Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Strawman!! Actually your point merely reflect your intellectual incompetence in this case.

As I have always emphasize, note the different perspectives between 'reality-in-itself' and the common and conventional sense.
Actually, it is your total incompetence to escape from the hole of contradictions in which you have trapped yourself. Disguising them as mere "different perspectives" does not make them vanish. While you cannot commit to a statement of what is the actual case, you demand very comfortably from others to provide what is their case, so you can play the skepticism charade.
Not sure if you are familiar with the term 'vulgar' used within philosophy.
  • Vulgar:
    of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society:
    ..the vulgar masses.
    current; popular; common:
    ..a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar
Philosophers often chide the masses as thinking in the vulgar sense and advocate that people should think progressively towards more refined philosophical perspectives for the progress of humanity.

Thus it is very valid for me to push you to think of the different and towards higher perspectives of reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Your knowledge re what is science is very outdated. You must read up on the latest view on Science and the Philosophy of Science.
That's the rubber stamp of your dogmatism. Since you cannot provide counterarguments, you simply resort to invoking some books you have read that just happen to contain the ultimate truths. Read Bunge and then tell me about it.
Which Bunge, you have to more specific.
I would like to trash out the point your knowledge on Science and Philosophy of Science is very outdated.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Show me proof that "Science give you realism" i.e. philosophical realism?
I am sure when Newton did science he would have claimed his conclusions gave him creationism and theism.
In any case, scientific realism do not jive with philosophical realism [re this OP].
More dogmatism from your part. You seem to take your "isms" as rigorous drawer box classifications and treat them as the expression of concrete, real, perfectly-defined things (note the paradox), instead of useful abstract approximations to the common features of particular philosophical stances, allowing to cross each other's boundaries, while still showing differences among them. That's why it is not necessary to build fixed walls between philosophical realism and scientific realism, they can get along well. I'm OK with being a realist, a philosophical realist or a scientific realist.
My point is Science per se is independent of any realism and "ism" especially 'Scientism.'
But you keep insisting Science is rigidly stuck with realism and materialism which is not reflective of reality, i.e. the truth. That is your dogmatism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: This really reflect ignorance on your part and it is insulting your own intelligence to hold on to such a view.
What works with Science as I had repeated many times is whether the scientific conclusions are processed via the necessary requirements of the scientific framework, is accepted by the relevant peers and more so is useful to humanity.
A clear sign of intellectual feebleness is to riddle philosophical discussions with streams of Ad Hominem arguments.
Sure, it is the methodology of science that gives us trustworthy certainties, but its materialistic and realistic assumptions are part of its methodological and epistemological foundations. Science is inherently natural science, it only makes whole sense in a natural world of predictable regularities of substantial entities.
My comments on your status are based on what you are posting.
Thus it is more of a sincere criticism rather than crude ad hominens re a person's character.

See! you are banking on 'ism' and dogmatism re materialism and realism and that is not the truth with real Science.
As I had insisted where external independent world is mentioned or 'realism' is implied by certain scientists and scientific perspectives, that is ONLY and ASSUMPTION and not any truth. It is the same with Science assuming "consistency" throughout the universe.

I suggest you read more on "What is Science".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again you are ignorant to hold this view.
What is most realistic is the micro state of reality not the macro.
This is why Physicists are so focused on searching for what is the ultimate particle that grounds all of macro reality.
Again, Ad Hominem arguments only impoverish philosophical debate.

Note how suddenly you turn into an avid seeker of "reality", that's because you think quantum physics hold the ultimate truth of your idealism. It's my time then, to point out that you're just chasing illusions.

It's completely ludicrous to believe that science is close to abandoning the physical laws that govern the macroscopic universe. They still describe it with astounding accuracy, just as much as quantum mechanics describes the physical laws that govern the microscopic world. You might not found out yet, but what scientists are actually doing is looking for the overarching theory that unifies both, the so-called Theory of Everything. Whether that's possible or not is yet to be seen, but this point is undisputable: what we're talking about is still Physics, it is still materialistic, it is still realistic.
If I believe say you are bad swimmer [at 10/100] based on seeing how you swim, it is not ad hominen, but a honest critique. It is the same if you are ignorant of certain knowledge in this case.

Note long before QM, there was already the Observers' Effect which is leading toward the "idealistic" fervor. How can you deny this?

Where did I ever imply Science is about to abandon the physical laws of the macro-world?
I mentioned Newtonian Laws are still applicable in its contexts where it is productive.
But I insisted the mirco-scientific truths are more realistic than the macro-ones.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again you are very ignorant on this.
When QM was first introduced, Einstein, the realist, was very strong against the idealistic views of Bohr and others. But eventually Bohr and gang won out against Einstein the realist.
Bohr was a physicist and to claim him for the idealist gang is disputable, and famously did dispute it Henry Folse. While some of his philosophical views might have resounded to idealists, he ultimately believed an atom was a real entity and he still held the notion of causality. He was not deranged as Heisenberg, but in any case, whatever case one can make out of different interpretations of quantum mechanics, this is not a settled matter that turns the tide in favor of idealism, they are still interpretations in dispute:
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality
But the point is the "idealistic" views is now acceptable and productive where in the past there was no room for it at all within Physics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: If scientific truths ["roses"] are merely "polished conjectures" they cannot be anything better than whatever names you assign to them.
Scientific truths are never claimed to be "undisputed objective facts and testable certainties" at most they are all conditional to the scientific framework [FSK] which is ultimately conditioned to human conditions plus open to change and rejection, thus not facts-in-themselves.
Such relativism of science is often peddled by idealists, but no one disputes that water molecules are composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, or what is the mass of an electron. It is not that we should hold this as a "polished conjecture" that might change tomorrow conditioned to changes in the scientific framework.
The general maxim with Science is, no scientific theory is 100% certain which is applicable to all scientific theories which has a wide range of different rating of reliability.
'That water is H2O' may be more reliable [no guarantee it can change] but what about the 'hundreds of thousands' of scientific truths in their respective scientific paper?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again you are so wrong in this case.
If Kant stated "1 plus 1 = 3" in German in his book, whoever translate it will have to translate that literally.
You simply have no idea of how these types of translations work. It is not like the translation of inventory records.
The general point is the ability to translate a language do not 'translate' into the translator's [e.g. Guyer] ability to interpret the philosophical theories of the translated philosopher correctly. [e.g. Kant].

I am now reading Guyer's Kant Claim of Knowledge
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ka ... 8AA71A182F
I have read the Introduction and some parts [still reading]
accompanied with Allison's critique of Guyer's book.
see https://philpapers.org/rec/ALLKAT

I have already noted loads of critical misinterpretations by Guyer who is imposing his 'realism' [square pegs] into Kant's [round holes] anti-realist position.
Guyer wrote:Tacit in this description of his experiment is the assumption that even if the experience of objects cannot directly yield universal and necessary but informative truths about them,
the character of our own cognitive constitution - comprising both the "constitution of our faculty of intuition,"
by means of which we are given our data about objects, and the rules of the faculty of Understanding, "which are in me even before I am given objects" but in accord with which I must form all my judgments about objects (B xvii) –
can somehow be made to yield nontrivial universal and necessary truths that must apply to the objects on which we exercise these capacities.


Guyer is using the same word "made" as used by Ferder in the Ferder-Garve critique of Kant's CPR.

It is very rhetoric to insist Kant intended to mean "our own cognitive constitution" .. "made" and "yield nontrivial universal and necessary truths... "

I suggest you read Guyer's Kant Claim of Knowledge so we can discuss how Guyer is so blinded and dogmatic in misinterpreting and not understanding Kant fully despite being a reknown translator of Kant's books.

will address the other points later.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12315
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:32 am The OP is addressed to those who insist there is an independent reality-in-itself that exists as real.
So you think there is no way to believe there is even an independent "reality-in-itself" in which these alleged "people" can "exist as real," according to the OP.
These are the philosophical realists who insist, e.g. the moon pre-existed before humans
Of course it did. Where do you think it was?
If you believe as above, then prove such an independent reality-in-itself exists based on the scientific realm preferably or whatever realm you can convince others your claims is true.
In order to ask me to do that, you have to believe that there can be "proof" from "the scientific realm," which, if you have any idea what "science" really is, means an realm not dependent on what humans believe, one from which they derive their beliefs.

In other words, you gave up the game when you asked the question and thereby supposed that realm. You were already defeated by yourself.
In the OP, it is necessarily implicit. If there is no "independent reality-in-itself," them there is no place in which actual other people, such as me, can exist. So you can't possibly be speaking to anyone, because there's nowhere for them to be.
You still don't get the point.
Well, somebody doesn't. :wink:
Of course, I do not believe there is an independent reality-in-itself.
But there are others 'philosophical realists' and theological realists who believe and insist such a independent reality-in-itself exists as real.
Thus the onus is on them to prove their claims.
Why? When it is perfectly apparent to all of us that such a realm exists, and when it takes a vigorous twist of denial of perception to assert otherwise, how does the onus fall on them? It seems perfectly obvious that the reality denier is the one who has something to show. For everyone else, common sense makes an obvious prima facie case against him.
If that's true, then again you've denied your own OP, assumptively.
Nope.
Yep.
...those who are theists and believe an independent reality-in-itself exists as real also believe the soul-in-itself exists as real and the believers' souls will go to heaven.
So there's no such thing as an Atheist who believes in an independent reality-in-itself, you think?

Really? Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris...you think they believe in the soul, do you?

You should ask them.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:30 am Metaphysics like its element 'ontology' is a very loose term.

[...] In this case of 'metaphysics' I am referring to the traditional metaphysics of speculations beyond experiences [transcendent metaphysics] and not regarding morals nor the ideals of experiences.

[...] It is in the sense of 'transcendent metaphysics' that I am concerned with, not re morality and religion which is a separate issue.

[...] It one were to read the Critique of Pure Reason, the central theme is Kant rejected the traditional ontology and transcendent metaphysics.
The point in discussion was whether in Kant's project a new metaphysics, one that could compete with or even encompass the possibilities of natural science, was possible. In other words, if the traditional "dogmatic" metaphysics could be rejected and replaced with a new "critical metaphysics" that could be regarded as a proper science.

For Kant the answer was, evidently, yes.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
Philosophers often chide the masses as thinking in the vulgar sense and advocate that people should think progressively towards more refined philosophical perspectives for the progress of humanity.

Thus it is very valid for me to push you to think of the different and towards higher perspectives of reality.
By "philosophers" we must understand academics and scholars in the field of philosophy. For them, as for most specialists in a given field, obviously, the layperson's approach to the discipline's issues is kind of pedestrian and dull. I don't blame them, notwithstanding the obvious limitations of formal accreditation, which often produces crops of mediocre and outright stupid intellectuals peddling nonsense. OTOH, there are the dilettantes, and among them, a few dogmatics who wished they received all the attention and prestige of the professional philosopher, being motivated to pose as the elite members of a cult which separates those who are in, from those who are out. Whoever challenges their dogmatic beliefs and their pretended authority, is cast out as the unqualified, "vulgar", non-initiated dissenter. But such ridiculous claims from the self-made philosopher are laughable.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
Which Bunge, you have to more specific.
I would like to trash out the point your knowledge on Science and Philosophy of Science is very outdated.
Those two sentences face each other in a mirror. Which Bunge? You mean Bunge + Philosophy of Science are not specific to an up-to-date connoisseur of philosophical issues?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
My point is Science per se is independent of any realism and "ism" especially 'Scientism.'
But you keep insisting Science is rigidly stuck with realism and materialism which is not reflective of reality, i.e. the truth. That is your dogmatism.
My point is that your point is wrong. Science cannot work outside of realism, it must see nature as real, otherwise its findings would be lawless conjunctions, of which no regularities could be predicted, and most importantly, no practical results could be pursued, nothing could be causally affected by our human action, not even by the act of observation, nor it would be affected by its relation with other things. Human invented plastics, graphene and borophene, things not found in nature, thanks to the knowledge obtained not by pure reflection, but by the controlled behavior caused by scientists in matter. And so we discovered fundamental particles and were able to accurately measure their charge, mass, etc. Some call it applied science, some call it the mathematization of nature. "Empirical" in a scientific sense then cannot mean the passive experience of cognizing objects as they appear to our senses (the empirical philosophical sense), but the active, practical relation humans have with nature, in which reality is modified and assimilated at the same time by means of inferring the existence of things and their relations that are not immediately perceived by the senses. No philosopher could have discovered the electron. This is a possibility inaugurated, or perhaps precipitated, by modern science and the cause of the crisis in philosophy and religion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
As I had insisted where external independent world is mentioned or 'realism' is implied by certain scientists and scientific perspectives, that is ONLY and ASSUMPTION and not any truth. It is the same with Science assuming "consistency" throughout the universe.
If all we had were issues of pure reflection, the realistic epistemological and methodological assumptions would yield for science no more than the "polished conjectures" of the pre-scientific era. But now, science is able to put those assumptions to the test and produce true knowledge about the world in itself behaving as a mind-independent reality. That is a condition for its trustworthiness and soundness. A science that could not be objective would not be science, so any claims by anti-realists that they support the project of empirical science is bonkers. By definition they can't.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
I suggest you read more on "What is Science".
Never get tired of it. You should start reading it yourself and next get on with "The Furniture of the World".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:32 am The OP is addressed to those who insist there is an independent reality-in-itself that exists as real.
So you think there is no way to believe there is even an independent "reality-in-itself" in which these alleged "people" can "exist as real," according to the OP.
Yes, I believe there is no independent 'reality-in-itself' as above.

The first clue [if you ever think of it] is, reality is all-there-is in which all humans are an intricate part and parcel thereof.
So, how can humans be independent from that which is part and parcel of?
On the other hand, common and conventional sense present to us there is a reality that is independent from humans [self and conditions].
So there is a dilemma to be resolved and there is why philosophy-proper is needed.
These are the philosophical realists who insist, e.g. the moon pre-existed before humans
Of course it did. Where do you think it was?
The of course is only within common and conventional sense, but not if we give reality a serious thought as I mentioned above, there is a dilemma.
If you believe as above, then prove such an independent reality-in-itself exists based on the scientific realm preferably or whatever realm you can convince others your claims is true.
In order to ask me to do that, you have to believe that there can be "proof" from "the scientific realm," which, if you have any idea what "science" really is, means an realm not dependent on what humans believe, one from which they derive their beliefs.
In other words, you gave up the game when you asked the question and thereby supposed that realm. You were already defeated by yourself.
You are ignorant of what Science ultimately is.
All scientific knowledge is grounded on the Scientific Institution and FSK [its framework, system, knowledge and method] which are all constructed by humans, thus grounded ultimately on the human conditions.

Within the scientific FSK, science merely ASSUME there is an independent external objective reality just like it made other assumptions.
Of course, I do not believe there is an independent reality-in-itself.
But there are others 'philosophical realists' and theological realists who believe and insist such a independent reality-in-itself exists as real.
Thus the onus is on them to prove their claims.
Why? When it is perfectly apparent to all of us that such a realm exists, and when it takes a vigorous twist of denial of perception to assert otherwise, how does the onus fall on them? It seems perfectly obvious that the reality denier is the one who has something to show. For everyone else, common sense makes an obvious prima facie case against him.
Note the ad populum fallacy.
Generally, the positive claimant has the onus to provide proof not on a prima facie basis but with sound basis of verifications and justifications empirically and philosophically.
...those who are theists and believe an independent reality-in-itself exists as real also believe the soul-in-itself exists as real and the believers' souls will go to heaven.
So there's no such thing as an Atheist who believes in an independent reality-in-itself, you think?
Really? Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris...you think they believe in the soul, do you?

You should ask them.
I did not state there are no atheists who believe in an independent reality-in-itself.

Since you came into the scene, I believe it is more easier for you to understand the issue via the idea of the soul-in-itself as part of the reality-in-itself.

So where is your proof based on empirical and philosophical justifications?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:30 am Metaphysics like its element 'ontology' is a very loose term.

[...] In this case of 'metaphysics' I am referring to the traditional metaphysics of speculations beyond experiences [transcendent metaphysics] and not regarding morals nor the ideals of experiences.

[...] It is in the sense of 'transcendent metaphysics' that I am concerned with, not re morality and religion which is a separate issue.

[...] It one were to read the Critique of Pure Reason, the central theme is Kant rejected the traditional ontology and transcendent metaphysics.
The point in discussion was whether in Kant's project a new metaphysics, one that could compete with or even encompass the possibilities of natural science, was possible. In other words, if the traditional "dogmatic" metaphysics could be rejected and replaced with a new "critical metaphysics" that could be regarded as a proper science.

For Kant the answer was, evidently, yes.
There is no direct link of a rejection and replacement the question of 'metaphysics' on the subject in focus, i.e. re traditional metaphysics as most take it to be.
Kant rejected traditional metaphysics [after mocking it] which has been the central focus of philosophy in general since 2500 years ago and long before that in Eastern Philosophy.

What Kant did was to reject traditional metaphysics outright and shifted the attention of "metaphysics" to morality which is totally different from traditional metaphysics.

Kant demonstrated the object-in-itself that traditional metaphysics is chasing after is an illusion, but such a natural illusion is nevertheless useful for morality that can guide and generate real utility within morality.
This is like, if one cannot have real sex with the real physical Miss Universe in person, a fantasy of Miss Universe in mind [an illusion] is still useful for real sex.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
Philosophers often chide the masses as thinking in the vulgar sense and advocate that people should think progressively towards more refined philosophical perspectives for the progress of humanity.

Thus it is very valid for me to push you to think of the different and towards higher perspectives of reality.
By "philosophers" we must understand academics and scholars in the field of philosophy. For them, as for most specialists in a given field, obviously, the layperson's approach to the discipline's issues is kind of pedestrian and dull. I don't blame them, notwithstanding the obvious limitations of formal accreditation, which often produces crops of mediocre and outright stupid intellectuals peddling nonsense. OTOH, there are the dilettantes, and among them, a few dogmatics who wished they received all the attention and prestige of the professional philosopher, being motivated to pose as the elite members of a cult which separates those who are in, from those who are out. Whoever challenges their dogmatic beliefs and their pretended authority, is cast out as the unqualified, "vulgar", non-initiated dissenter. But such ridiculous claims from the self-made philosopher are laughable.
I did not refer to professional nor academic philosophers who childed others as vulgar.
Surely it is a very natural % of autodidactic philosophers in this world since the past to the present and they are qualified to chide those who are "vulgar". This chiding is very common among philosophers who are disappointed with the philosophical competence of the masses.

Re philosophy proper what count [regardless of whatever said] is whether the arguments presented are valid and sound empirically and philosophically. That is the what I did with my arguments herein.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
Which Bunge, you have to more specific.
I would like to trash out the point your knowledge on Science and Philosophy of Science is very outdated.
Those two sentences face each other in a mirror. Which Bunge? You mean Bunge + Philosophy of Science are not specific to an up-to-date connoisseur of philosophical issues?
You refer me read up "Bunge' re philosophy of science, so who is that. See your earlier post.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
My point is Science per se is independent of any realism and "ism" especially 'Scientism.'
But you keep insisting Science is rigidly stuck with realism and materialism which is not reflective of reality, i.e. the truth. That is your dogmatism.
My point is that your point is wrong.
Science cannot work outside of realism, it must see nature as real, otherwise its findings would be lawless conjunctions, of which no regularities could be predicted, and most importantly, no practical results could be pursued, nothing could be causally affected by our human action, not even by the act of observation, nor it would be affected by its relation with other things.
Human invented plastics, graphene and borophene, things not found in nature, thanks to the knowledge obtained not by pure reflection, but by the controlled behavior caused by scientists in matter. And so we discovered fundamental particles and were able to accurately measure their charge, mass, etc. Some call it applied science, some call it the mathematization of nature. "Empirical" in a scientific sense then cannot mean the passive experience of cognizing objects as they appear to our senses (the empirical philosophical sense), but the active, practical relation humans have with nature, in which reality is modified and assimilated at the same time by means of inferring the existence of things and their relations that are not immediately perceived by the senses. No philosopher could have discovered the electron. This is a possibility inaugurated, or perhaps precipitated, by modern science and the cause of the crisis in philosophy and religion.
The more you try to argue your way out, they expose more of your ignorance of what is Science.

As I had stated realism is a philosophical term and you cannot conflate what is philosophical with what is Science per se.
What is Science is all scientific conclusions must meet the conditions requirements of the Scientific Framework and System, that is all and anyone can do that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
As I had insisted where external independent world is mentioned or 'realism' is implied by certain scientists and scientific perspectives, that is ONLY and ASSUMPTION and not any truth. It is the same with Science assuming "consistency" throughout the universe.
If all we had were issues of pure reflection, the realistic epistemological and methodological assumptions would yield for science no more than the "polished conjectures" of the pre-scientific era. But now, science is able to put those assumptions to the test and produce true knowledge about the world in itself behaving as a mind-independent reality. That is a condition for its trustworthiness and soundness. A science that could not be objective would not be science, so any claims by anti-realists that they support the project of empirical science is bonkers. By definition they can't.
As stated above,
What is Science is all scientific conclusions must meet the conditions requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [FSK], that is all and anyone can do that.
Some scientists accept the ASSUMPTION of an independent external reality but it it not imperative within the scientific FSK.

When Newton came up with his scientific theories, he did not assumed "realism" [philosophical] but merely theism and creationism, i.e. he was demonstrated the details of God's creation and fine-tuning.
As you can see other scientists don't give a damn with Newton's theistic assumptions but merely accepted his theories because they fulfil the critical requirements of the scientific framework, systems, knowledge and methods.

What is objectivity in Science is merely compliance with the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System, that is all.
Once a scientific conclusion is accepted within the scientific framework, it is then independent of the individual scientist[s], thus it is objective in that sense.
In this case, "objective" is equivalent to intersubjectivity, i.e. the intersubjective consensus of the relevant peer scientists.

There is no imperative for the imputation of realism [philosophical] into the scientific framework and system [which is constructed by humans].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:30 am
I suggest you read more on "What is Science".
Never get tired of it. You should start reading it yourself and next get on with "The Furniture of the World".
Just read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
and note therein there is no dogmatic stance that Science must be grounded on Realism.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12315
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:17 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:32 am The OP is addressed to those who insist there is an independent reality-in-itself that exists as real.
So you think there is no way to believe there is even an independent "reality-in-itself" in which these alleged "people" can "exist as real," according to the OP.
Yes, I believe there is no independent 'reality-in-itself' as above.
Then a request for "proof" coming from you makes no sense: not because proof is not possible, but because you cannot acknowledge any such proof as proof. After all, it only would occur in a "reality" you insist does not even exist! :shock:

Anything anyone might present to you by way of proof thus becomes, a sort of proof-in-the-land-of-Disney, or proof-in-Narnia, not a proof in the real world.

So it's because you've declared proof impossible that proof is impossible to you. It's not because proof is actually impossible.

But if you insist that if somebody doesn't provide proof then you must be right about there being no "reality-in-itself," then you're guilty of a non-sequitur. What it proves is only that you will not accept any grounds for proof; not that no proof exists.
So, how can humans be independent from that which is part and parcel of?
Humans are IN a reality. But what can you mean when you say they're "part and parcel" of it?

If you mean they are entirely controlled but the reality they're in, that's an assumption, at best, and flatly wrong, at worst.

But that can't really be it: because then, "reality-in-itself" would have to exist, and what wouldn't exist would be human independence from reality-in-itself. It wouldn't argue for the non-existence of reality; in fact, it would require that reality-in-itself was the comprehensive realm, the controller of humanity.

So I have no idea what your claim can mean, since it denies your OP.
On the other hand, common and conventional sense present to us there is a reality that is independent from humans [self and conditions].
This was my earlier point. It means that the burden is on anyone who says there is NO reality-in-itself, since everybody, at first glance and by common sense, thinks there is. Disproof is required.

What's your disproof?
If you believe as above, then prove such an independent reality-in-itself exists based on the scientific realm preferably or whatever realm you can convince others your claims is true.
In order to ask me to do that, you have to believe that there can be "proof" from "the scientific realm," which, if you have any idea what "science" really is, means an realm not dependent on what humans believe, one from which they derive their beliefs.
In other words, you gave up the game when you asked the question and thereby supposed that realm. You were already defeated by yourself.
You are ignorant of what Science ultimately is.
Somebody might be; but it's clearly not me.
All scientific knowledge is grounded on the Scientific Institution
Not right, actually.

Francis Bacon invented the scientific method in the 17th Century, and what "institutions" exist around it came into being afterward. Before that, we can speak of people having things like "ideas," "traditions," "practices," "inventions" and even "technologies"; but we can't accurately speak of them having "science," since they had no common method to produce it, no stable method for judging it, and no unifying technique by which to produce it. Bacon's method brought about the discipline of science.

Other cultures had technologies and inventions, magic and techniques, traditions, lore and superstitions; but they didn't have real "science," because they, like we had done, also lacked the methodical, systematic episteme that Bacon first articulated for us.
Within the scientific FSK, science merely ASSUME there is an independent external objective reality just like it made other assumptions.
Yes. But is it a true assumption or a false assumption? That's more important than saying it's merely "an assumption." And as I pointed out earlier, the scientific assumption that there is a reality-in-itself is one that is instinctively shared by all human beings.

So it's on you to show that we're all deluded. Go ahead.
Of course, I do not believe there is an independent reality-in-itself.
But there are others 'philosophical realists' and theological realists who believe and insist such a independent reality-in-itself exists as real.
Thus the onus is on them to prove their claims.
Why? When it is perfectly apparent to all of us that such a realm exists, and when it takes a vigorous twist of denial of perception to assert otherwise, how does the onus fall on them? It seems perfectly obvious that the reality denier is the one who has something to show. For everyone else, common sense makes an obvious prima facie case against him.
Note the ad populum fallacy.
It's not an ad populum argument. It's your own argument, the "burden of proof" argument. I'm just saying you placed the burden-of-proof in the wrong place.

After all, in this case, YOU are the "positive" claimant, :shock: because you positively claim to know there is no "reality-in-itself," whereas everybody else thinks there is. So nobody else has anything to prove: in their view, what they see and what they get appear identical. They have no problem. But you are saying that what they see is NOT what they get, and it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask you, "How did you decide that?"
Since you came into the scene, I believe it is more easier for you to understand the issue via the idea of the soul-in-itself as part of the reality-in-itself.
Then change the OP, and we can talk. But so long as it's reality-in-itself you're arguing doesn't exist, then there's no place souls or anything else could be proved to exist.

And if you won't allow even enough "reality" to prove a rock or a tree exists, then in what realm would you expect to find souls? :?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am There is no direct link of a rejection and replacement the question of 'metaphysics' on the subject in focus, i.e. re traditional metaphysics as most take it to be.
If a new critical metaphysics is said to be possible and at the same time a rejection of traditional metaphysics, then it is the same as saying the first one replaces the latter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Kant rejected traditional metaphysics [after mocking it] which has been the central focus of philosophy in general since 2500 years ago and long before that in Eastern Philosophy. What Kant did was to reject traditional metaphysics outright and shifted the attention of "metaphysics" to morality which is totally different from traditional metaphysics.
While some of that may be true, this does not preclude raising metaphysics, from the point where Kant found it in the 18th century, to the level of a science, which is what he wanted to do.
Let's not forget that the subtitle of Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics was "That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science" or "That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science". In the introduction to Hatfield's edition of the Prolegomena he remarks:
Gary Hatfield wrote:Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles, but he denied that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves [...]

[...] He restricted metaphysical knowledge to propositions that can be justified by appeal to the conditions of possible experience, but he allowed metaphysical thinking to cover a broader range. In his view, a proper science of metaphysics must set out the legitimate propositions of metaphysics, while also determining the boundaries of their application. The latter task included assuring that the objects of experience are not taken to exhaust the entire domain of being, leaving room for human freedom and allowing for the existence of God – without proving either.


And referring to the first reviews of the CPR:
Gary Hatfield wrote:
The second review, by S. H. Ewald, appeared anonymously in August 1782, when Kant was nearly finished writing. This review presented Kant’s project to assess the possibility of metaphysics through a new “science” of transcendental philosophy. Beyond its laudatory introduction, the review is largely put together by copying Kant’s own phrasing. He was pleased with this one, and offered it as a model for how the critical philosophy should be judged: carefully, suspending judgment at first, and working through it bit by bit
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Kant demonstrated the object-in-itself that traditional metaphysics is chasing after is an illusion,
Well...he may have tried, but did not suceed at it. He did get a good fan base, though.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am This is like, if one cannot have real sex with the real physical Miss Universe in person, a fantasy of Miss Universe in mind [an illusion] is still useful for real sex.
Actually what is implied is that an actual physical Miss Universe (a person-in-itself) cannot exist, neither the possibility of an actual physical contact with her, only the illusory experience that purports to be the physical contact with the physical Miss Universe. And that illusion gives the necessary grounds to morality. Just perfect, a good summary of what philosophical idealism entails.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 amI did not refer to professional nor academic philosophers who childed others as vulgar.
You referred to "philosophers". Those are the philosophers, unless you want to open the doors to the "vulgar" masses.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am
Surely it is a very natural % of autodidactic philosophers in this world since the past to the present and they are qualified to chide those who are "vulgar".
If one made a comparison with art, the dilettante, the pretentious, self-proclaimed autodidactic philosopher, is the equivalent of intellectual kitsch, in the sense that it only pretends to hide his vulgarity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am This chiding is very common among philosophers who are disappointed with the philosophical competence of the masses.
Philosophers, the real ones, often don't waste their time in assessing the philosophical competences of the masses, because obviously, they are well-immersed in their specialized fields, where such competences are entirely irrelevant. It is only the phony, wannabe philosophers who indulge in such practices, because they fear any association with the masses, the influence of which they cannot escape as non-specialists, like they fear death.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Re philosophy proper what count [regardless of whatever said] is whether the arguments presented are valid and sound empirically and philosophically. That is the what I did with my arguments herein.
Nope. What you did was responding an argument with an Ad Hominem fallacy, which by definition avoids the argument and goes after the person making the argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am The more you try to argue your way out, they expose more of your ignorance of what is Science.

As I had stated realism is a philosophical term and you cannot conflate what is philosophical with what is Science per se.
What is Science is all scientific conclusions must meet the conditions requirements of the Scientific Framework and System, that is all and anyone can do that.
You keep repeating your dogma as a mantra, but cannot advance any argument to support it. You simply state what you think is the case (which is not), but will not provide arguments for what should be the case, why it can work that way and not any other.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am When Newton came up with his scientific theories, he did not assumed "realism" [philosophical] but merely theism and creationism, i.e. he was demonstrated the details of God's creation and fine-tuning.
As you can see other scientists don't give a damn with Newton's theistic assumptions but merely accepted his theories because they fulfil the critical requirements of the scientific framework, systems, knowledge and methods.
What is important in Newton is that the laws he discovered were represented by mathematical equations where the influence of theological or teleological forces are completely absent. That's what made possible that his religious beliefs be dismissed by other scientists, in other words, his scientific theories were accepted on their own grounds despite his religious beliefs, not because of them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Just read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
and note therein there is no dogmatic stance that Science must be grounded on Realism.
From the recently deceased Humberto Maturana:
Science and Daily Life: The Ontology of Scientific Explanations
In modern times, however, this has progressively changed, and the word science is now most frequently used to refer only to a knowledge validated through a particular method, namely, the scientific method. This progressive emphasis on the scientific method has arisen under two general implicit or explicit assumptions of scientists and philosophers of science alike, namely: a) that the scientific method, either through verification, through corroboration, or through the denial of falsification, reveals, or at least connotes, an objective reality that exists independently of what the observers do or desire, even if it cannot be fully known; and b) that the validity of scientific explanations and statements rests on their connection with such objective reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am There is no direct link of a rejection and replacement the question of 'metaphysics' on the subject in focus, i.e. re traditional metaphysics as most take it to be.
If a new critical metaphysics is said to be possible and at the same time a rejection of traditional metaphysics, then it is the same as saying the first one replaces the latter.
You are very lost in this point.

The traditional metaphysics relates to Substance Theory;
  • Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Note the 'physics' in 'meta-physics' which thus was related to Natural Science.
The claim of traditional metaphysics is there is the real thing-in-itself [substance theory] that underlies whatever is Physics. This is what you are doing i.e. by imputing realism into science.

Note your quote below;
Gary Hatfield wrote:
Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles, but he denied that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves [...]
The above denial refer to "substances as they are in themselves" relates to Natural Science and Physics.

Thus when Kant shifted the application of 'metaphysics' as 'science' to morality, it has nothing to do with what is metaphysics' original intentions.
Kant's sense of 'science' in this case is very loose and rightly it should be pseudo-science or meta-ethics rather than "meta-physics".

To make provision for meta-physics in meta-morality, Kant stated the following in the Preface,
"I have therefore found it necessary to deny (aufheben) Knowledge [Wissen] in order to make room for Faith. [Glaube.]" CPR Bxxx.

My point is Kant demonstrated metaphysics failed as science-proper, i.e. grounding for Natural Sciences, i.e. Physics.

I am aware, Kant resurrected 'meta-physics' for morality based on faith but that is a different story from my original point.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Kant rejected traditional metaphysics [after mocking it] which has been the central focus of philosophy in general since 2500 years ago and long before that in Eastern Philosophy. What Kant did was to reject traditional metaphysics outright and shifted the attention of "metaphysics" to morality which is totally different from traditional metaphysics.
While some of that may be true, this does not preclude raising metaphysics, from the point where Kant found it in the 18th century, to the level of a science, which is what he wanted to do.
Let's not forget that the subtitle of Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics was "That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science" or "That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science". In the introduction to Hatfield's edition of the Prolegomena he remarks:
Gary Hatfield wrote:Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles, but he denied that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves [...]

[...] He restricted metaphysical knowledge to propositions that can be justified by appeal to the conditions of possible experience, but he allowed metaphysical thinking to cover a broader range. In his view, a proper science of metaphysics must set out the legitimate propositions of metaphysics, while also determining the boundaries of their application. The latter task included assuring that the objects of experience are not taken to exhaust the entire domain of being, leaving room for human freedom and allowing for the existence of God – without proving either.


And referring to the first reviews of the CPR:
Gary Hatfield wrote:
The second review, by S. H. Ewald, appeared anonymously in August 1782, when Kant was nearly finished writing. This review presented Kant’s project to assess the possibility of metaphysics through a new “science” of transcendental philosophy. Beyond its laudatory introduction, the review is largely put together by copying Kant’s own phrasing. He was pleased with this one, and offered it as a model for how the critical philosophy should be judged: carefully, suspending judgment at first, and working through it bit by bit
As I had stated Kant used the term 'Science' as a very loose term in this case.
My point was related to the claim of meta-physics as a grounding for Natural Science re Physics.
Note my explanation above on how Kant demonstrated metaphysics in this case failed as the grounding for natural science and Physics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am This is like, if one cannot have real sex with the real physical Miss Universe in person, a fantasy of Miss Universe in mind [an illusion] is still useful for real sex.
Actually what is implied is that an actual physical Miss Universe (a person-in-itself) cannot exist, neither the possibility of an actual physical contact with her, only the illusory experience that purports to be the physical contact with the physical Miss Universe. And that illusion gives the necessary grounds to morality. Just perfect, a good summary of what philosophical idealism entails.

The actual Miss Universe (a person-in-itself) is like the claim of her having a soul that survives physical death, which is an illusion.

Such an illusion in a certain perspective nevertheless can provide the necessary grounds to morality, e.g. as the illusory and impossible absolute-perfect-man [Jesus-in-itself], i.e. Jesus as an exemplar of Christian morality. [note this morality has worked to great extent but has its cons]

Kant's approach is similar but more refined, i.e. Kant instead relied on morality-in-itself [faith-based] as a grounding for morality.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3703
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am The actual Miss Universe (a person-in-itself) is like the claim of her having a soul that survives physical death, which is an illusion.

Such an illusion in a certain perspective nevertheless can provide the necessary grounds to morality, e.g. as the illusory and impossible absolute-perfect-man [Jesus-in-itself], i.e. Jesus as an exemplar of Christian morality. [note this morality has worked to great extent but has its cons]
:shock:
I like to see how some of theses threads have (ahem!) "progressed" at times and so I just take a look at the absurd positions of irrlevance and silliness they have reached after several pages.
Given the quesion at the top of the thread one can only imagine the idiotic pathways trodden to get to Miss Universe - who relly ought to be a "person-in-herself", not itself.

WHy go on - as if 490 REPLIES were not proof enought of an independanc reality of some kind..
:lol:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 amI did not refer to professional nor academic philosophers who childed others as vulgar.
You referred to "philosophers". Those are the philosophers, unless you want to open the doors to the "vulgar" masses.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am
Surely it is a very natural % of autodidactic philosophers in this world since the past to the present and they are qualified to chide those who are "vulgar".
If one made a comparison with art, the dilettante, the pretentious, self-proclaimed autodidactic philosopher, is the equivalent of intellectual kitsch, in the sense that it only pretends to hide his vulgarity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am This chiding is very common among philosophers who are disappointed with the philosophical competence of the masses.
Philosophers, the real ones, often don't waste their time in assessing the philosophical competences of the masses, because obviously, they are well-immersed in their specialized fields, where such competences are entirely irrelevant. It is only the phony, wannabe philosophers who indulge in such practices, because they fear any association with the masses, the influence of which they cannot escape as non-specialists, like they fear death.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Re philosophy proper what count [regardless of whatever said] is whether the arguments presented are valid and sound empirically and philosophically. That is the what I did with my arguments herein.
Nope. What you did was responding an argument with an Ad Hominem fallacy, which by definition avoids the argument and goes after the person making the argument.
I agree ad hominem refer to remarks on the person but I believe this is more applicable to formal arguments and debates, not necessary in a dialogue like we are having in this forum.

In this case I am not responding to an argument with the various remarks on your state; this are actual side remarks and has nothing to do with the argument per se. Most of the remarks I made [.. I believe are relevant and related] is to prompt you to bring in more evidence to support your argument. And in all cases I relate them to the points you made and I also provide reasons for it.

How I used the term 'vulgar' in this case is because I have read very widely and noted many notable philosophers used the term effectively where they compare the masses. I believe it is appropriate for me state that you are ignorant in this case [especially with your counter remarks above], for if you have read widely you would have come across the use this term 'vulgar' and notable philosophers chiding the masses.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am The more you try to argue your way out, they expose more of your ignorance of what is Science.
As I had stated realism is a philosophical term and you cannot conflate what is philosophical with what is Science per se.
What is Science is all scientific conclusions must meet the conditions requirements of the Scientific Framework and System, that is all and anyone can do that.
You keep repeating your dogma as a mantra, but cannot advance any argument to support it. You simply state what you think is the case (which is not), but will not provide arguments for what should be the case, why it can work that way and not any other.
Btw, the onus is on you to provide the arguments re the OP, not me.

Other than insisting the 'moon' pre-dated humans [failed argument] you have not provided any solid arguments to justify your claims that there is a real underlying objective reality to what-appears.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am When Newton came up with his scientific theories, he did not assumed "realism" [philosophical] but merely theism and creationism, i.e. he was demonstrated the details of God's creation and fine-tuning.
As you can see other scientists don't give a damn with Newton's theistic assumptions but merely accepted his theories because they fulfil the critical requirements of the scientific framework, systems, knowledge and methods.
What is important in Newton is that the laws he discovered were represented by mathematical equations where the influence of theological or teleological forces are completely absent. That's what made possible that his religious beliefs be dismissed by other scientists, in other words, his scientific theories were accepted on their own grounds despite his religious beliefs, not because of them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:08 am Just read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
and note therein there is no dogmatic stance that Science must be grounded on Realism.
From the recently deceased Humberto Maturana:
Science and Daily Life: The Ontology of Scientific Explanations
In modern times, however, this has progressively changed, and the word science is now most frequently used to refer only to a knowledge validated through a particular method, namely, the scientific method. This progressive emphasis on the scientific method has arisen under two general implicit or explicit assumptions of scientists and philosophers of science alike, namely: a) that the scientific method, either through verification, through corroboration, or through the denial of falsification, reveals, or at least connotes, an objective reality that exists independently of what the observers do or desire, even if it cannot be fully known; and b) that the validity of scientific explanations and statements rests on their connection with such objective reality.
You are referring to one scientists only??
Note the term 'assumption' above which is typical of many scientists but not all.
To rely on 'assumptions' to ground your argument is merely a bottomless empty vessel.

I suggest again that you read up and get up to date with the latest issues on Science.

Note this:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
He is not the only Physicist who admit to the above point; there are many other Physicists and neuroscientists, cognitive-neuroscientists who expressed the same point.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am The traditional metaphysics relates to Substance Theory;

Note the 'physics' in 'meta-physics' which thus was related to Natural Science.
The claim of traditional metaphysics is there is the real thing-in-itself [substance theory] that underlies whatever is Physics. This is what you are doing i.e. by imputing realism into science.
That's completely pointless to the discussion, which is about whether or not Kant wanted to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, as science was understood at the end of the 18th century. The answer is yes, as supported by many references I have provided. This can certainly imply and be consistent with a reform of metaphysics that rejects traditional metaphysics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am As I had stated Kant used the term 'Science' as a very loose term in this case.
In the same edition of the Prolegomena, Hatfield explains what the term science meant for Kant and his contemporaries:
In the eighteenth century the German word Wissenschaft, as well as the French, Latin,Italian, and English cognates for “science,” were understood to mean any systematic body of knowledge, usually with the implication that it would be organized around first principles from which the rest of the body of knowledge might be derived (more or less rigorously). Mathematics, and especially Euclid’s geometry, was a model for how “scientific” expositions of knowledge should be organized. Disciplines as diverse as mathematics, metaphysics, and theology were all called “sciences.” Hence, it was entirely normal for Kant to speak of metaphysics as a science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:56 am The actual Miss Universe (a person-in-itself) is like the claim of her having a soul that survives physical death, which is an illusion.
Nonsense. That would put any materialist and realist as a believer in souls, which is preposterous.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am I agree ad hominem refer to remarks on the person but I believe this is more applicable to formal arguments and debates, not necessary in a dialogue like we are having in this forum.
Argumentative fallacies can appear in formal and informal debates. There's a current debate in this thread and you threw in one of such fallacies.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am In this case I am not responding to an argument with the various remarks on your state; this are actual side remarks and has nothing to do with the argument per se.
Exactly. You strayed from the point being argued and presented that as a response to an argument. That's a classical fallacy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am How I used the term 'vulgar' in this case is because I have read very widely and noted many notable philosophers used the term effectively where they compare the masses. I believe it is appropriate for me state that you are ignorant in this case [especially with your counter remarks above], for if you have read widely you would have come across the use this term 'vulgar' and notable philosophers chiding the masses.
And this is a fallacy of generalization. While it may be possible that some philosophers behave snobbishly and disdainful to the masses, it is certainly not true that all philosophers do. And if were true that some of the snobbish and disdainful philosopher were also notable philosophers, it certainly would not be true that all notable philosophers, nor most notable philosophers, are snobbish and disdainful by nature.

The next flaw in your argument to justify your previous Ad Hominem argument is to imply that you're somehow entitled to employ the same judgement of "many notable philosophers", just because of your heartfelt belief that you have "read very widely", or perhaps, more than those you wish to disparage in a debate, an assessment that cannot have obviously any basis on a rational measurement, and can only come from irrational delusions of grandeur, the type that occupies much of the concerns of the wannabe intellectual, unlike the true, serious intellectuals, such as the notable philosophers, or most philosophers in general.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: You keep repeating your dogma as a mantra, but cannot advance any argument to support it. You simply state what you think is the case (which is not), but will not provide arguments for what should be the case, why it can work that way and not any other.
Btw, the onus is on you to provide the arguments re the OP, not me.

Other than insisting the 'moon' pre-dated humans [failed argument] you have not provided any solid arguments to justify your claims that there is a real underlying objective reality to what-appears.
I have provided more than enough arguments, for which you're still pending a proper counterargument. One among the main points to address is that whenever you wish to deny the proofs of a real underlying objective reality, you are forced to reject science. Since that does not make your position look very good, you have to devise a workaround for taking out the realism from modern science, which is still the same as denying it altogether.

Another problem you have not being able to solve is the existence of other subjects (real subjects-in-themselves independent of yourself). When you deny their existence as objects-in-themselves, you have denied the very basis of the cognitive apparatus that supposedly Kant's TI wishes to explain, and yet you and Kant make the claim that this cognitive apparatus is universal to all subject beings, even though they cannot exist as real subjects-in-themselves independent of Kant (or yourself).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am You are referring to one scientists only??
No, I'm referring to a particular famous scientist, science communicator and philosopher that represents mainstream science, sort of a Neil deGrasse Tysson or Carl Sagan. One cannot oppose their views without opposing mainstream scientific views.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am Note the term 'assumption' above which is typical of many scientists but not all.
To rely on 'assumptions' to ground your argument is merely a bottomless empty vessel.
As I explained before, the nice thing about science is that it goes for the practical examination and confirmation of such assumptions. The success of science lies in its methods.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am I suggest again that you read up and get up to date with the latest issues on Science.
I have made my sources very transparent, and they are unequivocally quite up to date. Yours are in the 18th century.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:10 am Note this:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
He is not the only Physicist who admit to the above point; there are many other Physicists and neuroscientists, cognitive-neuroscientists who expressed the same point.
Whatever it was, "video unavailable".
Post Reply