Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:23 pm
Scientific research always lands on discoveries about the material nature of reality. There's no alternative science of "non-materiality", and you wouldn't call theology and other such disciplines "science".
Again you missed my point.
Note here re What is Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Therein you will note the point with whether it is matter or non-matter [as you understood it to be] are not critical issues to Science.
What is critical to Science is whether how its approach to knowledge meet the requirements of the scientific methods and its critical requirements.
You're the one missing the point. Science gives you realism, and it departs from the metaphysical presumption of materialism, the only ontology that is compatible with the reality revealed by science. Theoeretically, it could depart from a non-materialist ontology, but it wouldn't work, it can't work, it has never worked. It would go in the opposite direction of its realism, undermining its own methodological and epistemological base. Materialism is the ontology of science.
Your knowledge re what is science is very outdated. You must read up on the latest view on Science and the Philosophy of Science.
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].
Note this point from modern science;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Theoeretically, it could depart from a non-materialist ontology, but it wouldn't work, it can't work, it has never worked.
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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
Not every scientist agree the Moon existed prior to humans when deliberated within various various perspectives of Quantum Mechanics. Note Schrodinger's Cat for example. In a way there are many scientists who adopt the idealist view rather than the philosophical realists' views.
Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment to illustrate a point about measurement in Quantum Mechanics, and it applies to the microscopic level of physical particles, not related in any sense with any macroscopic observation such as the Moon.
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.
There are obviously many scientists that adopt non-realist (idealist) views of the world, but when doing so they're actually stepping out of their own discipline, which in principle does not allow such departure without cancelling it out altogether.
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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
I don't renounce Science and I have always insisted scientific knowledge is the most credible and reliable knowledge we have as conditioned to the scientific framework [
FSK], BUT scientific knowledge at best are merely polished conjectures not absolute truths.
Sure, but between "absolute truths" and "polished conjectures" there is a world of undisputed objective facts and testable certainties, which form the core of natural science.
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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
Guyer's translation of Kant's CPR does not mean he understood Kant's original intentions. Translation from German to English or other language is a very mechanical process; these days even computer softwares can do that very efficiently.
You evidently don't understand how the issue of translations and compilations of major philosophical treaties work, no different than translations and compilations in very specialized fields. The fact is that you have to be a very competent scholar, and often a well-respected one, to get such a translation published. It is almost a sign of recognition of your expertise in the field, and reserved only for a few. The point is not that Guyer
has to be absolutely right in his interpretation of Kant, in such a field it is simply not possible to make statements of facts, there are better or worse informed opinions, and that's why different stances can coexist among respected scholars. The point is that you cannot simply dismiss Guyer's and other Kant's scholars with the naive argument you're presenting. None of them when opposing each other, either endorsing or criticizing Kant's arguments, or simply describing it, present the case themselves as an opposition between realists vs anti-realists. They are not so dogmatic!!
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 agree one has to have some competence in philosophy to translate philosophical works but such a requirement is not a critical factor.
I believe you are not well verse philosophically of the tribalism [us vs them] between realists and anti-realists which is due their psychologically, primal, cultural, ideological and political stances and differences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
In addition, science does not prove the thing-in-itself exists as real and it is only certain sciences that
ASSUMEs the thing-in-itself exists as objective reality.
You said yourself that science showed what is real. Science consistently and predictably shows that things exist and operate independently of the human mind, therefore that they are objective properties of the world.
Again note 'what is real' is QUALIFIED to the empirical and scientific framework.
Here is a good illustration of my claims re empirical realism subsumed within transcendental idealism.
Similarly scientific realism of an independent world is subsumed with a non-independent scientific framework constructed by humans.
Therefore all scientific truths of independent things cannot be ultimately independent.
You keep forgetting that Science and its scientific truths are only possible because of human activities in Science.
Then we have
Model Dependent Realism, note the link above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
But note, if you rely on Science for your knowledge [there is no other more reliable] you are at best relying on polished-CONJECTURES which no matter how polished they are, still remain to be CONJECTURES.
See my objection above to such poor and misinformed argument. Science is limited and imperfect, but it does not rely on simple conjectures. Nothing in the history of knowledge has proved to be more powerful in the truth-seeking adventure than science. Note that Kant's project was to raise metaphysics to the level of a science, at least as it was understood at the end of the 18th century, as a systematic body of principles in which you can ground truths that are both universal and necessary.
Note your strawman.
Where did I ever state "simple conjectures"? You are trying to resort to deceptions in this case, but the slide is so obvious.
I stated "
POLISHED CONJECTURES" and if you don't understand this term, you are really ignorant of what is Science.
Nope! Kant did not make any attempt to raise Metaphysics to the level of a Science.
Rather he merely ask the question whether it can or not [knowing well it cannot].
Kant ultimately proved metaphysics cannot be raised to a level of science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
As such there is no way you can prove nor confirm your claim that the thing-in-itself as real is true. [i.e. cannot meet the OP's challenge]
If you can show the scientific confirmation, using the standard scientific framework, that the Moon is not actually a mind-independent object that existed prior to humans, you would have a chance at refuting the scientific theory that confirms the Moon to be a mind-independent object. But you can also go along and say that you don't find science reliable and renounce to it. It's the only position compatible with anti-realism.
Your thinking is too crude.
Within classical Science there is no doubt that the moon is a mind-independent object.
But with the emergence of Einstein relativity theory and the observers effect, doubts were creeping in.
However with QM in the picture, [as qualified] there is a strong claim there is no independent moon.
Note, to counter QM Einstein raised the question,
Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?
Reality and the Quantum Theory
Einstein maintained that quantum metaphysics entails spooky actions at a distance;
experiments have now shown that what bothered Einstein is not a debatable point but the observed behavior of the real world.
N. David Mermin
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.880968
If you are well read you would be well aware of the above issue.
As a dogmatic realist it is unlikely you will accept the truth, there is no independent moon from the QM perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
You are also an anti-idealist in one perspective while being an empirical idealist in another.
I only take the "what is the actual case" perspective.
Your
"what is the actual case" perspective is classical Science which in a way is empirical-idealism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
By, "direct contact" is merely use to highlight the problem realists has with things-in-themselves.
When you claim as a realist, there is an independent external things-in-themselves that appear and you perceived, you are assuming there is a parallel world which mirrors your perception.
That your usual straw man fallacy, which I have refuted several times. You're ascribing me stance of the manifest image and the pre-theoretical, common sense view which occurs outside of philosophical and scientific considerations.
As a realist, I realize I cognize things, but I don't believe naively that what I cognize is exactly the way as I cognize it and comes unfiltered by my sensible faculties, I'm aware reality has a deeper, not-so-obvious structure which is the task of philosophy of science and philosophy to reveal, using my sensible faculties along with my intellect, relying on methodological and epistemological tools, to work around the manifest image and arrive to the scientific image. It is this complex exercise of systematic rationality that relies on trustable methods that leads us to ontological realism and materialism as the only tenable positions.
As I had argued, if your approach is;
- using my sensible faculties along with my intellect, relying on methodological and epistemological tools, to work around the manifest image and arrive to the scientific image. It is this complex exercise of systematic rationality that relies on trustable methods that leads us to ontological realism and materialism as the only tenable positions.
then what you are claiming is not an 'absolute' external independent objective reality, but rather that it is dependent on your human activity, human institution -science etc, thus ultimately dependent on the human conditions.
In this case if you claim the above is ontological realism and materialism, it can only be human dependent "ontological realism and materialism" because your above approaches and processes are all ultimately dependent on the human conditions.
Therefore your "ontological realism and materialism" is not the philosophical ontological realism and materialism, where the moon exists absolutely independent of humans.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
Note Rorty's condemnation of realism in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), are you familiar with Rorty?
see:
Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188
In this case what you perceived is merely the mirror image of reality and is never in direct contact with that reality.
Rorty always shows up in these discussions. His pragmatist project is not exempt of criticism and I don't find anything particularly interesting in it.[/quote]
I am not promoting Rorty's pragmatism in this case.
What I am highlighting is Rorty's argument that philosophical realism is a mess [due to Descartes' et. al] and not tenable [he relied on Wittgenstein, and others].
Do you agree with his arguments if you have read his book.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am
As such you are faced with Meno's Paradox and will never ever know what is really real.
That's a classical fallacy, pure sophistry, that has been refuted. Why would I care for such a silly argument.
Do you understand Meno's Paradox in the first place and the realistic philosophical issues behind it?