Strawman. Where did I assert the scientific framework is not credible.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 amSure, I always knew you actually don't find the scientific framework credible. Your choice. At least be faithful to it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am There is depth but not deep enough.
You should dig into the 'figuring out' and the whole shebang entangled in such processes, but you don't.
You are just applying 'faith' is believing what the scientists tell you.
I have stated a "1000" times, the Scientific Framework is the most credible we have at present, but for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith [in degrees from our use and inferences] that scientific truths are reliable based on their past success rates and credibility of their framework.
Nah, you are off tangent again.Problem is: you cannot get rid of your speculative assertions yourself, especially since your stance involves, in order to oppose realism, that you deny the possibility of grabbing reality in the ultimate sense.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
Yes, I am insisting your empirical + philosophical is speculative and not real in the ultimate sense.
I don't speculate, if I see a thing empirically and it is aligned with critical philosophy, then it is so as real.
Other than common sense, i.e. philosophically I don't speculate it is something that is independent of my and other human conditions.
Only theists and realists speculate to compensate for their low philosophical capacities.
I am insisting your empirical + philosophical is speculative and not real in the ultimate sense.
Strawman again.Again, the problem is that you cannot prove it is a false belief. You can only choose to say it is a conceptual framework you don't embrace yourself. The price of your relativism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
In your case you believe the real phenomena also has a very-real-noumena [false belief].
None of the above.OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am[
Strawman.
Note my reality is ALL-there-IS argument.
1. C (what is real) is grounded on B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) is grounded on A (thought frameworks)
I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
In this case, the term 'grounded' [searching for turtles all the way down] is irrelevant.
Strawman again.You said reality (all there is) is grounded on human conditions. If there's some part of reality that is not grounded on human conditions, tell us what it is. That's the only possible way to deny that you don't believe "All human conditions cover ALL-THERE-IS".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am I never stated "All human conditions cover ALL-THERE-IS".
I repeat I don't agree with 'grounded' as my ultimate point, for that will lead to an infinite regress of turtles.
In substance, I have stated reality [all there is] cannot be independent of human conditions.
Strawman again.That sounds OK at first glance, until you go on to detail what you mean:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am All Human conditions are part and parcel of reality, thus
you mean that all human conditions have been, are, and will be, always, unavoidably, part of reality, because...reality is grounded on human conditions.
That is the deeply problematic statement that is being addressed here.
What empirical evidence and analysis show is that a world of things, even sentient things, existed prior to humans, and humans emerged contingently from that same domain, thus being part of that domain, but such present entanglement can dissolve and it is obviously not required for the domain of reality to exist.
If what empirical evidence and analysis show is that humans emerged from pre-existing material conditions, then it is human conditions that our grounded on material conditions, not the other way around. If water emerged from the union of oxygen and hydrogen molecules, oxygen and hydrogen are the conditions for the existence of water, so that there could be oxygen and hydrogen separately, and no water at all, but not the other way around.
Note your inescapable use of 'grounded' which I never use in this case.
Note also the "1000" of times I have used the term 'strawman'.
From certain perspectives [A,B,C], I don't deny human existence is preceded by other living things, e.g. dinosaurs. This is relatively kindergarten stuff of common, conventional and scientific sense.
But in finer and higher philosophical perspectives, the above certain perspectives are part and parcel of 'ALL there is'.
Since the human conditions are part and parcel of all-there-is,
those certain perspectives [A, B, C,] and their reality cannot be independent of the human conditions.
This is the general argument.
The detailed arguments are provided by various anti-realists and even clues from realists [e.g. Hume, Russell, etc.].
Unfortunately you just don't have the cognitive capacities to grasp [not necessary to agree with] their perspectives [which I had discussed in past posts].
Cheap Strawman and lies again.Pure bluffing. You don't value science at all. Not strange, since you apply to it the same dogmatic stance that you apply to everything.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am The issue here is 'what is objectivity' which is independent of a person's opinion and beliefs.
I am using scientific objectivity [the most reliable] as an example.
Whatever Science produce I give them a range of a high level of confidence.
Show evidence which scientific theory had I disputed?
I did assert you stated it, I mentioned it myself in passing just in case.The straw man will not save you from dealing with the straigthforward question!! I never said intersubjectivity was meant to be a physical thing. So, answer the question: prove that intersubjectivity is something real. Note that if it happens that intersubjectivity is real by way of scientific consensus, then the Moon in itself is real by way of scientific consensus.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 amIntersubjectivity is not a physical thing but a shared-belief among subjects which may be true or false, thus need verification and justification empirically and philosophically.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:36 am I didn't ask what the concept of intersubjectivity entails. I asked you to prove that intersubjectivity is a real thing.
The intersubjectivity re intersubjective consensus of scientific peers is the most reliable in contract to the shared-consensus among theists in their belief 'God exists'.
That the moon is a real thing scientifically, is proof that intersubjectivity is real.
Science do not and NEVER claim the Moon-in-itself is real.
Nah! science [based on intersubjectivity and consensus] merely assert the empirical-moon is real based on what is observable in qualification to the scientific framework. Science in this case is leveraged ONLY on observations and its framework.
Note the empirical moon is never the moon-in-itself.
At most, some realist scientists may ASSUME the moon-it-itself exists out there.
Note in the case of a faraway star-x many light years away.
Science may convince us that star-x is scientifically real based on what is observed BUT that real star may not exist in real-time. That is, that star-x could have imploded out of existence and what we are observing are merely its light rays not the really star.
If we have problem with really-real things, it would far worse with an assumed thing-in-itself.
Note again, why humans gravitate toward a thing-in-itself other than the empirical thing is due to a necessary unavoidable psychological weakness.
We need critical philosophy [Kantian] to manage this weakness to avoid clinging to our own internal generated necessary white-lies and illusions.
When I mentioned direct contact, it is in this sense:It is a very straigthforward question, don't give bad excuses: what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? You can answer "nothing" if you like.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 amSee! this is where 'I don't understand what you meant' is very relevant.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:36 am I didn't ask what you thought I believed to be in direct contact with, I asked: what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? You can answer "nothing" if you like.
Most of the time where you accuse me of going astray is actually due to your own fault in not communicating effectively.
I do admit I have a problem with this because the point is very complex as in the case of this whole OP and you are stuck dogmatically with confirmation bias.
The naive realists believe they have direct contact with that-which-appears [say object-X] which is most real.
In your case, you admit you don't have direct contact with object-X but only infer indirectly of the supposedly that-which-appear [the same thing the naive realists claimed to have direct contact].
As such both realists believe object-X, i.e. the thing-in-itself exists as real which is a merely speculation either its is claimed as contacted directly or indirectly.
You are merely grasping at an illusion.
Note I mentioned 'hypostatizing' an object as real out of nowhere.
This is a cheap and childish claim in ignoring contexts.See? You lost the challenge pretty quickly.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 amThat is not my point.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:36 am "Being only inside the framework" is the equivalent of "being subsumed within the framework". You see, the term "within" means "on the inside of".
But OK, let's have fun with this.
We can then suppose, following your own argument, that everyone using the word "within" is implying "inside" if not "outside", is "entrapped by the use of the inherent habitualized container metaphor and stuck with the linguistic duality".
Now I challenge you not to use the word "within" and the phrase "subsumed within". Agree?
I will continue to use the term 'within' and "subsumed" with the proper and necessary context.
The PRIMAL container metaphor re "inside" or "outside" by default is a necessary and useful one.
Again this a cheapo claim based on fallacies of hasty generalization.Idealists are typical in believing that the bigger the mystical nonsense, the greater the depth and refinement. Lost in ethereal heights and ivory towers, cannot even see and understand what's in front of their eyes. That's why their reactionary philosophy is completely useless for humanity.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am The problem is when the container metaphor and above terms are used wrongly by you in relation to your dogmatic physical realism where you end up with claiming the things you see outside [the noumena] is absolutely independent of your mind or body.
On this more refined philosophical issue we cannot use the PRIMAL container metaphor.
You are too primitive [your current status] in your philosophical deliberations instead of using the appropriate wisdom.
When you loose, you quickly resort to 'you the typical idealist' then proceed to shoot at your own invented strawman.
It is the same with those I discuss on the issues of Critical Race Theory.
They will bang on the slightest possible rhetoric element and accuse me on being a Nazi which lead to the shutting down of possible rational critical discussions.
It is the same with those who shout 'Islamophobia' to avoid engaging in rational and critical discussions.
There is something wrong with their brain and intellectual capacity that trigger such rhetoric and fallacies.