-Science respects Objectivism. Emprirical methodologies are accepted due to their ability to produce objective frameworks....not because of an arbitrary belief. Any method being able to produce objective facts is and will be highly respected. — Nickolasgaspar
ITs the rules of logic and evidence that point to what is real. Science just provides the objective evidence for us to make the ruling. — Nickolasgaspar
-"It puts faith in the methods of science."
-No, we don't need faith to trust the methods of science. — Nickolasgaspar
-No scientism is the belief that only science can provide knowledge claims and scientific methods can answer everything. — Nickolasgaspar
Having a belief in a system that has proven itself again and again its called "being reasonable". Science is the most reliable, methodical and systematic method we currently have. — Nickolasgaspar
-" It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. "
-It signifies a certain way to evaluate irrational claims and irrational claims...not Truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truths since its frameworks are tentative based on current objective facts and observations( observations advance,facts change thus our science may change). — Nickolasgaspar
4.300 conflicting religious dogmas, 160+ spiritual supernatural worldviews etc have proven the untrustworthiness of subjective interpretations, feelings and opinions used as foundations for ontological claims. — Nickolasgaspar
This ruling comes from logic..science only provides the evidence. — Nickolasgaspar
-Those two great philosophers have really bad arguments on metaphysics and what is real. Everyone should read them but they should also be informed of the epistemology and Basic Logic which render their arguments unsound and bad philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
-" Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful."
-They are useful ...only in an idealistic frame of reference. Within Methodological Naturalism and Instrumentalism they are useless. Its a waste of time and a huge argument from ignorance in my opinion. — Nickolasgaspar
-" But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy." "
-That is a factually wrong statement. — Nickolasgaspar
First of all science doesn't assume the world is material, mechanical etc.
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism meaning that we understand that the limits of our current methods of investigation and observations are limited within the Natural realm. So investigating the Natural aspects of the cosmos (matter, physical properties) is a Pragmatic Necessity, not an arbitrary philosophical bias. — Nickolasgaspar
1. Objective, independent verification is one of core scientific standards used in the evaluation of all theoretical framework. If that says nothing to you then you should take a modern course on Philosophy of Science ASAP.Science doesn't produce objective facts. "Science respects Objectivism" is meaningless to me -- and I don't know why you capitalize it. If you're referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy, then I have no idea why you'd invoke it here. — Xtrix
-You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. Again the remedy is a course on Philosophy of Science. Paul Hoyningen-Huene has a great course for free on his Youtube channel. (no need of a Mooc subscription).What is called science -- astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology -- has a multitude of methods, questions, assumptions. If we want to make generalizations, I tend to hold to the historical perspective, where "science" is natural philosophy. What we're "doing" when we do science is treating the world as natural or physical -- i.e., objective -- as substantive, quantitative, material. It takes on a view of the world as an object, a machine, or as forces acting on matter. Without this naturalistic assumption, it's hard to believe one is doing science. We look for natural explanations to natural phenomena.
All of what I said above is an ontological position. None of it is "arbitrary," nor did I say that. — Xtrix
Science doesn't produce objective facts. "Science respects Objectivism" is meaningless to me -- and I don't know why you capitalize it. If you're referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy, then I have no idea why you'd invoke it here.
— Xtrix
1. Objective, independent verification is one of core scientific standards used in the evaluation of all theoretical framework. If that says nothing to you then you should take a modern course on Philosophy of Science ASAP. — Nickolasgaspar
You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. Again the remedy is a course on Philosophy of Science. — Nickolasgaspar
-"It's as if you treat science as an industry that "produces" and "provides" human beings with "objective evidence," etc. If you pardon me, but that's a rather outdated view."
-You are confusing scientists with science. Again...take that course. — Nickolasgaspar
-lol Again ....objective verification or falsification makes faith redundant, either we have facts to support our frameworks or we don't. — Nickolasgaspar
Science doesn't produce objective facts.
I said nothing about independent verification, which is one aspect of what's called science, yes. — Xtrix
-you literally stated :"-"Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief."But in case anyone is following along this weird exchange: metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. — Xtrix
- you do understand that computers since 1978 have this thing called "copy paste". I can copy paste your confusing statements and beat them up!Whatever "confusion" you're referring to you've simply invented, so that you can further pretend to act as an authority of some kind. But that's your own business. — Xtrix
oh! we already reached the ad Absurdum part of the conversation. Good this means that the end is near of this painful interaction.And what's the objective verification or objective verification? — Xtrix
-actually its Science vs Magic and Religion.Or we can stick with the faith (religion) vs. science view -- very commonplace, very simplistic. If this is what all this "philosophy of science" class-taking produces, I'm not impressed. — Xtrix
Peer review could work only if the peers are honest, objective, and of diverse capacities. I have not seen evidence that there is sufficient rigour in determining that peer reviewers are sufficiently honest and capable. — Yohan
-First of all, logical soundness is achieved by the objective verification of claims. So in peer review processes logicians aren't necessary. Basic Logic is more than enough.What is necessary is a good knowledge of current epistemology avoidance of logical fallacies(by demanding evidence) and rejection of non methodological and naturalistic principles.So if you want your work to be reviewed for logical soundness, yet there are no logicians on the panel of peers, for example, it's not likely to be rigorously reviewed for logical soundness. — Yohan
-Peer reviewers check the claims in relation to the offered facts, the methodology and the standards used in a study.I'd like to see a checklist for all the things peer reviewers check, and a checklist for all the things looked for in choosing a peer to do peer review. — Yohan
-You should but that doesn't mean that it isn't a successful process. Issues with integrity or pure incompetent can only delay the final evaluation of studies. The self correcting mechanisms (Objectivity, independent verifiability,meta analysis/ life long falsifiability) offer a dynamic platform where frameworks can rise and fall based on the same high criteria independent of personal agendas.I'm very very skeptical that the peer review process is at all rigorous on the whole. — Yohan
You are shifting goal posts.-This is only because your expectations were not reasonable. Again the process is messy and slow but it is really successful in keeping nonsense away from science — Nickolasgaspar
What does objective truth mean? Is this a scientific term? What is the difference between objective and absolute? Can objective truth be wrong?Scientific evaluation can offer objective truth..not absolute truth. — Nickolasgaspar
Also, is possible to apply a science to the subjective.
Eg some claim that there is a science to some therapies or self actualization techniques like meditation and yoga, or to improving ones skills, or the "science of success". As long as one can demonstrate an ability to predict an outcome of a technique many times, with peer review etc I think it should have the right to be called a science as well.
I am not fan of this modern trend of methodological naturalism claiming exclusive rights to the label of science. Of course, it is not MN which has made this claim, but MNists(and not all of them) — Yohan
MN only identify exclusive limitations in what we as empirical beings and our systematic methods can investigate.I am not fan of this modern trend of methodological naturalism claiming exclusive rights to the label of science. Of course, it is not MN which has made this claim, but MNists(and not all of them — Yohan
Why does the evidence have to be accessible to everyone? And how could we possibly know if something is accessible to everyone? Who is everyone?Objectively true is a claim that is in agreement with evidence currently accessible to everyone. — Nickolasgaspar
Well, I suppose no claim can be absolutely true. Logically I have to believe there is something absolute though. Even If it can never be put as a claim.Absolute truth is a claim that is based on absolute facts meaning that no new facts exist that can change the value of truthiness of our claim. That of course is not possible. — Nickolasgaspar
By the criteria you've noted then, geocentrism used to be objectively true?i.e the available facts for centuries were supportive of the objective truthiness of the geocentric claim. — Nickolasgaspar
I think methodological naturalism helps us form reasonable positions about the "natural world". I don't see any reason to call these reasonable positions "objectively true"So objective truth doesn't mean absolute truth but its the only reasonable position to hold based on current available facts — Nickolasgaspar
-Because this is why we avoid to be scammed by con artists. This is why we don't answer back to emails from Nigerian Princes. This is why we hold receipts and reject claims that have economic implications for our well being. This is an essential quality of good evidence.!Why does the evidence have to be accessible to everyone? And how could we possibly know if something is accessible to everyone? Who is everyone?
Before there were people, there were no objective truths? — Yohan
I'm done unless you want to offer a deductive answer to my questionWhy does the evidence have to be accessible to everyone? And how could we possibly know if something is accessible to everyone? Who is everyone?
Before there were people, there were no objective truths?
— Yohan
-Because this is why we avoid to be scammed by con artists. This is why we don't answer back to emails from Nigerian Princes. This is why we hold receipts and reject claims that have economic implications for our well being. This is an essential quality of good evidence.! — Nickolasgaspar
Science doesn't produce objective facts.
I said nothing about independent verification, which is one aspect of what's called science, yes.
— Xtrix
-So you don't get which quality is responsible for "independent verification"..... Let me give out some letters...it starts with "object" and ends with "ivity"...............
The objective nature of facts allow independent verification. — Nickolasgaspar
If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method and the produced knowledge — Nickolasgaspar
But in case anyone is following along this weird exchange: metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about.
— Xtrix
-you literally stated :"-"Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief."
Science identifies what is real by justifying Knowledge Based beliefs...not a philosophical ones. This is achieved because the scientific claims that describe reality are Objectively true with Current facts( not absolute true based on ultimate knowledge/red herring). — Nickolasgaspar
MEthodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical worldview — Nickolasgaspar
metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. — Xtrix
I think I will have to explain to you what objectivity means. — Nickolasgaspar
When one can arrive at the same results with the method published by others that means that the conclusions are objective based on an objective methodological process. — Nickolasgaspar
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.
Again I am not sure you understand what Objectivity is!
Objective it doesn't mean absolute true or correct. IT means that a claim or an observation is in agreement with current accessible facts and others can verify that!!!!!!! — Nickolasgaspar
Priests, Lords, kings, politicians had it their way because none of their claims were objective. — Nickolasgaspar
Never mind. — Yohan
The "science" in this case being based on human reason, intelligence and creativity. Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief. "Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view. It puts faith in the methods of science. Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism." It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. This is why nearly everyone who wrestles with these questions should read Descartes and Kant, at minimum, or at least familiarize yourself with their arguments. Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful.
At the end of the day, I think what's called "science" is the best we have for making predictions and understanding causal relations. But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy." — Xtrix
Science doesn't produce objective facts. — Xtrix
-This is an other misconception of yours. There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method". Again science has many methodologies that are capable of producing objective facts.Yes, please educate us all about what you've learned about the "Scientific Method" (which isn't capitalized, by the way) and its "objective nature" from your high school science cours — Xtrix
-You either sound confused or you purposely trying to switch sides in this argument.There is no scientific method. There are many methods, and many questions, that is employed by human beings to understand the world. — Xtrix
-We can take this to my native language....but you won't be able to write a word.It's funny listening to a person who can compose the above sentence give advice about "taking courses."How about a course in English? — Xtrix
Yes, that's exactly my point. What is called "real" is, according to the view I was discussing, determined by science. Science, in turn, is not without ontology. You, like other believers in scientism, like to claim that there's a special "method" that "produces" objective facts -- that somehow this "knowledge" is distinguished from philosophy. None of that is the case. — Xtrix
Science has a philosophical basis. Science -- modern science -- has, in fact, emerged from philosophy, what used to be called "natural philosophy." Eventually you get to assumptions, axioms, beliefs, that cannot further be justified by appeals to empiricism, the senses, or "objectivity." I don't expect you to understand any of this, however -- you certainly haven't understood anything else I've written. You're interested solely in posturing, and you're making a fool of yoursel — Xtrix
"Knowledge Based" is not capitalized, by the way. Try engaging less with philosophy and more with basic writing and arithmetic. — Xtrix
When one can arrive at the same results with the method published by others that means that the conclusions are objective based on an objective methodological process. — Nickolasgaspar
Riveting!
"Conclusions are objective because they are based on objective methodological processes." — Xtrix
Take a course on Philosophy of Science.... — Nickolasgaspar
Science has a set of empirical methodologies that can provide objective facts — Nickolasgaspar
There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method". — Nickolasgaspar
There is no scientific method. There are many methods, and many questions, that is employed by human beings to understand the world. — Xtrix
Science is the most reliable, methodical and systematic method we currently have. — Nickolasgaspar
If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method — Nickolasgaspar
What we call real is defined by our limited methods used to OBJECTIVELY VERIFY what exists. — Nickolasgaspar
The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.
Science has the ability to verify processes and structures with a specific ontology. This is due to Pragmatic Necessity NOT because of a subjective philosophical bias. — Nickolasgaspar
Scientism is the belief that only science can be the source of our epistemology and science can answer everything. — Nickolasgaspar
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude toward the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism. This article explains what scientific realism is, outlines its main variants, considers the most common arguments for and against the position, and contrasts it with its most important antirealist counterparts.
Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.[1][2]
"Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view. It puts faith in the methods of science. Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism." — Xtrix
It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. — Xtrix
Science split from philosophy because of minds and mentalities like yours. — Nickolasgaspar
The moment you accuse science for a ontological bias you wrongly accuse Methodological Naturalism being a metaphysical view. — Nickolasgaspar
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
keep your metaphysical naturalism out from the philosophical backbone of Science — Nickolasgaspar
I understand that you are desperate to protect your death denying ideology and objective facts together with Logic spoil your party.
So the only thing you are left with is to discredit the method that provide the evidence that render your beliefs unfounded and irrational. — Nickolasgaspar
You will need to study about Objectivism one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
Dude...you seriously need to educate yourself on basic concepts and what Science really is and why its so successful. — Nickolasgaspar
-because chronicling isn't philosophy of science. It doesn't address the reasons or the methods that allow science to be so successful in our epistemic inquiries.Why don’t we conduct a course on philosophy of science right now? First lesson; a survey of the history of philosophy of science — Joshs
The nature of science? when did I do that? Pls tell me what I said that points to the nature of science!You have represented a certain philosophical position on the nature of science, but let me ask you this. — Joshs
-Yes I find this question fair....and most of their critique outdated based mostly on Normative guidelines. In my opinion in order to understand why science is successful, our input must be Descriptive. This is why focusing in the history of science and the Normative objections fail to realize and describe the reasons why science works far better compared to any other empirical methodology.How would
you characterize the philosophical approaches to science offered by philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse? This is a legitimate question if you are going to represent yourself as someone who has a thoroughgoing knowledge of science studies in philosophy. — Joshs
As I already noted no decent survey course on the history of this topic would leave out these authors but again their normative convictions are not helpful in understanding what is science, how it works and why it is so successful.. No decent survey course on this topic would leave out the authors I mentioned above. — Joshs
-I am aware of this outdated Normative approach and the distortion of concepts like Objectivism.Also , the position Xtrix has been putting forth in this thread is generally consistent with their perspectives on science. — Joshs
-He is reproducing outdated and failed critiques. What would you say to someone who would argue in favor of the heliocentric model....just because it was part of the scientific curriculum...once upon a time?So maybe instead of accusing Xtrix of being unfamiliar with the philosophy of science, you should instead simply state that you dont agree with the views of the authors I mentioned — Joshs
I suppose you could also claim that these writers are not legitimate philosophers of science, in which case you may want to encourage them to take a course on philosophy of science. — Joshs
-As I said before I am aware of this critique based on Normative guidelines, but their authors have failed to explain the run away success of science.Or you could claim that Xtrix is misinterpreting Kuhn, Feyerabend et al, in which case I’d be glad to go over with you what they have written and match them up against what Xtrix is claiming. — Joshs
-I guess you can see now why you have to wait for a response before trying to answer your initial question.....Or you could say that you haven’t read the work of these authors, in which case I would respond…yep, you guessed it:go take a course in philosophy of science. — Joshs
you hold factually and fractally wrong beliefs — Nickolasgaspar
-Yes I find this question fair....and most of their critique outdated based mostly on Normative guidelines. — Nickolasgaspar
I am sure that I have posted you links ...don't you read my comments or are you preoccupied preparing your apologetic?What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course. — Xtrix
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.