We could change what we are asserting and interpret it as discovering that we were wrong. If two people are at about the same spatiotemporal location,...
This merely hides the fundamental issue and does not address it in any way. If most people were blind, reports of visual perceptions wouldn't be linke...
There would be no issue if they didn't make metaphysical claims about what's possible and what's not possible, what the world is and what it isn't, wh...
I generally agree with this, but one problem for instance in fundamental physics is that practicing a lot of theory-learning and problem-solving can l...
The problem with this characterization of hallucination is that for instance until a few decades ago we could also say the following: We can know that...
Okay. So now my question would be, if anything anyone experiences is reality from a particular reference point, how do you ever get to a distinction b...
Yes. To separate philosophy from science is to make science a religion. They think they have eliminated metaphysics from physics, but all they have do...
Sure, but it seems to me you still arrive at the same result as Dfpolis, that both in your theoretical account and his theoretical account everything ...
But if you say reality from some reference point is how things appear from some reference point, then I suppose you agree that when the reference poin...
Fair enough. I guess one of the main reasons I'm not a realist is that I have noticed how what I believe changes in profound ways what I experience, s...
If we say that what we call the physical world stems from minds, that objects do not exist independently from minds, that's not realism no. And "The p...
Same with me :up: I feel that I addressed all your points while you didn't address some of mine, but maybe that's how you feel too from your side (tha...
And how does the realist get to conclude that what he experienced was a hallucination or that he had a false belief? For instance if the realist sees ...
The problem is not calling some things science and some non-science, it is calling them science or non-science arbitrarily, and then using that label ...
If only we could address even one thing. It's not just plastic pollution or air pollution, it's our ever-growing consumption and destruction of natura...
Are people frightened because they have analyzed the evidence and the assumptions behind the predictive models used and concluded that there is very l...
I'm not missing that point because in that post I put on the realist shoes, so to speak. Remove the "out there" if you want, the point still stands, i...
Saying there is no object that is perceived as it is independently of the perceiver is not saying that there is nothing beyond perception, of course i...
But if you say that phenomena (experiences) refer to real things, as in the phenomenon of a tree refers to a real tree out there, and the phenomenon o...
Ok I understand you agree that knowing something is at least partly believing it. But when we say "X is true" we're not even saying "I know X is true"...
But I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. For instance, someone can claim their faith in God is based on experiences they have had or on some argu...
How do you define belief then, if not by "acceptance that something is true"? If you believe that the Sun is going to rise tomorrow, you might say it'...
And belief is also separated from empirical evidence and logic to some extent, saying "theory X is true" basically ignores the problem of induction. A...
I don't see a fundamental difference between belief and faith, dictionaries define belief as "acceptance that something is true", and faith as "someth...
And then you make a breakthrough when you realize that many of the people who criticize man-made global warming or the theory of evolution are not ign...
It's Laudan not Lauden (you made the mistake twice so I'm mentioning it). I don't think you understand the problem if you think that one has to rigoro...
If that's your relationship with truth then okay. But plenty of people do not equate "I believe X is true" with "X is true". In "X is true" there is i...
Which is still not what he says, he says "X" is true because evidence supports "X", not that he believes "X" is true. No I wouldn't say that. However ...
That's not right, he doesn't have to rigorously define what 'science' is if his point is that it can't be done (or at best that despite all efforts th...
But that's not what he said. He said "X" is true because there is evidence that supports it: The believing isn’t what makes evolution true or not, it’...
Read the beginning and the end of Laudan's paper, he explains it probably better than I could. But in my own words, it matters because scientists dism...
By "A sufficient condition is a superset of a necessary condition", I mean that a sufficient condition for something respects all the necessary condit...
Yes yes yes, and that scientism runs deep. Look at this link from Richard Dawkins' website: https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/09/why-i-dont-believe-...
I said "at worst", as in not necessarily responsible. What a bad analogy again. Choosing whether or not to have a child is not analog to a teacher cho...
At worst a little responsible for their suffering , and greatly responsible for their joy (in the case where I do my best to bring happiness to the ch...
I don't necessarily agree with that though. Let's say that in this 'reality', there are no laws that are set in stone, but rather some beings have cre...
Who gets to decide what counts as "sufficient evidence"? Scientists talk about other universes and about dark energy, yet I'm sure you don't treat tho...
That's not far from my own point of view. Where I differ is that I would say it's possible to have the experience that other things exist besides our ...
But is your certainty on this a rule or a law? And if it is a rule, how can you know that gravity is a law, and thus that we will never find a way to ...
Yes, that's the idea of science I grew up with, but then more and more I realized how keeping an open mind is precisely not an attitude that character...
But you could assume that Einstein's theory of gravity is complete, it is precisely this assumption that leads astrophysicists/cosmologists to suppose...
The problem with that characterization is that people can then claim that "emotional and social needs" can be controlled or fulfilled through "predict...
The concept of time stems from our perception of change, and time is defined relationally. For instance I might say "time runs slow today", because co...
Indeed :up: "Scientific facts" change as well as religious metaphors. The stories that scientists used to tell are very different from the one they te...
Interesting train of thought. To make sure I understand you correctly, "law" is often defined as a "system of rules which a particular country or comm...
Yes you understood that correctly. Strictly speaking I wouldn't say emergence doesn't exist, for instance I do agree that there are laws of biology an...
It depends how we define life. We could have self-sustaining aggregates of molecules that follow the laws of chemistry and that we call life forms, in...
Don't worry about the physics or maths, they don't explain that either. Basically the concept of energy stems from assuming that there are laws that d...
I'm talking about the impossibility to explain consciousness in a materialist framework (by consciousness I refer to what a being experiences: percept...
Comments