Yep crawl back into your hole. Which you can do because we do not depend on each other.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
No - we are even more independant since I don't give a fuck whether you live of die, and neither option would make any difference to me.
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
A naively ridiculous statement, one you could expect from a flat-earther or a creationist. Also, an absurd remark coming from a lay-person, not directly involved in scientific endeavors, which supposedly acknowledges science to be the most credible framework. A credible framework accepted on the basis of pure faith? You're simply ignorant of the sociological aspects of culture and intellectual life. When a lay-person uses common sense and educated reasoning, they are able to infer the high improbability of well-established facts within the scientific domain to be the result of a conspiracy to deceive the public. Confidence in social institutions related with scientific practice and education is not the same as faith, as this confidence is built upon social controls available to every individual, that make scientific assertions reliable. That's why an educated lay-person can spot BS science and pseudoscience by himself. Carl Sagan used to talk about the baloney detection kit, and this he meant to be used in everyday life.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am I never assert that Science itself is based on pure faith as you are accusing me of.
My earlier point was, the lay-person accepts scientific facts based purely on faith [1] because he is not the one directly involved in performing the experiments to arrive at the conclusions.
Another proof that you're clueless about basic notions in philosophy and general theory of knowledge. You are unable to make the distinction betweeen the scope and methods of inquiry in philosophy and the scope and methods of inquiry in science. Neither you are aware of the historical evolution of this distinction, as it appears you are still stuck in the 18th century. And that from someone who claims to disavow metaphysics. There was a time when philosophy was in the task of making empirical, factual claims about the world, when there was no distinction between philosophy and physical science, and the latter was appropriately called natural philosophy. A period in which speculation in philosophy meant making guesses about how the world works, out of simple observations. We mean here "to speculate" as a transitive verb: one speculates or theorizes about something. Such speculations indeed deserved to be framed as mere "conjectures without knowing the complete facts" (Collins Dictionary). And then modern science arrived, producing a major crisis in philosophy and transforming its scope and methods, where speculation retained its simple meaning as an intransitive verb: "to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT" (Collins Dictionary). That's what philosophy-proper does: to reflect, to meditate, using a priori concepts. And indeed there are fields where philosophy thrives and contributes to knowledge in general, even to specialized sciences, but the business of telling us what and how the world really is, empirical verification and justification, belongs to science-proper, natural science, which gives grounds to a compatible materialist ontology.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You are very ignorant of what philosophy-proper entailed.
Philosophy do involve speculation as a tool or mean but philosophy-proper is not centered on speculation. Whatever is speculated but not verified and justified empirically and philosophically remain a speculation.
In your case, your resultant conclusion, i.e. critical realism that claim things exist independent of human condition is not philosophically sound, thus is a speculation.
Realism might speculate, philosophically speaking, but not any more than anti-realism. Realism, however, finds a natural companion in science, while anti-realism has to make awkward contortions to make some space for science, which it tends to reject for its necessary materialist implications.
Not so fast. You have been caught, I have actually quoted you saying what you're declaring now as "none of the above". But that's fine, now I have you on record denying that what is real emerges from or is grounded on human conditions. Then you are forcing yourself to acknowledge that there isn't a necessary relationship between what is real and human conditions, in other words, you're denying epistemic correlationism, which was the position you have been wanting to advance all along.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 amConde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 am OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) emerges, is derived from B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) emerge, is derived from A (thought frameworks)
None of the above.
Strawman again.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
That has to be one of the lamest, most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard from someone that has been caught lying and correcting himself.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am Admittedly I did and will use the term 'ground' as a convenience to communicate with you at your level.
It is amusing to note that "kindergarten stuff" is giving such a hard time to your arguments.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You are using kindergarten stuff to argue your point.
Just like how Hume argued there is no reality to causality at a higher level of philosophizing of reality and many cannot grasp it, you simply cannot grasp the point I am making from a more refined philosophical perspective.
Kant and many others bought Hume's point, that we all know. What he and others failed to realize is that after denying there is a reality to causality, they went on to posit causality behind reasoning and the belief in causality. They also believed in the reality of sense-impressions, even though their own arguments for denying the reality of things behind sense-impressions, also applied to the sense-impressions. For all their epistemological assumptions, sense-impressions act exactly as things in themselves, or shall we say, impressions in themselves. How about minds in themselves, or experiences in themselves, or a priori categories of the understanding in themselves, all of these are no more justified than the things in themselves. The claim that ideas about them are unreliable and we must remain silent, apply to the objects of inquiry of the anti-realists, too. Their doctrines can only lead to epistemological nihilism and solipsism.
You are caught lying again. I quoted you word for word. Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists - by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:15 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 amNote I stated there were no "electrons-in-itself" before Thomson.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 amYou said there were no "electrons" before Thomson. That goes against undisputed scientific facts.
The point is that you claim things are real ("scientifically-real") only based on intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity is real because...intersubjectivity. This is circular reasoning and you never get to say what justifies the belief in intersubjectivity as real. As one might expect, you'll complain that this is a straw man, but I asked you a zillion times to give us an account of the reality of intersubjectivity and you have failed to deliver.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You are claiming for absolute realness?
Essentially we can only claim the moon is scientifically-real, note the necessary qualifications.
On that note because the above is based on intersubjectivity, therefore intersubjectivity is real scientifically and philosophically.
To give any weight to this proposition, first you have to prove that such distinction, which is purely epistemological, is transferible to objects qua objects. Once you claim, based on assumptions, that objects are first and foremost mind objects, you get immediately in trouble explaining where minds come from, and even more troubling how you justify the belief in other minds as other objects of experience.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You cannot deny what you are claiming as real are objects-as-they-are not objects-as-they-appear.
Oh, please, don't you know how to read? I just told you about your confusion between science and popular science journalism, and you reply with an astronomy article form a popular science outlet written by a B. S. working as science communicator?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 amCheapo deflection again.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 am You're confusing popular science journalism and entertainment media with real science. Scientists ARE NOT trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events, but the delayed effect of energy traveling long distances.
Generally astronomers do not present 'stars' as "delayed effect of energy traveling long distances". Such an explanation is only done in its specific contexts.
Note example,
Scientists think they've spotted the farthest galaxy in the universe
https://www.space.com/oldest-most-dista ... -discovery
Read the article from Space.Com, did they mention any thing like '"delayed effect of energy traveling long distances."
It is possible this supposed real furthest galaxy may not be really real in real time.
You have to be joking. This is not the problem of induction. Whatever delay there might be in sense-impressions, the acknowledgement of such delay implies a causal relation between the object and its perception, which would be absent if sense-impression is all there is and causality was imposed on it by an a priori category of the understanding. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am Note even our Sun is always a historic one [8 minutes old].
So even the moon you see is historically old.
As such there is a distance and time gap, i.e. a reality-gap between what is sensed and the supposedly real thing.
Even the things that your can touch and press with your fingers, there is still a reality-gap of nano-distance and nano-seconds.
As such humans are never in contact with what is supposedly real, i.e. there is always a reality-Gap with ALL things.
You're once again confusing the process and method of inquiry with the object of inquiry. No realist is claiming the process and method of inquiry is independent from human practice, but such entanglement with the knowledge of things that show up contingently in our experience, does not imply, in any way, a necessary entanglement with such things. The Moon can go on being the Moon and every human can go on being a human independently, which does not mean absent any relation, but the relation involves contingency, not necessity, as science has demonstrated with, among other things, the fact of ancestrality. That is, science is able to think and make claims about events that are not immediately given. To deny it, you have to deny science.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am What is real is merely in entanglement with the human conditions.
You argued you rely upon science to infer the thing-in-itself across the reality-gap, but you still cannot see that Science is ultimately entangled [not derived from] with the human conditions, thus your claim of an independent this is contradictory.
Alright, note that "no direct contact with anything" includes direct contact with sense-impressions. So, then, how you justify anything you believe?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am As I had explained above, with the reality-Gap, yes we do not have direct contact with anything.
You just asserted "we do not have direct contact with anything". And you have claimed not having direct contact unwarrants any claim about that which someone is supposedly in contact with. So, following your own argument, there would be no possibility to verify or justify anything. Perspective becomes "anything goes".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am In one perspective what are not illusion are scientifically-real things, i.e. as verified and justified via science which are somehow entangled [not derived from] with the human conditions.
Your central focus is clinging to dogmatic beliefs and making toffee-nosed remarks to compensate your inability to think clearly.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am My central focus is based on solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
You can't read, or don't want to.
I don't give a fuck about that.
-
- Posts: 12590
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
That is typical of people who are ignorant and intellectually lacking, they will yawn when faced with something more complicated.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:25 amYawnVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:24 amAs usual your thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. confined to the vulgar [philosophically = common] sense.
If based on the vulgar sense, I will agree with you.
irrelevant BS deleted
-
- Posts: 12590
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
Strawman again!Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pmA naively ridiculous statement, one you could expect from a flat-earther or a creationist. Also, an absurd remark coming from a lay-person, not directly involved in scientific endeavors, which supposedly acknowledges science to be the most credible framework. A credible framework accepted on the basis of pure faith? You're simply ignorant of the sociological aspects of culture and intellectual life. When a lay-person uses common sense and educated reasoning, they are able to infer the high improbability of well-established facts within the scientific domain to be the result of a conspiracy to deceive the public. Confidence in social institutions related with scientific practice and education is not the same as faith, as this confidence is built upon social controls available to every individual, that make scientific assertions reliable. That's why an educated lay-person can spot BS science and pseudoscience by himself. Carl Sagan used to talk about the baloney detection kit, and this he meant to be used in everyday life.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am I never assert that Science itself is based on pure faith as you are accusing me of.
My earlier point was, the lay-person accepts scientific facts based purely on faith [1] because he is not the one directly involved in performing the experiments to arrive at the conclusions.
I never assert that the confidence that Science is the most credible framework is based on pure faith.
What I implied that your insistence that scientific facts represent what is real to you [as a critical realist] is based on pure faith, since you are not the one who is doing the experiments, tests, etc. to arrive at the conclusion of those scientific fact.
You are indeed very ignorant of what philosophy-proper it.Another proof that you're clueless about basic notions in philosophy and general theory of knowledge. You are unable to make the distinction between the scope and methods of inquiry in philosophy and the scope and methods of inquiry in science.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You are very ignorant of what philosophy-proper entailed.
Philosophy do involve speculation as a tool or mean but philosophy-proper is not centered on speculation. Whatever is speculated but not verified and justified empirically and philosophically remain a speculation.
In your case, your resultant conclusion, i.e. critical realism that claim things exist independent of human condition is not philosophically sound, thus is a speculation.
Neither you are aware of the historical evolution of this distinction, as it appears you are still stuck in the 18th century. And that from someone who claims to disavow metaphysics.
There was a time when philosophy was in the task of making empirical, factual claims about the world, when there was no distinction between philosophy and physical science, and the latter was appropriately called natural philosophy. A period in which speculation in philosophy meant making guesses about how the world works, out of simple observations.
We mean here "to speculate" as a transitive verb: one speculates or theorizes about something. Such speculations indeed deserved to be framed as mere "conjectures without knowing the complete facts" (Collins Dictionary).
And then modern science arrived, producing a major crisis in philosophy and transforming its scope and methods, where speculation retained its simple meaning as an intransitive verb: "to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT" (Collins Dictionary).
That's what philosophy-proper does: to reflect, to meditate, using a priori concepts. And indeed there are fields where philosophy thrives and contributes to knowledge in general, even to specialized sciences, but the business of telling us what and how the world really is, empirical verification and justification, belongs to science-proper, natural science, which gives grounds to a compatible materialist ontology.
It is said that there are as many definition of philosophy as to the number of people attempting to define what is philosophy.
I have done VERY extensive research on what is philosophy and its essence by reviewing and extracting from the context ‘philosophy’ is used within Western, Eastern and in every domain.
What you deemed as what is philosophy above [which is true] is a very confined and limited definition of what philosophy-proper is.
Suggest you read and your limited stance in this thread:
What is Philosophy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28792
You have to be specific with my anti-realism as I did with yours, which yours is critical realism as you had claimed.Realism might speculate, philosophically speaking, but not any more than anti-realism. Realism, however, finds a natural companion in science, while anti-realism has to make awkward contortions to make some space for science, which it tends to reject for its necessary materialist implications.
You yourself admit you are speculating; that in the ultimate sense can possibly be wrong with what is real. Note the ultimate sense not conventional sense.
You are speculating more than what Science is confirming based on observations and scientific facts are merely polished conjectures. Your critical realism claim there are absolute independent things that exist as real. Science don’t do that!
Meanwhile my anti-realism [Kantian+] accept what Science concludes and I do not speculate like you do. Because Scientific facts are merely polished conjectures, my anti-realism uses critical philosophy to monitor the credibility scientific facts plus imputing moral elements and other positive elements.
What are you talking about?Not so fast. You have been caught, I have actually quoted you saying what you're declaring now as "none of the above". But that's fine, now I have you on record denying that what is real emerges from or is grounded on human conditions. Then you are forcing yourself to acknowledge that there isn't a necessary relationship between what is real and human conditions, in other words, you're denying epistemic correlationism, which was the position you have been wanting to advance all along.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 amConde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 am OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) emerges, is derived from B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) emerge, is derived from A (thought frameworks)
None of the above.
Strawman again.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
Read my point again, i.e.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
I don’t get your point?
Again you are very ignorant on this and your accusations are very childish.That has to be one of the lamest, most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard from someone that has been caught lying and correcting himself.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am Admittedly I did and will use the term 'ground' as a convenience to communicate with you at your level.
‘Grounding’ is merely talking about the cause[s] of effects.
There is no issue with discussing about cause [ground] and effects but there is a limit to the question of ‘ground’ when the implications lead to an infinite regress or a final cause. This is where I will denial the question of ‘grounding’.
What is the problem with this?
Nah, Kant did not buy Hume’s argument on Causality lock, stock and barrels.It is amusing to note that "kindergarten stuff" is giving such a hard time to your arguments.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You are using kindergarten stuff to argue your point.
Just like how Hume argued there is no reality to causality at a higher level of philosophizing of reality and many cannot grasp it, you simply cannot grasp the point I am making from a more refined philosophical perspective.
Kant and many others bought Hume's point, that we all know. What he and others failed to realize is that after denying there is a reality to causality, they went on to posit causality behind reasoning and the belief in causality.
They also believed in the reality of sense-impressions, even though their own arguments for denying the reality of things behind sense-impressions, also applied to the sense-impressions. For all their epistemological assumptions, sense-impressions act exactly as things in themselves, or shall we say, impressions in themselves. How about minds in themselves, or experiences in themselves, or a priori categories of the understanding in themselves, all of these are no more justified than the things in themselves. The claim that ideas about them are unreliable and we must remain silent, apply to the objects of inquiry of the anti-realists, too. Their doctrines can only lead to epistemological nihilism and solipsism.
As explained above, the fundamental of the rejection is of the essence of causality [not empirical causality] as I had explained above to prevent people from jumping to the conclusion of first cause or radical skepticism with infinite regression.
Your problem is you cannot think in perspective but has to conflate every layer in one go.
Presumably if you are prison warder who must be authoritarian and fierce as required on the job, you will act the same at home with your family, relatives and friends??
I have read my statement.You are caught lying again. I quoted you word for word. Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists - by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:15 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 amNote I stated there were no "electrons-in-itself" before Thomson.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 amYou said there were no "electrons" before Thomson. That goes against undisputed scientific facts.
Produce my exact statement I made and show why you think I was caught lying.
I stated there were “no ‘electrons-in-[themselves] [sic]’ before Thomson and even after Thomson. There are only electrons [not in themselves] as confirmed from the scientific framework.
The point is that you claim things are real ("scientifically-real") only based on intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity is real because...intersubjectivity. This is circular reasoning and you never get to say what justifies the belief in intersubjectivity as real. As one might expect, you'll complain that this is a straw man, but I asked you a zillion times to give us an account of the reality of intersubjectivity and you have failed to deliver.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You are claiming for absolute realness?
Essentially we can only claim the moon is scientifically-real, note the necessary qualifications.
On that note because the above is based on intersubjectivity, therefore intersubjectivity is real scientifically and philosophically.
- 1. What is claimed to be scientific is empirically real [ albeit, polished conjectures]
2. What is scientific is based on intersubjectivity [a process within Science].
3. Intersubjectivity is real.
What is real within science is based critically on its testability, repeatability and significantly on positive utility.
There must be a real process [verifiable#] on intersubjective consensus which is real, otherwise scientific truths cannot be real.
# based on documents from real people, etc.
The onus is on you [as a critical realist] to prove ‘objects-as-they-are’ are transferable or correspond to independent objects-qua-object.To give any weight to this proposition, first you have to prove that such distinction, which is purely epistemological, is transferable to objects qua objects. Once you claim, based on assumptions, that objects are first and foremost mind objects, you get immediately in trouble explaining where minds come from, and even more troubling how you justify the belief in other minds as other objects of experience.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am You cannot deny what you are claiming as real are objects-as-they-are not objects-as-they-appear.
As a critical realist you are claiming there are objects-qua-objects that are really real [can be inferred] and existing independent of the human conditions.
That was a quickie based on common knowledge of what astronomers are discussing.Oh, please, don't you know how to read? I just told you about your confusion between science and popular science journalism, and you reply with an astronomy article form a popular science outlet written by a B. S. working as science communicator?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 amCheapo deflection again.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 am You're confusing popular science journalism and entertainment media with real science. Scientists ARE NOT trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events, but the delayed effect of energy traveling long distances.
Generally astronomers do not present 'stars' as "delayed effect of energy traveling long distances". Such an explanation is only done in its specific contexts.
Note example,
Scientists think they've spotted the farthest galaxy in the universe
https://www.space.com/oldest-most-dista ... -discovery
Read the article from Space.Com, did they mention any thing like '"delayed effect of energy traveling long distances."
It is possible this supposed real furthest galaxy may not be really real in real time.
Prove to me the science communicator is wrong in commuting what real scientists in that respect are not using the same terms.
Here is an article from NASA on the same point.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-galaxies
Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.
This point is not about the Problem of Induction per se.You have to be joking. This is not the problem of induction. Whatever delay there might be in sense-impressions, the acknowledgement of such delay implies a causal relation between the object and its perception, which would be absent if sense-impression is all there is and causality was imposed on it by an a priori category of the understanding. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am Note even our Sun is always a historic one [8 minutes old].
So even the moon you see is historically old.
As such there is a distance and time gap, i.e. a reality-gap between what is sensed and the supposedly real thing.
Even the things that your can touch and press with your fingers, there is still a reality-gap of nano-distance and nano-seconds.
As such humans are never in contact with what is supposedly real, i.e. there is always a reality-Gap with ALL things.
This is to reemphasize there is no way you will as above is able to confirm what objects-as-what-they-are are thing-in-themselves because there is ALWAYS a reality-GAP between objects-as-they-are and objects-as-they-appear.
The delay is merely conditionally real based on conditioned objects-as-they-appear and conditioned [illusory] objects-as-they-are. In both cases, they are conditioned by human conditions. Since they are always conditioned, there are no absolutely independent objects-as-they-are in your critical realist sense, in the ultimate sense [not common sense]; you are merely insisting on an illusion thus deluded.
As I have stated before, empirically and scientifically, the moon is independent of the human observers. This is so obvious with common sense and the conventional sense.You're once again confusing the process and method of inquiry with the object of inquiry.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am What is real is merely in entanglement with the human conditions.
You argued you rely upon science to infer the thing-in-itself across the reality-gap, but you still cannot see that Science is ultimately entangled [not derived from] with the human conditions, thus your claim of an independent this is contradictory.
No realist is claiming the process and method of inquiry is independent from human practice, but such entanglement with the knowledge of things that show up contingently in our experience, does not imply, in any way, a necessary entanglement with such things.
The Moon can go on being the Moon and every human can go on being a human independently, which does not mean absent any relation, but the relation involves contingency, not necessity, as science has demonstrated with, among other things, the fact of ancestrality. That is, science is able to think and make claims about events that are not immediately given. To deny it, you have to deny science.
If you have not read this post re the Pando tree
viewtopic.php?p=519689#p519689
I insist you read it to understand why you are unable to grasp my point re the view reality in a higher sense of reality.
Reflect more deeply.
Re common sense, Empirically, scientifically and conventionally, the ‘moon’ exists independent of the observer.
To you as a critical realist, there is a supposedly moon-as-it-is as different from the moon-as-it-appear to humans.
But I have highlighted to you there is a Reality-Gap where it is impossible for any human to breach to the gap between the moon-as-it-appear to the supposedly moon-as-it-is in real time.
So you rely on the best inference to comfort yourself that your supposedly moon-as-it-is is a really real moon.
But then your best inference based on Science is merely a polished conjecture based on human conditions. In a way it is a speculation, i.e. a polished speculation that is impossible to be confirmed at all.
Will you counter it is possible?
You must ask yourself, WHY do you and the majority of humans insist upon a moon-as-it-is when it an impossibility but merely a speculation.
Note the dilemma of a terrible cognitive dissonance that force you to jump to such a conclusion.
The solution to the above dilemma in the most realistic explanation is based on emergence and entanglement, seeming difficult for you to grasp since you are do dogmatic.
I am not bothered with ‘no direct contact’ as in the reality-Gap or sense-impressions.Alright, note that "no direct contact with anything" includes direct contact with sense-impressions. So, then, how you justify anything you believe?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am As I had explained above, with the reality-Gap, yes we do not have direct contact with anything.
As I had stated what is real must be verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible but it must be supervised with critical philosophy to manage the limits.
See my above point.You just asserted "we do not have direct contact with anything". And you have claimed not having direct contact unwarrants any claim about that which someone is supposedly in contact with. So, following your own argument, there would be no possibility to verify or justify anything. Perspective becomes "anything goes".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am In one perspective what are not illusion are scientifically-real things, i.e. as verified and justified via science which are somehow entangled [not derived from] with the human conditions.
I am not bothered with ‘no direct contact’ as in the reality-Gap or sense-impressions.
As I had stated what is real must be verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible but it must be supervised with critical philosophy to manage the limits.
Show me examples where I had failed to provide rational, solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.Your central focus is clinging to dogmatic beliefs and making toffee-nosed remarks to compensate your inability to think clearly.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:36 am My central focus is based on solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.
You will note all your counters are mostly strawman and are toothless [..I had recountered all successfully], i.e. no bite on the counters I’d made.
Btw, re the OP, the onus is on you to prove / demonstrate your claim re critical realism, i.e. an independent reality or independent things-in-themselves exist as real and are independent of human conditions.
Any attempt to undermine my anti-realism i.e. Kantian+ in this thread, is going off tangent.
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
DO you mean those typical people that exist independantly of yourself?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:47 amThat is typical of people who are ignorant and intellectually lacking, they will yawn when faced with something more complicated.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:25 amYawnVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:24 am
As usual your thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. confined to the vulgar [philosophically = common] sense.
If based on the vulgar sense, I will agree with you.
irrelevant BS deleted
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
You mean me as opposed to you. Each of us independantly?
Is that what you mean?
Or am I somehow interdependant on a moron like you?
Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
You've been interacting with this moron for 2 days.
How independent does this seem to you? It sure seems inter-dependent to me!
If you were independent you would have shut up.