That nicely brings out the paradox in the conclusion. It's not a question of mistrusting everything we see, but of deciding what to trust. Mistrusting what you see that told you that your couldn't trust what you see is confusing.See the straight stick, see the crooked stick, trust enough on what we see, to understand what we see cannot be trusted. — Richard B
Your reply is correct. But "people" already know that. The problem is that what you take as the explanation of solidity, they take as undermining solidity. You have to show them that they have messed about with the meaning of "real". It is a mistake to allow them to get away with that, because once that's happened, there's no way back.My thinking is that, whatever the answers might be, they are the answer to how we come about. People say, "That steel isn't really solid. It's mostly empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is what gives us the illusion of solidify." I say that's empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is, is how solidity is accomplished. — Patterner
If you start with the idea of the supernatural, the strategy makes sense. But what gives you the idea that there is such a thing?Appeals to the supernatural lack direct empirical exemplars; one cannot simply point to observable cases in support. Instead, such appeals often proceed obliquely, through critiques of the epistemological limits of science or argument from hallucination or the inadequacies of a materialist/naturalist ontology. The strategy tends to rely on undermining the dominant framework, entering through a kind of philosophical back door, if you'll pardon the clumsy metaphor. — Tom Storm
I think if you look a bit closer, you'll notice that you are only telling half the story. The people who argue that what's going on is not what it seems to be will have another explanation of what is "really" going on. Which also turns out to be false. It's been the pattern ever since records began, and likely before that. Socrates is the only person who had it right - he stopped at "we don't know".That's evidenced perfectly by the entire history of humanity not knowing what the fuck is going on, because it isn't as it seems. — AmadeusD
You are right to think that it is the specialized use of "real" (and company) that is the source of the problem. But you seem to be repeating the mistake by using "rock-solid" and "bedrock" in a metaphorical way without examining what they might mean in this exotic context. You might also ask yourself whether there is really anything wrong with being good enough for practical purposes and consider whether it is your decision to "slow things down" that is the source of the trouble.And now we’ve stumbled upon one of the central confusions of communication: we use words like “real,” “physical,” and “objective,” without having any rock-solid idea what they refer to. They work well enough for practical purposes—don’t touch the stove, it’s matter and it’s hot. But when we slow things down and look closely, the bedrock starts to look like smoke. There is no stable ground to land on. The closer we try to get to the thing itself, the more it unravels into interpretation, probability, model, rule. — Kurt
Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised. — Banno
Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised. — Banno
Fair enough. I wasn't quite clear where you stood.But what gives you the idea that there is such a thing?
— Ludwig V
I don't. I'm responding to the claims. — Tom Storm
I'm pretty sure that every day there are more discoveries that do not defy science. But they are not so newsworthy. Your sample may be a bit biased.Every day there's new discoveries which defy science. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know what you mean. It seems to me - but perhaps I'm naive - that the sun, the moon, and the tides are pretty much predictable. though the wind and the rain are less so. The stock in my corner shop is usually what I expect, though there are regrettable lapses. My car usually starts when I want it to; it has only let me down when I have not used it in a while, which is pretty much predictable. Football, cricket etc. matches happen when expected, though I grant you that the results are less predictable. Which number will come up in a lottery is not predictable, although we can be sure that someone will win - normally. Other gambles are also unpredictable, except that we know that the bank or the bookie will win.I wouldn't say that this constitutes miracles, only that science doesn't really have the capacity to predict what the world will do. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's extraordinary to claim that the world is coherent and predictable yet we all fail to come to a common understanding of what the world is, how it came to be, what our purpose is (or even if there there is one), what is moral, what is real, what is truth, what language is, etc.It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable. — Banno
Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised.
— Banno
Not according to the pop-up headlines I get on the internet. Every day there's new discoveries which defy science. Furthermore, there's a whole range of human activities which are completely unpredictable.
I wouldn't say that this constitutes miracles, only that science doesn't really have the capacity to predict what the world will do. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm more concerned with the definition of "solid" at the moment. The definition does not say there is no space between nucleus and electrons, between atoms, between molecules, etc. The explanation for solidity is not the somewhat vague idea probably everyone has before learning what's really going on. but when a rock is coming out your head, regardless of all that, it's best to prevent that impact.My thinking is that, whatever the answers might be, they are the answer to how we come about. People say, "That steel isn't really solid. It's mostly empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is what gives us the illusion of solidify." I say that's empty space between nuclei and electrons, and the way electrons repel each other is, is how solidity is accomplished.
— Patterner
Your reply is correct. But "people" already know that. The problem is that what you take as the explanation of solidity, they take as undermining solidity. You have to show them that they have messed about with the meaning of "real". It is a mistake to allow them to get away with that, because once that's happened, there's no way back. — Ludwig V
So the topic is "On Matter, Meaning, and the Elusiveness of the Real", yet you claim that pointing out that what is real is right there before you is irrelevant. — Banno
The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. This has been true for hte entirety of human history.
As I noted. Are you arguing against this premise? — AmadeusD
I agree with you that sometimes we are surprised or mistaken. — Banno
Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrative — Banno
I'm pretty sure that every day there are more discoveries that do not defy science. But they are not so newsworthy. Your sample may be a bit biased. — Ludwig V
But isn't it fair to say that this is, precisely, the "world doing as advertised", including the unpredictability of people? I don't mean this just as a smart comeback, but something deeply true. Our scientific view of the world allows us to predict with confidence that our views will be regularly upended by new insights and discoveries! We didn't use to know that, but now we do, and that is now "how the world works." — J
Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrative, but predictably go to the shop to buy their sausages. — Banno
They type on their device fully expecting a reply from Banno, and sometimes get one. — Banno
Do we want to discuss these things, or make drive-by shots on each other? — AmadeusD
Sure, the world is sometimes not as expected. But we can see this only becasue overwhelmingly it is coherent. Chairs do not turn into cats, chalk is not democracy and so on. — Banno
The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty. — Banno
Just that, in a fairly straight forward way. The arm chair appears to be an arm chair because it is an arm chair, the cat appears to be a cat becasue it is a cat."the world is as it appears" — AmadeusD
who never listens — Metaphysician Undercover
The explanation (analysis) of solidity is a surprise - counter-intuitive, if you like. One can see why some people want to say that solid things are not "really" solid. But everyday phenomena are not denied by the explanation - on the contrary, they are affirmed. Perhaps we need to change the definition, perhaps we don't. That's another question.I'm more concerned with the definition of "solid" at the moment. The definition does not say there is no space between nucleus and electrons, between atoms, between molecules, etc. The explanation for solidity is not the somewhat vague idea probably everyone has before learning what's really going on. but when a rock is coming out your head, regardless of all that, it's best to prevent that impact. — Patterner
True.Well, we still have the unpredictability of human actions to account for. — Metaphysician Undercover
True.The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. — AmadeusD
True.Sure, the world is sometimes not as expected. But we can see this only becasue overwhelmingly it is coherent. — Banno
True.Our scientific view of the world allows us to predict with confidence that our views will be regularly upended by new insights and discoveries! — J
So that's Banno's diagnosis - it's about scepticism.The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty. — Banno
The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty.
— Banno
So that's Banno's diagnosis - it's about scepticism. — Ludwig V
The deeper question that I think we should be talking about is what lies behind the ancient philosophical tradition of denying common sense reality. — Ludwig V
I'm sure it is not meant to be traditional philosophical sceptical doubt. On the contrary, that background of certainty is what prevents it running out of control, so to speak, and becoming the radical doubt that we were all brought up to combat. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.I don't follow that. How does skepticism enter the picture? I took Banno to mean that we wouldn't have a reason to doubt something or find it odd unless we were used to things being a certain way. That's not meant to be skeptical doubt, I don't think. — J
Thanks for outlining how you understand the word. Generalization is indeed a tricky business. I tend to regard it with deep suspicion, especially in the context of philosophy. The disagreement about certainty and uncertainty seems to me to be a case where generalization has generated a furious and false debate. It sweeps differences aside and makes them hard to see. No, I'm not saying that all generalizations do that. I am saying that some do, and it's not helpful.Part of common-sense reality is a robust confidence that we can accept it. "Reality" here refers not only to the content of whatever beliefs and perceptions we may have, but also to the efficacy of our own equipment, so to speak. I read the early Greeks as mostly questioning (not denying) the former. But there are many examples to pick from, and I shouldn't generalize. — J
Yes. We need the assumption of coherence and predictability because that's what generates our questions. I think of it as a "hinge", but more of a methodological assumption than a belief. It can't be simply empirical - what could refute it?As brilliant and imaginative as many people are, I cannot imagine anyone is ever going to come up with any workable explanation for how things exist as they do if there was not coherence and predictability. If electrons did not always have negative charges. If mass did not always warp spacetime. — Patterner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.