Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis
No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work. — Isaac
There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama. — synthesis
science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward. — synthesis
I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict. — counterpunch
Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knowing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause. — Isaac
science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward.
— synthesis
I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence. — Isaac
I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict. — counterpunch
Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that). — synthesis
There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven? — synthesis
Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. — Isaac
You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views. — synthesis
I think quantum physics is philosophically mistaken in assuming the idea of fundamental building blocks. Rather, I think quantum physics is a science of the frayed edge of reality where something bleeds into nothing; that quantum effects can be explained as the lack - and gaining of existential properties, location velocity, mass - etc, by things that don't quite exist, and that the central focus of reality is the causal, deterministic, macroscopic reality we inhabit, where all the forces intersect. — counterpunch
Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).
— synthesis
Oh? Now I am interested. Is there a less primitive tool out there? — Echarmion
Since the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc! — counterpunch
I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct. — synthesis
As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access. — synthesis
And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything? — synthesis
I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!) — counterpunch
As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
— synthesis
Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists. — counterpunch
Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms. — counterpunch
And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis
It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible. — counterpunch
in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. — counterpunch
The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally). — synthesis
Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative). — synthesis
Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing? — synthesis
There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth — synthesis
there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth — counterpunch
Completely unlike the right wing populist respect for truth? — Pfhorrest
The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
— synthesis
I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind. — counterpunch
Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
— synthesis
I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it? — counterpunch
Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
— synthesis
Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am. — counterpunch
Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!
Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved. — counterpunch
Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality? — counterpunch
Think of it this way...things are as good as they can be each and every moment. — synthesis
Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters). — synthesis
*sigh*You say that I have not answered your questions. I am not sure what they were exactly because it is hard to find them in this long thread. — Jack Cummins
IOW, standard examples of the self-serving bias and the fundamental attribution error.What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.
/.../
People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk. — Kenosha Kid
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.