-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

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.

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.

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'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 If you pardon me, but that's a rather outdated view.

-"It puts faith in the methods of science."
-No, we don't need faith to trust the methods of science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, we do. The fact you don't think faith is involved is exactly my point: you're a follower of scientism. Science and its methods don't require faith because it deals with objective truth, with reason. A view I once held, too. Ultimately misguided, but gives one a nice epistemological grounding.

-No scientism is the belief that only science can provide knowledge claims and scientific methods can answer everything. — Nickolasgaspar

That's not scientism. One doesn't have to claim that science can answer everything.

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

Proven itself how? Also failed us, many times.

Again you treat science as if its well understood what it is. It isn't.

Science is not simple a "reliable, systematic method." There are many questions and many methods in studying nature. It cannot be reduced to a single "scientific method." That has been tried, and has failed over and over again. So by your account, it's reasonable to let go of that picture.

-" 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

Science deals in truth. Facts and reality.

I never once mentioned "absolutely truth."

"Water is H20" isn't simply a "rational" claim -- it's true. Why is it true? Because there's mountains of evidence and reason supporting it.

There's no contradiction.

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

There's that word "subjective." Again, you betray your own beliefs. In this case, a belief in the "objective" world, of a subject-object duality, of science as separate from "religious dogmas and spiritual worldviews," one that finally parts ways with faith and superstition, etc.

Some of this is true, but most of it is just a story we "smart guys" like to tell ourselves.

Modern science is great at dealing with causal relations, in making predictions, in finding ways to quantify and mathematicize questions -- I have high respect for scientists, as I've said.

None of this contradicts my point about ontology.

This ruling comes from logic..science only provides the evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, but not all religious belief is founded on blind faith, as you seem to want to claim. Plenty of reasons, plenty of evidence, plenty of logic.

Science doesn't "provide" us with anything. We, as human beings, have our minds and our senses. The world provides the "evidence" and we can interpret/understand it in various ways. Natural philosophy -- seeing the world as objective -- is one interpretation.

-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

You strike me as rather young. This is something a young person would say, in my view. I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't read a word of either philosopher.

Your entire response reeks of posturing. Please stop that. I'm not interested in ego or power struggles. You want to portray yourself as authoritative, but no one I have ever met who has had any real expertise has communicated as you do. I have grown very good at sniffing out shallowness.

-" 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

This is what I mean. First you have no understand what I meant -- which you have shown no evidence of. Maybe I'm wrong: what exactly do I mean by Heidegger and the subject/object distinction? What exactly have you read of Heidegger? Of Nietzsche?

WHAT exactly are you referring to as a "waste of time and huge argument from ignorance"? You say "its" -- as many students do who try to bullshit their way through essays.

-" 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

:roll:

It's not a factual statement at all. It's my opinion.

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

I never once said it was "arbitrary" -- that is your own addition.

I never once said that science believes the world is only material and mechanical -- but those are indeed two important aspects of naturalism. There are also forces of nature, which are not material. And, of course, not everything is machine-like. But historically speaking, and even today, these are often assumed.

The essential feature of science, as I've repeated often, is its view of nature. Thus why it was once "natural philosophy."

So I'm not entirely sure what you're "disagreeing" with here, but it appears you very much want to.

Why you, as a relatively new person who has few posts, want to jump into a thread like this and start contradicting statements of mine -- which you demonstrate over and over that you don't understand -- is beyond me.

If you want clarification or to ask a question, I'm happy to answer. I'm not interested in posturing or lecturing.

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.

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

-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).

-"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.


-"Yes, we do. The fact you don't think faith is involved is exactly my point: you're a follower of scientism. Science and its methods don't require faith because it deals with objective truth, with reason. A view I once held, too. Ultimately misguided, but gives one a nice epistemological grounding."
-lol Again ....objective verification or falsification makes faith redundant, either we have facts to support our frameworks or we don't......so this is how this will go lol?
Not taking claims on faith is why we use this method. You are obviously way to ignorant to talk about this topic.
I rest my case.
Take a course on Philosophy of Science....

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

Science doesn't produce objective facts.

I said nothing about independent verification, which is one aspect of what's called science, yes.

"Objectivism" means nothing in your context. You worded it poorly. Science tries to be objective -- if this is what you meant, fine. "Science respects Objectivism" (with the "O" capitalized) is meaningless. "Science" doesn't "respect" anything -- science is not a person. Also, "Objectivism" (capitalized) refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

So perhaps "take a modern course" on elementary writing before giving lectures to others.

You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. Again the remedy is a course on Philosophy of Science. — Nickolasgaspar

:yawn:

First try showing you're not a complete imbecile before giving anyone advice about courses they should take. I realize I've wounded your ego, but statements like the above only prove my point.

You're mostly a waste of time. But in case anyone is following along this weird exchange: metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. 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.

True, many scientists are religious men and women -- what one may call religious or spiritual naturalists. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

(Side note: knowing the various "isms" of philosophy is usually a sign of someone who can't think his way out of a paper bag.)

-"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

I never once mentioned scientists. Take a course on reading. And go create Scarecrows elsewhere.

(Why is it always the most ignorant among us who dole out statements like "Do your homework" and "Go take a course" or "Go read xyz," etc?)

-lol Again ....objective verification or falsification makes faith redundant, either we have facts to support our frameworks or we don't. — Nickolasgaspar

And what's the objective verification or objective verification?

Perhaps the world isn't "objective" at all. Perhaps ideas like "nature" itself have a long history and have changed in meaning as time passes.

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.

My honest advice: take a course in the philosophy of science. Don't just talk about it -- really do it. Also: reading comprehension and writing.

You're out of your league.

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.
Being in denial of reality is not an argument.

-"First try showing you're not a complete imbecile before giving anyone advice about courses they should take."
-Its not my fault sir. If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method and the produced knowledge, then something must be done if the for you is to continue conversing on this topic.

-"I realize I've wounded your ego, but statements like the above only prove my point."
-by denying facts???lol.....again this is not how valid or sound arguments are formed.

-"You're mostly a waste of time. "
-and how would you know without basic knowledge on the subject...pls take that course mate!

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).

You don't understand that Knowledge is a subset of belief. No reasonable individual will NOT believe in a knowledge claim. When you introduce the term " Philosophical belief" in Science's Objective empirical evaluations and frameworks, is when you meshed up and you are in need of some basic education between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism objective verification, and of course the differences between Knowledge based and Faith based beliefs.

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

- you do understand that computers since 1978 have this thing called "copy paste". I can copy paste your confusing statements and beat them up!

so your answer for my comment you quote:
"You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. Again the remedy is a course on Philosophy of Science."
...was the following:
-"True, many scientists are religious men and women -- what one may call religious or spiritual naturalists. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying."
-Red herrings are your specialty!

-"(Side note: knowing the various "isms" of philosophy is usually a sign of someone who can't think his way out of a paper bag.)"
-that sounds like a self critique. Again take a course on Philosophy of Science and you will understand why MEthodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical worldview but an Acknowledgement of the limits in our methodologies and why Science offers Objective Knowledge based beliefs...not faith based ones.


-"I never once mentioned scientists. Take a course on reading. And go create Scarecrows elsewhere."
-Last time a checked scientists are human beings and they are the ones who practice scientific methodologies.
This is really simple, I think I will have to explain to you what objectivity means.
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. They all have access to the facts, the same observations and the same final conclusions. This means that personal feelings beliefs and viewpoint are not able to change all the above.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you...seriously.

-"(Why is it always the most ignorant among us who dole out statements like "Do your homework" and "Go take a course" or "Go read xyz," etc?)"
-this is something between you and yourself.....Now go take that course and learn what Objectivity is.
Learn why Scientific methodologies reject subjective interpretations and evidence.

And what's the objective verification or objective verification? — Xtrix

oh! we already reached the ad Absurdum part of the conversation. Good this means that the end is near of this painful interaction.
Logic my friend....Basic Logic. Subjective claims have produced thousands of magical claims(religions, mystical woo, spiritual worldviews, ghosts, snake oil remedies etc etc etc etc).
Objective evaluation of any claim is how we protect ourselves from con artists.
Objectivity is verified EVERY time we put it on the test.
The acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is accepted as knowledge because it has being objectively verified again and again. We can shoot rockets to space because we know what acceleration is needed to escape gravity. We can calculate objective facts in order to design airplane wings and allow them to fly,
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!!!!!!!

-"Perhaps the world isn't "objective" at all. Perhaps ideas like "nature" itself have a long history and have changed in meaning as time passes."
-Finally its confirmed...you don't know what "objective" means....but instead asking for definition, you blindly attack science...great.

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

-actually its Science vs Magic and Religion.
there is a great course by UCLA on this arm race between scientific and magical thinking and how magic thinking gave rise to religions and returned to fuel new age spiritual beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zx-qcNZf4&list=PLFFD1C791A86FB485

Here is a short lecture on the Nature of Science by Paula Hoyningen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK7uhQ_QCk
and his full lecture.(if you are interested I can send you other lecturers too).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8teUgZcBY&list=PLGV2ddg-PFGvWKDeTyrUji7TXY8y1SHjl
Again...they are free.


-"My honest advice: take a course in the philosophy of science. Don't just talk about it -- really do it. Also: reading comprehension and writing.
You're out of your league. "
-Self critique is encouraging...keep it up!
Cheers.
ps. Pls Let me know what went wrong with your "subjective" definition for "objective". ; )

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.

Also there are multiple angles from which to critique a work.
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.

I'd like to see a checklist for all the things peer reviewers check for, and a checklist for vetting process in choosing a peer to do peer review.

I'm skeptical that the peer review process is sufficiently rigorous.
I am only now starting to research peer review, though

Do you have sufficient evidence or reason for why the public ought to have confidence in the peer review process to tell us what is good or bad science?

I'm very skeptical of any group of people telling the public what it ought to believe. It should tell us what the experiment was, and the results of the experiment, and let the individual reader determine for themselves if the results are sufficient to warrent accepting or rejecting a theory or hypothesis. (My opinion of course)

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

-well that is a condition but its not the only self correcting mechanism of the process. Objectivity binds the published findings but it also binds the critique. The economic system we are in forces integrity and sufficient honesty to the process. Why is that? Because journals are competing for state so if they manage to publish objectively robust studies that can't be shaken, they will have an edge over others. The same is true for scientists. If they manage to offer objective objections of a study or even an accepted theory this means accolades and wealth for them and the journal publishing their critique.
Its like the air transportation industry. Growth of works comes from an excellent track record. Sure skipping services is a way to save money but having your planes not falling from the sky is a far superior way to increase your sales.
Do you get why science (like air services) are some of a few "industries" that use the economic system in favor of the end product???

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

-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.

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

-Peer reviewers check the claims in relation to the offered facts, the methodology and the standards used in a study.

I'm very very skeptical that the peer review process is at all rigorous on the whole. — 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 am only now starting to research peer review, and so far it doesn't look promising. "
-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.

-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

You are shifting goal posts.
Science is said to be objective because it is sufficiently rigorous, with experiments and peer review.
I don't see good evidence to think passing peer review is a reliable means to determine if a scientific work is true...Objective? Maybe peer review can increase the likelihood that a work is scientific in nature and worth taking seriously. But how do we determine a work is objectively...true?

No I am not. You set the goal post in a level you expected to be, but like all human affairs, evaluating claims is also messy.

-"Science is said to be objective because it is sufficiently rigorous, with experiments and peer review."
-Correct. The human beings practicing it aren't but the method ensures that.

-"I don't see good evidence to think passing peer review is a reliable means to determine if a scientific work is true...Objective? "
-Then you must be living in a cave or writing from the past and you are not aware of the objective nature and instrumental value of the established epistemology. You don't know that peer review is NOT the pinnacle of our evaluations. the objective nature of all knowledge claims make them falsifiable for life.

-" Maybe peer review can increase the likelihood that a work is scientific in nature and worth taking seriously. But how do we determine a work is objectively...true?"
-Meta analysis and additional meta analysis. Peer reviewing is not a one time event.
You can have a study pass and after a while a meta analysis shows that it is at the low end of a bell curve graph. Or additional data question the methods so the study is challenged and reevaluated.
Again the evaluations of knowledge is an endless process.
Science offer our tentative position based on current available facts.
Our facts change because our technology enables better observations...and when they do our frameworks are reevaluated verified or replaced.
Scientific evaluation can offer objective truth..not absolute truth.

Scientific evaluation can offer objective truth..not absolute truth. — Nickolasgaspar

What does objective truth mean? Is this a scientific term? What is the difference between objective and absolute? Can objective truth be wrong?

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)

Objective truth means that any scientific theoretical framework can be verified by anyone who is willing to reproduce the steps listed in a study and use facts that are accessible to everyone.

Objectively true is a claim that is in agreement with evidence currently accessible to everyone.
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.
This opens a possibility for our current objective true to be wrong.
i.e the available facts for centuries were supportive of the objective truthiness of the geocentric claim.
The facts and observations were available to everyone (objective) and the conclusion didn't use any untestable assumptions.
Additional and far more credible facts render that objective "truth" to be wrong.

So objective truth doesn't mean absolute truth but its the only reasonable position to hold based on current available facts

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

-Of course this is what Neuroscience,psychology, medicine etc are doing. They apply systematic and objective methods on subjective qualities.
i.e. conscious thoughts are objective but since 2017 we can decode them by just reading fMRI scans.
We develope pain killers and therapies to improve specific conscious states that include pain,suffering, depression, etc etc. We even have identified and can affect specific parts of the brain and manipulate subjective experience or use our knowledge to make accurate diagnosis of pathology based on subjective reports.!

Now we know defuse thinking , either during meditation, yoga, self critique, having a shower while reflecting on your day and acts, mountain biking in the wild , can produce unorthodox connection and assist solutions.
Now Nobelist Daniel Kahneman has proved that humans are not good in predictions or intuitive guesses even specialists.
We are all acceptable to our vices, urges and environmental distraction.

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.
Science has earned our trust for the credibility of its methodologies and its theoretical narratives.
As we said they are objective but we can never be absolute sure for their truthiness.
So we must be careful with what we understand as absolute truth, but we should also understand why it is reasonable to accept science as the most credible source we currently have.
That is not because of a magical property but because of its systematicity and epistemic connectedness to the rest body of knowledge.

Objectively true is a claim that is in agreement with evidence currently accessible to everyone. — Nickolasgaspar

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?

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

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.

i.e the available facts for centuries were supportive of the objective truthiness of the geocentric claim. — Nickolasgaspar

By the criteria you've noted then, geocentrism used to be objectively true?

So objective truth doesn't mean absolute truth but its the only reasonable position to hold based on current available facts — 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"

(I might respond to your other post later. Good day)

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

-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.!

-"And how could we possibly know if something is accessible to everyone?"
-by trying to overview the facts and replicate the observations. By actually evaluating the objectivity of the method and its empirical foundations.

-"Who is everyone?"
-Everyone is ...everyone who decides to evaluate a claim. He should be able without using any subjective presumptions(i.e. the existence of the supernatural), to have access to the same facts,and be unable to find facts that conflict the narrative.

-"Before there were people, there were no objective truths?"
-Correct. Truth is an evaluation term humans made up. True evaluates claims that are in agreement with facts. Only premises and arguments can be true or not true...and post are human products.


-"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."
-Not really. in reality we can NOT know whether a claim is absolutely true or not. It might be but we have a limit at how we can prove things.This is why we try to falsify or verify claims...not prove them. And we constantly try to falsify everything with every new fact that comes to light.
The problem is that we are unable to know whether our observations have reach the absolute "end" or there is more "invisible" reality ahead of us. In some cases we are sure that we are not at the end, but in other cases we can not be sure.
"Absolute " its an idealistic concept, I don't know if it even reasonable to speculate about it since , as I said, we don't have a way to inform ourselves where we are in relation to that ultimate goal.

-"By the criteria you've noted then, geocentrism used to be objectively true?"
-Of course the facts that pointed to that framework were accessible and shared by everyone. The reason guiding to that conclusion didn't utilize any unfalsifiable principles so its was an objective acknowledgment ....based on the available facts of that periods.
Then Tycho Brahe and Kepler and Copernicus came along and with their observations and measurements they bough new facts on the table. Geocentrism was not objectively true any more.
Their observations and measurements were accessible and available for anyone to check them.

-"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""
-This is a game of words.
Reasonable position refers to the reasoning used to arrive to that conclusion(position).
Objectivity refers to the quality of the available facts that were used and narrated by the above reasoning.
good day

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
-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

I'm done unless you want to offer a deductive answer to my question
I asked a deductive question, and you offered an inductive justification. No amount of examples of white swans justifies the claim that whiteness is a necessary feature of swans.

Listen....if you don't understand why evidence have to be objective/accessible to everyone then you obviously missed the reasons behind all the misery and suffering in our world.
Priests, Lords, kings, politicians had it their way because none of their claims were objective.
(no Kings and priests don't have objective evidence from their divine authority).

-"Why does the evidence have to be accessible to everyone"
-because this is how we verify the truth/knowledge value of a claim and remove possibilities of some people playing games in the expense of others.
Again if you are unable to understand the value of objectivity...just think about al those religious claims and new age ideologies demanding money from their followers.

The more accessible evidence is to others, the more valuable it will be to others. What I meant was that evidence doesn't necessarily have to be accessible to everyone to be evidence of something. All of us probably have evidence of things only we ourselves are privy to.
Never mind.

Now you are addressing a different issue Yohan. You are referring good evidence and bad evidence.
I don't deny that there are different qualities of evidence.
i.e. Mystical revelations and anecdotal stories are evidence, but they are not good evidence, they don't meet , i.e. the criteria and standards of science thus they are rejected.
The problem with those "evidence" is that they are subjective evidence thus they can not be trusted.

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

Science doesn't produce objective facts.

That was your claim, and I've already explained why it isn't so. Your digression about independent verification is a predictable distraction tactic.

If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method and the produced knowledge — Nickolasgaspar

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 course.

There is no scientific method. There are many methods, and many questions, that is employed by human beings to understand the world.

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

It's funny listening to a person who can compose the above sentence give advice about "taking courses."How about a course in English?

"Science identifies what is real by..."

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.

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 yourself.

"Knowledge Based" is not capitalized, by the way. Try engaging less with philosophy and more with basic writing and arithmetic.

MEthodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical worldview — Nickolasgaspar

I'll just quote myself again, since you unsurprisingly failed to read -- yet again:

metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. — Xtrix

So again -- forget talking philosophy and science. Try Hooked on Phonics.

I think I will have to explain to you what objectivity means. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, because you've definitely demonstrated you're an authority in this conversation. :rofl:

I can't wait to see what profound insights you reveal...

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."

:up: :rofl:

Start with this:

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.

A much better explanation.

You don't understand what objectivity is. What a shocker. No wonder you want to so desperately appear otherwise.

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

:)

Google "correspondence theory of truth," honey.

You're a poor scientism advocate. Too bad you want to spend your energy posturing instead of learning.

Priests, Lords, kings, politicians had it their way because none of their claims were objective. — Nickolasgaspar

"They just didn't have the Scientific Method yet!"

So great to know human beings, after 200 thousand years, stumbled upon a way to "objective truth."

A nice historical story, believed mostly by posturing simpletons.

Never mind. — Yohan

Exactly. This is not someone worth spending much time on. Likely a semi-literate high school student on an ego trip. Can barely read or write, but wants to give lectures about epistemology. Hilarious.

To return to what was originally stated (correctly):

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

All of this stands.

Science was once called natural philosophy. The assumption made is that of naturalism. Whether this is taken simply as the best method to understand the world doesn't matter -- it still involves ontology. It is rooted in ideas about truth, knowledge, and reality. Ideas about "objectivity" itself is based on a separation between an object and the subject -- another distinction which has a long history and should not be taken for granted.

The word "nature" and "physics" has the same root Greek word, which is itself an interesting fact and worth exploring -- for those interested in learning something, rather than posturing.

Science doesn't produce objective facts. — Xtrix

That is an objectively wrong statement. Science has a set of empirical methodologies that can provide objective facts either in favor or against our hypotheses(falsification/verification process).

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

-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.

There is no scientific method. There are many methods, and many questions, that is employed by human beings to understand the world. — Xtrix

-You either sound confused or you purposely trying to switch sides in this argument.

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

-We can take this to my native language....but you won't be able to write a word.

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

-What we call real is defined by our limited methods used to OBJECTIVELY VERIFY what exists. 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. In addition to that we are not in a position to know whether different "ontologies" are possible. So pls stop whining if your preferred ontology "doesn't show up" on our "screens".

Now you seem to ignore the definition of scientism. Scientism is the belief that only science can be the source of our epistemology and science can answer everything.
I have never stated the above, on the contrary, I point that Science is limited and just one out of many ways to form knowledge claims....so you will need to let this strawman go.......

-"like to claim that there's a special "method" that "produces" objective facts"
-So you don't understand what "objective means" this is why you declare scientific methods special.
Can't help you there if you don't learn what the word means.

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

-Correct...but that doesn't help your case. Science split from philosophy because of minds and mentalities like yours.
Science holds way higher standards than academic philosophy does and objectivity is one of them.
I understand that your goal is similar to a religious people....you are struggling the "nothing special" cards, while you are using the products of science to do that.....hilarious.

"Knowledge Based" is not capitalized, by the way. Try engaging less with philosophy and more with basic writing and arithmetic. — Xtrix

Try to suppress the grammar Nazi in you.....focus on the objective facts and sound arguments you have to deal with and avoid posting red herrings.

-"I'll just quote myself again, since you unsurprisingly failed to read -- yet again:

metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. — Xtrix"
-I don't care what you think you are talking about. The moment you accuse science for a ontological bias you wrongly accuse Methodological Naturalism being a metaphysical view.
keep your metaphysical naturalism out from the philosophical backbone of Science

.

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

Dishonest sophistries....picking the conclusion while avoiding the main definition.

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.

-" 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."
-Irrelevant definition....(lol object?) An objective observation, method, interpretation is one that is guided by accessible (to anyone) facts and without any influences from biases and feelings.
You will need to study about Objectivism one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy...mate.
Dude...you seriously need to educate yourself on basic concepts and what Science really is and why its so successful.
Its a waste of time to talk to someone who thinks that the definition of objectivism is shared also by "the object" lol.
I think you are done. You are not here to learn or challenge your "theology".
You are here to guard your echo chamber of irrational beliefs.

Take a course on Philosophy of Science.... — Nickolasgaspar

Why don’t we conduct a course on philosophy of science right now? First lesson; a survey of the history of philosophy of science.
You have represented a certain philosophical position on the nature of science, but let me ask you this. 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. No decent survey course on this topic would leave out the authors I mentioned above. Also , the position Xtrix has been putting forth in this thread is generally consistent with their perspectives on science. 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. 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.
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.

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.


Here’s your first reading assignment for this course:

“From the 1960s on, sustained meta-methodological criticism emerged that drove philosophical focus away from scientific method. A brief look at those criticisms follows, with recommendations for further reading at the end of the entry.

Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) begins with a well-known shot across the bow for philosophers of science:

History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed. (1962: 1)

The image Kuhn thought needed transforming was the a-historical, rational reconstruction sought by many of the Logical Positivists, though Carnap and other positivists were actually quite sympathetic to Kuhn’s views. (See the entry on the Vienna Circle.) Kuhn shares with other of his contemporaries, such as Feyerabend and Lakatos, a commitment to a more empirical approach to philosophy of science. Namely, the history of science provides important data, and necessary checks, for philosophy of science, including any theory of scientific method.

The history of science reveals, according to Kuhn, that scientific development occurs in alternating phases. During normal science, the members of the scientific community adhere to the paradigm in place. Their commitment to the paradigm means a commitment to the puzzles to be solved and the acceptable ways of solving them. Confidence in the paradigm remains so long as steady progress is made in solving the shared puzzles. Method in this normal phase operates within a disciplinary matrix (Kuhn’s later concept of a paradigm) which includes standards for problem solving, and defines the range of problems to which the method should be applied. An important part of a disciplinary matrix is the set of values which provide the norms and aims for scientific method. The main values that Kuhn identifies are prediction, problem solving, simplicity, consistency, and plausibility.

An important by-product of normal science is the accumulation of puzzles which cannot be solved with resources of the current paradigm. Once accumulation of these anomalies has reached some critical mass, it can trigger a communal shift to a new paradigm and a new phase of normal science. Importantly, the values that provide the norms and aims for scientific method may have transformed in the meantime. Method may therefore be relative to discipline, time or place

Feyerabend also identified the aims of science as progress, but argued that any methodological prescription would only stifle that progress (Feyerabend 1988). His arguments are grounded in re-examining accepted “myths” about the history of science. Heroes of science, like Galileo, are shown to be just as reliant on rhetoric and persuasion as they are on reason and demonstration. Others, like Aristotle, are shown to be far more reasonable and far-reaching in their outlooks then they are given credit for. As a consequence, the only rule that could provide what he took to be sufficient freedom was the vacuous “anything goes”. More generally, even the methodological restriction that science is the best way to pursue knowledge, and to increase knowledge, is too restrictive. Feyerabend suggested instead that science might, in fact, be a threat to a free society, because it and its myth had become so dominant (Feyerabend 1978).

An even more fundamental kind of criticism was offered by several sociologists of science from the 1970s onwards who rejected the methodology of providing philosophical accounts for the rational development of science and sociological accounts of the irrational mistakes. Instead, they adhered to a symmetry thesis on which any causal explanation of how scientific knowledge is established needs to be symmetrical in explaining truth and falsity, rationality and irrationality, success and mistakes, by the same causal factors (see, e.g., Barnes and Bloor 1982, Bloor 1991). Movements in the Sociology of Science, like the Strong Programme, or in the social dimensions and causes of knowledge more generally led to extended and close examination of detailed case studies in contemporary science and its history. (See the entries on the social dimensions of scientific knowledge and social epistemology.) Well-known examinations by Latour and Woolgar (1979/1986), Knorr-Cetina (1981), Pickering (1984), Shapin and Schaffer (1985) seem to bear out that it was social ideologies (on a macro-scale) or individual interactions and circumstances (on a micro-scale) which were the primary causal factors in determining which beliefs gained the status of scientific knowledge. As they saw it therefore, explanatory appeals to scientific method were not empirically grounded.

A late, and largely unexpected, criticism of scientific method came from within science itself. Beginning in the early 2000s, a number of scientists attempting to replicate the results of published experiments could not do so. There may be close conceptual connection between reproducibility and method. For example, if reproducibility means that the same scientific methods ought to produce the same result, and all scientific results ought to be reproducible, then whatever it takes to reproduce a scientific result ought to be called scientific method. Space limits us to the observation that, insofar as reproducibility is a desired outcome of proper scientific method, it is not strictly a part of scientific method. (See the entry on reproducibility of scientific results.)

By the close of the 20th century the search for the scientific method was flagging. Nola and Sankey (2000b) could introduce their volume on method by remarking that “For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year’s debate.”

Science has a set of empirical methodologies that can provide objective facts — Nickolasgaspar

Science does not produce objective facts.

Let me help you:

What you mean to say is this: science has empirical methods (experimentation, observation, etc.) that test hypotheses. Some call it the hypothetico-deductive model.

Science does not "provide" objective facts. That's completely meaningless. Facts, in the traditional argument, is a true proposition or what's provide by our senses. Science is a way of understanding the facts of the world. It doesn't create the world. Your 4th grade wording is simply nonsensical.

There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method". — Nickolasgaspar

Funny -- that's exactly what I've been saying:

There is no scientific method. There are many methods, and many questions, that is employed by human beings to understand the world. — Xtrix

What you have said:

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

(Emphasis mine.)

:chin:

Glad to see you've changed your mind.

What we call real is defined by our limited methods used to OBJECTIVELY VERIFY what exists. — Nickolasgaspar

No. This is your own home-spun definition.

The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.

To say what "exists" only reaches the status of "real" when we "objectivity verify" it is nonsense. The term "reality", what is considered "real," what is considered "truth," etc., has a very long history indeed -- as anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with philosophy would know.

You've simply fallen into a tautology.

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

Science does indeed have a specific ontology. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning.

No one once claimed it was a "subjective philosophical bias." Whether or not it's "pragmatic" is questionable -- but that's your own claim, and so likely not very well thought out.

Scientism is the belief that only science can be the source of our epistemology and science can answer everything. — Nickolasgaspar

That's not the definition of scientism.

Common definition:

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

From SEP:

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.

From Wiki:

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]

And what I say about it:

"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

If one considers whatever is "real" to be whatever science, through (to quote you) "objective verification", determines is real, then this is indeed trusting in the methods of objective verification and, ultimately, on the methods of science.

And, as I said above, I partly subscribe to it myself. I think it's the best way have.

Science split from philosophy because of minds and mentalities like yours. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl:

Oh, ok!

The moment you accuse science for a ontological bias you wrongly accuse Methodological Naturalism being a metaphysical view. — Nickolasgaspar

Methodological naturalism is also an ontological view. I guess this is where you're confused.

If someone believes God is behind all of nature, but employs a naturalistic stance when doing biochemistry and publishing papers, that's simply adopting an ontological position pro tem.

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

Naturalism is indeed the philosophical backbone of science. Hence why it was once called "natural philosophy."

You're simply confused. If you have questions or need clarification, simply put aside the posturing and ask, and I'll explain to you what I mean. Can your ego handle that? Or do we have to keep going on like this, where you keep trying to set yourself up as "teaching me a thing or two"?

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

I suppose this is also the problem: you assume I'm defending religious dogma or supernaturalism. That's not close to being true, as anyone on this forum can tell you.

You will need to study about Objectivism one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

Another Ayn Rand follower. What a shocker.

Dude...you seriously need to educate yourself on basic concepts and what Science really is and why its so successful. — Nickolasgaspar

No, you need to stop posturing and learn something. Next time, before jumping into a conversation in which you were not involved, make an effort to read carefully.

This forum is for adults. Not posturing children.

He's interested only in pretending to be an intellectual authority, when in reality his simpleminded. Ayn Rand-following view is a hodgepodge of cliches you'd hear from anyone on a sidewalk.

"Science produces objective facts."
"What is objective is what is objectively verified."
"Heidegger and Nietzsche are metaphysically wrong, although I've never read either."

Garrett Travers was more fun

sorry but you hold factually and fractally wrong beliefs that you can not support with objective facts or sound arguments.
You are done as I said.

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

-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.

You have represented a certain philosophical position on the nature of science, but let me ask you this. — Joshs

The nature of science? when did I do that? Pls tell me what I said that points to the nature of science!
I might be confused with all those comments....If I mentioned objectivism, systematicity and epistemic connectedness then you may be right.

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

-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.

. No decent survey course on this topic would leave out the authors I mentioned above. — 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.

Also , the position Xtrix has been putting forth in this thread is generally consistent with their perspectives on science. — Joshs

-I am aware of this outdated Normative approach and the distortion of concepts like Objectivism.
I prefer the Descriptive Approach which allow us to understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter....

I think that most of the Normative critique is based on absolute goals and standards forgetting that Methodological Naturalism by definition sets those absolute marks outside our limits and that is an honest call.

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

-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?
For goodness shake, he denies Objectivism, one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy...the standard that demands access to the facts, access to the methodologies and neutral auxiliary principles(based on Pragmatic Necessity not on metaphysical biases) for everyone who wants to challenge a framework.

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

-I thought you were a serious interlocutor.....But I will give you some more chances.

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

-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.
You do understand that Philosophy of science didn't stop with the work of those philosophers...right?

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

-I guess you can see now why you have to wait for a response before trying to answer your initial question.....

The rest of your post is chronicling....old criticism is like old science.
I will suggest Paul Hoyningen's lectures and courses. He has by far the best work on Descriptive Science and the best arguments on why Normative Science can't work and why we should stop criticizing science for not "obeying" those norms.
You will need update the "excuses" you use to reject the role of science in our philosophical and epistemic advances.
I understand that epistemology is an anathema for most philosophers and they would do anything to avoid knowledge meshing up their ideologies.
They will deny the etymology of the word Philosophy, the connection between wisdom and knowledge and the Aristotle's method that places epistemology and science withing the process.

you hold factually and fractally wrong beliefs — Nickolasgaspar

Factually AND "fractally"! Damn...guess we all can't pretend to be geniuses.

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs. Well done. Also, good job saving face with the "You're not worth it" line. Superb! A real course in ego protection.

Thanks for the laughs.

-Yes I find this question fair....and most of their critique outdated based mostly on Normative guidelines. — Nickolasgaspar

Translation: Never read a word of Kuhn or Feyerabend.

So you find most of their "critique" to be outdated and based on "normative guidelines," eh? What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course... :lol:

Normative critique has failed to explain the epistemic success of science and Descriptive Science explains why Normative "rules" offer nothing of value in our methodologies and standards of evidence.

What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course. — Xtrix

I am sure that I have posted you links ...don't you read my comments or are you preoccupied preparing your apologetic?
Paul Hoyningen has the best available material on why Normative critique has failed in its job.
He has a create lecture on the Nature of Science and a course on Philosophy of science where he presents a list of qualities and standards responsible for its of success(Descriptive Science) instead of chronicling outdated critiques.
Try changing the sounds in your echo chamber mate....its a process known as "Learning".