I have mentioned a 'million' times,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:09 pmWe know. But this claim is false, and has ridiculous implications.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:04 am My argument is this:
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC.
If there is no reality outside a model (an FSRC), then there is no way to assess and compare the objectivity of models, so there is no way to know that the natural sciences are 'the gold standard', which is what you claim.
And if there is no reality outside a model, then we humans are merely features of a model - and the models we make are models made by models.
your using of 'there is a reality outside a FSRC' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, you don't have any valid grounds to refute my claims.
It is a strawman.
It is not accurate to state the FSRC is a model per se.
A model per se is merely a representation of something real.
The FSRC itself is something that is real, thus cannot be a model per se.
What actually emerged, realized and cognized is not based on any model per se, it is just reality. One can model it, but that is after the fact.
The claim of an FSRC is [repeat];
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC; this oppose [is against] the p-realist claim that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Don't insult your intelligence in 'sillying' Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all time] when you have not understood [not agree with] his philosophical foundation.Your silly theory is one version of the philosophical antirealisms that can be traced back to Kant's silly distinction between phenomena and noumena - a distinction that he simultaneously invoked and denied, with catastrophic consequences.
The above is a strawman as usual.Perhaps you or any other antirealist, constructivist or model-dependent realist here can answer the following questions.
If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model?
If all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?
If there is no reality outside a model, who or what makes the models?
As Wittgenstein claimed, you are bewitched by language -too literal in this case.
'Constructivism' in this case is not a builder constructing a building from a model.
What constructivism [philosophical not civil engineering] meant is, whatever is reality, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.
Metaphorically, if reality is a 'construction', then humans has a part in that 'construction'.
Example;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In create
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
Strawman as usual again.Fact is, philosophical antirealism is fake, because it always begins with 'What we humans do is...', thus assuming the existence of an example of what it denies.
Fact is, antirealists aren't 'anti' or opposed to reality, cos that would be absurd. What they're opposed to is the delusion that any one description or kind of description can capture the essence or ultimate nature of reality - thus flirting with the delusion that there is or could be such a thing.
End the flirtation - and the whole antirealist project is pointless.
Antirealism per se is not fake.
Antirealism argued that realism [p] is fake, not realistic nor tenable.
The onus in on p-realists to prove their realism is really real and not fake, not illusory.
My personal beliefs are that of Kantian [not 100%] and others.
You can argue Kantianism is fake, but have you read Kant's CPR thoroughly to qualify to prove Kantianism is fake?
Btw, realism [an evolutionary default] itself is not pointless, what is bad is when realists adopt basic realism as an ideology i.e. a philosophical realism, metaphysical realism and/or transcendental realism which is grounded on an illusion.
I am personally an empirical realist and moral realist but not a p-realist, m-realist nor t-realist [which are fake and illusory].
The problem with p-realists is psychological, not epistemological, i.e. they are not matured enough to progress beyond basic realism to cognize higher and more refined aspects of reality.
You are like those Newtonian and Einsteinian physicists [p-realists] who are stuck with their respective ideology and unable to cognize QM [anti-p-realists] which has a higher utility potential for humanity's progress.
Seems your strawman making factory is getting more and more productive.