There is also an interesting moral aspect:
if we destroy something (for example the moon) that exists independently of our perception then it has consequences that others will also face. Otherwise, it applies only to us and cannot be viewed from a moral and ethical point of view, because no one else is affected.

[Veritas Aequitas]

the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exist after humans are extinct...

Howe I see the opposite opinion, the month does not exist if I "don't want it", and if other people claim to see the moon, it has nothing to do with the moon I want or don't want to see.
It will be fair to generalize "the moon" to anything I can look at or not look at, right?
And what about other senses? If looking and not looking is relatively easy, then not hearing something is more difficult and not feeling is almost impossible without anesthesia.

As stated, it is only from common and conventional sense that I can accept the moon do exist independent of humans and human minds or the moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

BUT one cannot take the above in the absolute sense as what the realists [Philosophical] are insisting upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note this question.
What is the Chair-in-Itself Really Like?
viewtopic.php?t=41643
What is an absolutely mind-independent Chair-in-Itself Really Like?

At the extreme of philosophical realism is theism where theists claim there is an absolutely mind-independent God that exists regardless whether there are humans or not.

Are you a theist?

The problem with philosophical realism, i.e. illusory, it lends support to theists where theism [OK now] but is potentially and inherently evil that it will hinder the progress of humanity in the future.

There is also an interesting moral aspect:
if we destroy something (for example the moon) that exists independently of our perception then it has consequences that others will also face. Otherwise, it applies only to us and cannot be viewed from a moral and ethical point of view, because no one else is affected.

I believe this is not applicable the issue on hand.

How philosophical realism [moon independent of mind] affect morality is with reference to the rejection of independent moral facts [as they has wrongly defined it].
Philosophical realists rejects objective mind-independent moral fact, thus favor moral subjectivism.
But moral subjectivism or relativism [anything goes and to each their own] will give way to the manifestation of potentially the greatest evil.
Moral Relativists or subjectivists [philosophical realists] has no say to those whose morality condone genocides and other evil acts.

see: viewtopic.php?t=41645

[Iwannaplato]

The fundamental belief of a realist [philosophical or metaphysical] is this;
as implied by Einstein;
"The moon existed before humans and will continue to exist even if there are no humans."

Thus a scientific realist believe;
"scientists are merely inferring and describing a mind-independent reality out there, that regardless of whether there are humans or not."
- this cannot be human-mind-related at all.
-this is an ontological and metaphysical claims of a speculation and an illusion
This is the specific ASSUMPTION specific to scientific realism.
Other assumptions are not the issue.

So, no response about the use and potential meanings of 'facts'.

At present Quantum Mechanics [as practice, explicitly] do not rely on such an ASSUMPTION, so does Model Dependent Realism re Stephen Hawkins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
and many other real scientists in their actual scientific work.

Since science works without that realists' assumption, it meant scientific realism is not an absolute necessity.

Amongst many other parts of your 'response' that have little to do with my post, some parts of which were ignored entirely.

As usual you don't interact with the actual text. You repeat your positions.

If, as you say elsewhere, you just want to express your ideas, well, you've managed that. In the kind of Age, Iambiguous way of repeating positions over and over.

You could, of course, drop the facade of 'responding' or 'countering' other people's posts.

Take Iambiguous' threads as a possible future: pages and pages of him expressing himself and no one but bots bothering to even 'look' at what he says.