Not sure if you are familiar with the term 'vulgar' used within philosophy.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:51 pmActually, 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.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.
of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society:
..the vulgar masses.
current; popular; common:
..a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
Thus it is very valid for me to push you to think of the different and towards higher perspectives of reality.
Which Bunge, you have to more specific.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 Read Bunge and then tell me about it.Veritas Aequitas wrote:Your knowledge re what is science is very outdated.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.
I would like to trash out the point your knowledge on Science and Philosophy of Science is very outdated.
My point is Science per se is independent of any realism and "ism" especially 'Scientism.'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.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].
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 comments on your status are based on what you are posting.A clear sign of intellectual feebleness is to riddle philosophical discussions with streams of Ad Hominem arguments.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.
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.
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".
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.Again, Ad Hominem arguments only impoverish philosophical debate.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.
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.
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.
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.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: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.
Interpretations of Quantum MechanicsDespite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality
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.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.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.
'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?
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].You simply have no idea of how these types of translations work. It is not like the translation of inventory records.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.
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.
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.