independent of their intentions,from the moment they share their views we have to inform them that they hold irrational beliefs.

Descriptive Science" is meaningless as well. Do you mean descriptive RESEARCH? — Xtrix

-lol...seriously...you don't know how google search works? the first in random...here you are.Don't make me work for your education..its your responsibility mate.
https://sciencing.com/normative-descriptive-science-8763863.html

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited. — Xtrix

You haven't posted a single link or passage about Hoyningen's critique on Kuhn or others....
Would a astronomer have any reason to argue against disprove frameworks about the solar system? lol
Ok we get it, you happen to learn about Kuhn's ideas and you thought that its a great excuse to reject objectivity and facts...
Nice to know mate....you are not alone who cherry picks and special pleads.....

So we wont find any of those in philosophical forums debating their beliefs.......oh wait!
lol.

So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...

Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up. — Xtrix

-You do know that you can google a phrase you ignore...before removing any doubt for your ignorance from your interlocutor....right?
You can use your internet connection to educate yourself...its not just for social media and spicy pictures.....

Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol — Xtrix

-You are confusing commercial applications with the knowledge that enables technical applications......

-"Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny."
-Chronicling is blocking your ability to learn or think....

Imagine being so full of yourself that you can't even admit that you don't have the slightest clue what these authors' theses were. — Xtrix

-Sorry mate but you are unable to point to a critique by those fellows that will be left standing after I have some time with it.
Your objections are based on rejecting facts like the objective nature of Scientific frameworks , the evidence and methods used to arrive to them.
You have nothing to offer mate.
You are done and you don't know it.

-"How utterly pathetic. "
-Self critique is always welcome...

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

- you do your best mate.!

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs. — Xtrix

oh this is your goal.......ok, that explains your outdated beliefs.

[quote=" good job saving face with the "You're not worth it" line. Superb! A real course in ego protection[/quote]
-its an accurate description mate!

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".

Why would anyone study other animals when investigating strictly human conditions? Who gives a shit that dolphins appear to surf, when such appearance is a mere anthropomorphism anyway? Crows use tools? Big deal. No crow ever got himself to the moon. — Mww

-because..they are not strictly human"conditions". Knowledge, wisdom and reason are mental abilities shared by other animals...in a lesser degree of course. Animals do gain knowledge from previous experiences and through basic reasoning they can take wise decisions thus inform their actions accordingly!
Why would anyone study other animals?....someone who is interested in Mental properties and how they evolved...like a scientist?

Big deal. No crow ever got himself to the moon. — Mww

-This is the demarcation point about knowledge, wisdom and reason? Of course you are kidding right?
Crows can survive without destroying their ecosystem...how wise and knowledgeable is that? They can survive without air conditioning, or a can opener or 3 meals a day and supermarkets. Modern spoiled "intelligent" humans fall in depression and die by depriving superficial things !
So we should first set the standards and metrics for this one....

are you aware of a Non real world where we can not exercise them???? — Nickolasgaspar
Yep. So are you. And not so much can not, but simply don’t. But we probably have differing ideas regarding what it means to be real. — Mww

-Unfortunately for you, your ideas on "real" can not be objectively demonstrated to be true.
Believing in a non real world is not enough and it is indistinguishable from a non existent reality.
So I will need to plead the Null Hypothesis and take the given value for your reality (which is zero) and NOT assume statistical significance....until you provide data that can prove it!

This is the point where you depart from reason.

C’mon, man. If I literally described the process, how could it have been so difficult for me? But I didn’t describe anything; I just asked a question, which wasn’t answered. — Mww

- You literary described the philosophical process and how it includes knowledge ...i quote:
-"Speculative metaphysics starts with things known, and uses that to arrive at logical arguments for that which is sufficiently explanatory in keeping with internal consistency and non-contradiction."
So why are you willing to make room for special pleading on specific assumptions?

All that aside, a concept only arises in relation to what we don’t know, as a representation of it. — Mww

-fractally wrong statement. Concepts are all based on what we know mixed with some magic, this is why we have anthropomorphic gods, Nature as a thinking agent...souls that resemble our conscious abilities etc etc.

You are confounding the inception of a particular from a general. — Mww

irrelevant statements. I am pointing out that concepts are nothing more than a phenomenon plus a magical claim for its ontology. Phlogiston, miasma,orgone energy , gods are some of the examples.

It is equivalent to saying the conception of a thing arising because we know it isn’t that, and it isn’t that, and it isn’t that, ad infinitum, which is absurd — Mww

- I have answered your false assumption.
We tend to make up magical agents with exactly the same properties that are displayed by the phenomenon we are try to explain...or we project our properties to invisible agent in order to explain phenomena in nature...those are our basic practices.

You laugh, but also think we have an ability that reproduces concepts.

Why in the world would we need to reproduce a concept? — Mww

-Its a survival advantage to be able to communicate concepts. i.e."its dangerous outside". the concept of dangerous communicates essential information. Those who were able to communicate and comprehend and reproduce concepts improve the chances of survival of their population.

Where did the original go? — Mww

lol dude...you are confusing the map with the territory. Concepts are mostly abstract ideas that include real properties. take god for example. We have the ability to thing of an absolute being who is the best version of us...bla bla bla.
There is no need for an original. Do you really think that the concept of a circle originates from an absolute circle ancient people saw in their environment? of course not.
Abstract thinking and conceptualization is our A game....and our curse. This is the sole reason why I have to talk to people with ideas like yours. (and our bad heuristics).

And the production IS the validity, otherwise there is no logical relation upon which a judgement could ensue. And don’t mistake validity for truth, for only experience can prove a conception valid. It’s how we know we got something wrong if experience shows a conception invalid. You know....like....lightning doesn’t really come from angry gods even though it was a perfectly valid conception that it did. — Mww

A central metaphysical idea, intuition, sufficient to explain why no one has to reproduce concepts.
We could do this all day, but I got post-winter lawn duty. Not high on my list of pleasures, but duty nonetheless. — Mww

assumptions assumptions assumptions and bad language mode.
Can you really provide evidence for those claims...can you prove our ability to produce concepts validates the existence of "originals".
You are posting metaphysical beliefs that aren't based on knowledge. Nothing of the above is relevant to a true philosophical discussion.

So, we assume no connection between God and existence (H0) and then try to disprove that assumption i.e. prove that there's a connection between God and existence. — Agent Smith

-Actually we don't have to assume it . We just acknowledge that we can not demonstrate any connection between god and existence so we reject the claim(god is found not guilty of existing until the evidence meet the criteria to overturn the judgment!).

What does "connection between existence and God" mean? — Agent Smith

It means that those who make the claim must demonstrate the connection between an entity and a state of existence. They should be able to point to characteristic properties that are displayed by entities that exist.

It seems like you're saying it isn't the claim "God exists". If so, the Null Hypothesis method is pointless, oui?
Since the Null Hypothesis seems to be about correlations, it's mostly got to do with causal hypotheses and isn't suitable for proving/disproving existence. Existence, causation, two different things! — Agent Smith

-The Null hypothesis can be applied on any claim without sufficient evidence to assist our conclusions.
You seem to be desperate to find excuses for dismissing rules of Basic Logic, but I don't get what your point is. Of course the Null Hypothesis is not pointless. Its a great way to identify the Default position in any claim.
You don't have objective evidence for the existence of this concept labeled as god....so your job is to provide a connection between those two points in your claim...only then your claim will be sound.
The statistical application of the hypothesis is pretty similar. We accept any value that is available to us and we don't assume the existence of any statistical significance until such a prospect is verified.
The available value(evidence) in the case of god is zero(non existent) so we don't assume that statistical significance exists until we have the data.
Can you see the irrationality of accepting statistical significance before having the data in our hands???

what indications and facts do you have for a god to be possible?
I mean..... we can talk about me owning a giant diamond on Jupiter under all those gases....but is there any real value in such discussions...especially in a Philosophical forum?
I would agree that talking about god(s) is an interesting topic in social sciences.

I'll just point-out that I'm not making a scientific case. Besides, Atheism is a belief in Absentia. — Gnomon

-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!!
lol no Atheism is the rejection of a specific belief....not a belief at all!

-"It is not based on scientific facts, but on the absence of physical evidence, which is literally & figuratively immaterial to a metaphysical concept."
-Not quite. If a specific dogma makes knowledge claims about the role of its god in the world(ID, cosmology, morality,theodicy etc etc) then the claim is rejected for scientific reasons.
But to be precise all know god claims are rejected due to the absence of Objective and Sufficient evidence. "Physical" are just one type of evidence that are included in those two major categories.
You can provide non physical evidence and I will accept them if they manage to meet the above criteria. So don't feel limited to the physical realm...
Btw I don't know how you can be sure about the ontology of a metaphysical concept. Metaphysical means beyond the physika(beyond our current knowledge/ science) .....not beyond the physical realm. You should check basic definitions and etymologies before making unfounded ontological claims.

BTW, my position is not anti-science, but pro-philosophy. — Gnomon

The problem is that philosophy on supernatural principles is not real philosophy. there is no wisdom to gain from unfalsifiable conclusions that do not advance our understanding of the world.
Wisdom is contingent to Knowledge...and we know nothing about undetectable realms.

I'm also not a Theist, so the typical anti-theism arguments miss their imaginary target. — Gnomon

-I don't know what you mean. Not being a theist doesn't guarantee rational thinking. There are atheists who are spiritualist, or supernaturalists and accept all kind of weird and unfounded claims.

IMHO, Philosophy is more of an art than a science. — Gnomon

-I get what you are saying....but there is objectively bad and good art. No...to be more precise, there is art on the canvas, or an audio track, on marble, on a piece of paper etc...and art that one claims he has on his head and haven't find the time to express it on a medium.
This is more suitable for the case of Philosophy and Pseudo philosophy.
Again I am not here to argue in favor of science. I am here to help people understand how to recognize philosophy from pseudo philosophy.

So demanding reductive scientific evidence for a holistic concept is like, requiring Picasso to justify his odd imagery with empirical facts. — Gnomon

-Nobody did that. The demanded standards are based on Logic. Objectivity and Sufficiency is what your evidence need to have.
Btw.....how do you know that the "holistic" nature of your concept agrees with the actual nature of what it tries to describe....do you have evidence?

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.

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.

I utterly reject epistemology for strictly logical and philosophical reasons which I am not prepared to divulge at this time. — jas0n

ok you admit you are a pseudo philosopher...that's good to know.

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.

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.

your comments don't help this conversation or your points.
You need to decide. DO you recognize the importance of epistemology in philosophy or are you willing to cherry pick the cases where you can "do with out".

Another common error. People confuse Chronicling with Philosophy.

-"Either materialism or idealism is the reality of things.'
-or occastionalism or solipsism or pantheism or theism....

-"If idealism is how it is,"....nothing changes all worldviews fell beyond a point that makes any difference to our realm. The burden is set based on your current worldview...not based on a hypothetical "if".

none of those two ideologies affect the concept of god. Being a magical being it can exist in an idealistic or materialistic world...after all he is the supposed creator, I guess he can be good with mud or other materials.

What I'm saying is that one's paradigm determines if God or the universe seem self evident or not to you. It goes deeper than belief or unbelief. Than proof or lack of proof. — Yohan

-And my position is that both paradigm are pseudo philosophical since none of them can produce wise claims(philosophical) that can bring change in our life and expand our understanding.
It goes further away from being rational.... occupying our thoughts with things that can not improve our wisdom or understanding of the world around us.
These ideas are fine if this forum was on theology but they are out of topic in a philosophical discussion.
Again and I can not stress it enough.
"The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness".
In order to be a good philosopher you need to accept your epistemic and existential anxieties and keep them separate from your syllogisms.

I have a rotary phone and it's not plugged into the wall or anything but I can talk to God on it. My nurse likes to pretend I'm just imagining things, and I pretend to agree to spare her feelings, because she is scared of not being scientific. But me and God laugh together like mad when she leaves the room. — jas0n

-I have a program written in Atari basic that allows me to copy paste claims (like yours) and accurately informs me about their truth value. Yours failed...so I will reject it.

Since it is isolated from your reality you will need to accept it.....according to your reasoning of course!

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.

Whereas,

Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness. — Athena

-weird strawman. Since when correcting the misrepresentation of a theory qualifies as "technological correctness"??

I would have worded it a little differently, but still, I submit that’s exactly what they are. — Mww

Yes I know what you believe, the important question is why when a concept is epistemically astray

Knowledge is always contingent, from which follows the surety of conclusions is just as contingent, which makes explicit I may be wise now regarding something I know but unwise later regarding something else I know. Wisdom resides more in judgement than knowledge. — Mww

-Again...this is what you keep saying but you fail to practice when a concept isn't founded on knowledge....see your "concept isolated from reality".(as if you know that such a state is possible...an additional unfounded assumption in rescue of the first.)

Exactly right. While wisdom resides in judgement, that wisdom is possible in order for it to be contained in judgement, is predicated solely on reason and logic, the real world being merely the occasion for the exercise of them. — Mww

-Correct...but are you aware of a Non real world where we can not exercise them???? This is the problem with pseudo philosophy....it pollutes really good syllogisms!

All three of which are antecedent to knowledge, or, which is the same thing, knowledge presupposes all three of those strictly human a priori capacities. — Mww

-Obviously the dude who stated that has never studied other animals.

And in the negative, how wise would you be, to deny the validity of that made up conception, when it is impossible to express your denial without using it? — Mww

- is this a serious argument? Our ability to reproduce a concept plays no role to its validity lol.
This is not how we evaluate claims of hypothesized concepts. We check the epistemic foundations. If they are absent then presupposing it in an argument renders the argument unsound. This means that me need to reject the conclusion.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you...you literally described the process.

......which disappears as soon as the limitations of it are realized. A central metaphysical idea. — Mww

-unfortunatelly people try to address their frustration by going over those limitations. (Magical supernatural claims). Removing frustration is not part of metaphysics. Metaphysics job is to provide frameworks that can be evaluated. The end of frustration (and not always) comes after the end of this evaluation.(falsification/verification).

.....serves no purpose, as opposed to making up answers and assuming things that do not contradict that which is known, which does. A central metaphysical idea. — Mww

those are not opposed practices. Making up answers without epistemic foundations is bad metaphysics...independent of our assumptions.

.....which is absolutely necessary, but not sufficient. The mere fact of existence does nothing to explain that by which experience obtains. A central metaphysical idea. — Mww

-First of all you are promoting a red herring. We are addressing necessity. Sufficiency in the case of experiencing depends on the biological hardware.
Accusing existence for insufficiency in relation to a property that isn't shared by all existing things (experiencing their world) ...is like accusing your tuna sandwich for immoral judgments on slavery.

Why do you keep repeating this deepity "A central metaphysical idea."
everything with said are rooted in epistemology.
Existence is necessary for experience...that is a knowledge claim.(epistemology).
Existence is not sufficient for experience...because rocks exist........that is also a knowledge claim.

-"

Speculative metaphysics starts with things known, and uses that to arrive at logical arguments for that which is sufficiently explanatory in keeping with internal consistency and non-contradiction. — Mww

"
-We agree on that...the question is are you following that? do you start with the most credible and available epistemology ?


-"Right or wrong is completely irrelevant with respect to proper philosophy, "
-Correct! Cherry picking your epistemology or ignoring it all together is what renders our philosophy...pseudo.

-"insofar as no one possesses the rational authority to know he is philosophically wise, while he may very well think himself to be."
-Again...... not the statement in question. "philosophically wise" refers to the conclusion.I am not addressing that. I am pointing people's insistence to skip basic steps of the method (Epistemology, Physika".

and here is an example of the problem I am talking about. you stated.
-"If a made up concept isolated from reality, what is this “our” of which you so readily speak? "
-not my problem. The side making the claim needs to provide the epistemic foundations so that we can accept this claim in his premises.
If he is unable to do that then he is practicing pseudo philosophy. Its not my fault that his assumption is unfounded.
Its like me going around dismissing your arguments because I am an all knowing agent with my knowledge source being ....isolated from reality so and you can not verify or falsify it.

You did so well in your previous paragraph.(Speculative metaphysics starts with things known, and uses that to arrive at logical arguments for that which is sufficiently explanatory in keeping with internal consistency and non-contradiction.)...but for a weird reason you fail to see why his "isolated concept" doesn't follow the path you described??
why is that?

Regarding the other functions you mention, I am interested if you think these could happen without any subjectivity. Could a complex entity, a cybernetic brain or something, could do all these things, but without actually experiencing anything? — bert1

The difference between human brain and other "brains" (computers) is that computers work with algorithms. Inputs inform the algorithm and the algorithm provides "decisions".
In the case of human brain it processes emotion and meaning. A stimuli produces an emotion or affection and our brain(based on previous inputs(experiences),biological setup i.e. homeostasis or our biological hardware i.e. taste buds brain receptors , production of hormones etc) reasons them in to feeling and what they mean for the organism. So you need to understand that "subjectivity" is inevitable because no second human being shares the same experiences or biological setup or biological hardware .
You might like spicy food but my numerous taste buds don't share the same opinion with you.
Subjectivity is NOT something magical.
Now can cybernetic brains display a quality of subjectivity. Sure, even if the algorithm is the same, small differences in the "training" session of inputs or differences in its hardware can produce different "presences" in the "decision process".

Sure, but I don't think that proves anything about panpsychism. Could you spell it out? — bert1

that is not a meaningful argument. in fact its a fallacy (from ignorance.)
We don't accept a claim and wait from others to falsify it
That is not reasonable and most importantly that type of claims are not part of Philosophy.
Philosophy starts with our epistemology and projects it in the metaphysical realm by using facts and reason. The result must be something that is epistemically robust, inductive and able to expand our understanding.
Assuming something that you have the burden to prove offers nothing of the above.
Again I have to repeat my self. The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness.
We don't pick answers that ease our epistemic and existential anxieties and brag for the inability of science and logic to falsify it.
Unfalsifiability is a problem for that claim...not for logic science or philosophy.

I only assert that subjectivity does, and that is all I mean by 'consciousness'. — bert1

Subjectivity is not a mental property. It is a quality we observe in thinking agents because their conscious thoughts are the product of emotions(experiences) reasoned in to feelings and what they mean to them.
Subjectivity is an evaluation term on how people reason and experiences things differently.
It can not exist without biological thinking agents comparing their differences in their experiences
Consciousness doesn't mean subjectivity.
Consciousness is our ability to be conscious of environmental and organic stimuli and produce thoughts with content. Subjective is an abstract concept that described the differences between experiences of different agents.....This is an equivocation fallacy.

Abstract concepts do not exist...they are descriptive labels we use on processes.
This is bad language mode and it is common with claims about consciousness being a "thing" not a process or a property of a process.

I'll try. I mean there are no intermediate states between x not being conscious at all, and x being conscious. — bert1

-wait......is this a serious argument? like there isn't an intermediate state being dead and not dead?being eating and not eating. Those are true dichotomies sir!!! What would an intermeditate state would be like for you? Conscious, semiconscious, non conscious?
Are you denying degrees of consciousness?

So you have never being asleep? light sleep, heavy sleep, sleep with dreams,sleep with environmental stimuli intruding in your dream,nightmare, sleepwalking, drunk, intoxicated,under anesthesia, brain injury(I hope not) concision, head ache, tooth ache, memory issues,Defuse thinking, focus thinking,preoccupied, terribly tired etc et.all those states that affect and even limit the quality of our ability to be conscious of our thoughts,mental abilities and environment.

I see my examples take care the rest of your arguments about baldness etc.
btw baldness is not a label we use to describe a condition not a biological property of matter.

-:It does have a burden of proof. But so does every other theory of consciousness. We look at them all and pick the least problematic. I reckon it's panpsychism.

I don't see that it is in direct conflict with any established scientific knowledge. Can you give an example?
-No no, all theories of consciousness need to be a narrative of FACTS and a description of observable mechanisms. Panpsychism only makes unflasifiable declarations. It doesn't describe how conscious states arise and how they gain their mental content.It just states consciousness exists....everywhere.
That is not a theory of consciousness...that is a theory of anything.
Consciousness is used like Phlogiston or Miasma or Orgone energy to explain phenomena by making up magical substances.

-"I don't see that it is in direct conflict with any established scientific knowledge. Can you give an example? "
-Its in direct conflict with the establish Scientific Paradigm. Advanced properties are the product of structures with complex structures. This is what we observe in Nature. Claiming something different just makes it supernatural.
IT's also in conflict with the null hypothesis. The rejection of correlations between A(existence) and b(ghost of consciousness) until significant observations falsify that rejection should be your default position.
Karl Popper's Demarcation principle. The problem is not that it is wrong, its not Even wrong! It can not be falsified, verified or tested. IT can not be used to produce accurate predictions or to use its principles in technical applications.
This is what All scientific theories provide to us....so panpsychism is not a theory.not even close.
I wish it was in conflict with objective observations.....that would render it falsifiable.
Now ..its just theology in a really vague suit.

-

Asking for objective verification of subjectivity may be asking for a square circle, an ore of nonexistium, a bucket of pure being. — bert1

-No no no.....I didn't ask anything about that abstract concept/ quality of subjectivity . I was clear. The claim is that mental properties can emerge non contingent to a biological brain. I didn't demand to demonstrate the subjective content of them. I only want you to point to a phenomenon where Reasoning, Intention,purpose, conscious realization, symbolic thinking, intelligence, pattern recognition, problem solving etc are properties that can be displayed by a brainless agent.
Can you point to a headless organism that can practice the above mental qualities?

That's not true of modern educated panpsychist philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists. — bert1

-Educations plays no role in superstitious beliefs. We know from neuroscience that decision in our brain are taken and they we reason them to our selves.
We can make a patients hand to jerk by using electrodes in his brain and he will provide a reason why "He did" what he did.
This is how Heuristics work.

-"Can you please expand and elaborate on the Null Hypothesis."
-Sure.
The Null hypothesis is a logical principle that mainly informs our statistics(no statistical significance exists in a set of given observation....and we go for there).
In the case of Existential claim the principle dictates that we shouldn't assume any connection between A(existence) and B(lets say god) until verified observations can falsify our initial "negative assumption".

-"Is it like assuming there's no God and then making an attempt to prove God's existence, failing which the Null Hypothesis (there is no God) holds?"
Now the problem with your example is that you addressing two different statements (no god exist and god does exists).
The Null Hypotheses assumes that there is no connection between existence and god until our negation is falsified by objective facts.(data)
Not accepting A (god exists) ≠A is wrong(No god exists).
The Null hypothesis guides our default position based on the claim found in first part of the equation (god exist), not the second part.

-"I've heard of the Null Hypothesis in community medicine where a correlation is assumed not to exist or deemed as only coincidental, a study is then conducted, the data analyzed, and assessed for statistical significance which is just another way of saying the correlation can't be coincidental. The rest of the method I no longer recall. "
-Correct. correlation need to be demonstrated if possible beyond sufficiency and necessity.

It's a concept related to one you depend on. As I went on to suggest.

You are knee-deep in metaphysical assumptions that you haven't even noticed yet.

. — jas0n

You don't get it....how can you demonstrate that this concept you say it is related to an other thing that I depend on?
How can you DEMONSTRATE this contingency?Objectively!
I don't really need metaphysical assumptions . I have Pragmatic Necessity. i.e. I don't need to assume anything for the metaphysical ontology of a, lets say a wall. From Pragmatic Necessity I have to accept my emotions and feelings produced when crashing in a wall ...head first.
This informs my future actions. if my actions keep those feelings away (avoid pain by avoiding walls) then we can objectively say that I was informed wisely by them.

This is not true for your god like artifacts.

-"Don't worry. The machines work whether or not you believe in them or understand them"
-correct but that is part of my argument....I am the one that argue for Empirical Regularity, External Limitations detected by our Experiences and Pragmatic Necessity independent of our metaphysical biases.

I agree w/ the last part...or do I? I mean I always assumed I was after the truth.... — jas0n

This is really hopeful. Questioning our presumptions is the only way we can

So the idea of the pure witness is basically just...consciousness. If you want to ghost story to attack, consciousness is a good one. Religion is such an easy target these days. — jas0n

-No it isnt'.
Consciousness is a biological phenomenon. Organisms with a sensory system and a central process unit (brain) have the ability to process environmental and organic stimuli, produce emotions and affections, reason then in to feelings,meaning and purpose through their ability of symbolic language and arrive to conclusions, choices and decisions.
All those mechanisms and their connections to the Ascending Reticular Activating System and the Central Lateral Thalamus are observable, quantifiable and provide loads of information on how our conscious states arise and how they affect our biology and behavior.
This is the process that we label as consciousness in the real world.
By using the same word to refer to a vague ghost substance you just produce an Ambiguity that doesn't help our conversation. Maybe you could provide a description from your observations about this ghost and how I can reproduce the same observations.

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

I never could wrap my head around the claim that atheism is a lack of belief and therefore, these very same atheists go on to say, the onus probandi falls not on 'em. — Agent Smith

-Those are two different logical criteria.
The first (lack of belief due to the absence of evidence)is defined as the Default Position by the Null Hypotheses.
Demanding evidence for those who warrant belief to that claim is defined by the Burden of Proof.
Those who accept a claim as true need to provide justification for it.

What is atheism, how shall we, in one statement, condense their viewpoint? It can't be "God doesn't exist. for the simple reason that that's a knowledge claim and ergo, needs to be proved. — Agent Smith

-"If, as you aver, atheism is about belief, do you mean that atheists opt not to believe for no rhyme or reason? "
-Atheism addresses belief. Atheism not on its own a belief. Its the rejection of a belief claim. Atheist can and do hold other beliefs . There are raeliens, buddhists, antitheists, supernaturalists etc They all hold the minimum position (rejecting all known god claims) and they go a step further, but not all of us do! I don't.

-"This doesn't add up now does it?''
-I don't know what it doesn't add up. I dont believe in the big foot or fairies or Nessy, does that means that I need to replace my disbelief in those claims with an additional belief? why?

-"An atheist has to justify why s/he refuses to believe in God unless s/he wants to admit that their stance on the god issue is utterly baseless."
-First of all its not a matter of refusal when we deal with belief. A claim either meets our standards of acceptance or it doesn't.
In order for the god claim to be accepted it will need to be supported by objective evidence. My rejection of the god concept is based on the fact that theists are unable to offer objective evidence.
4.300 religions with more than 10.000 gods prove the subjective nature of this belief.
SO if you are able to provide objective evidence product of accessible to everyone facts then I will accept the concept of god as a reasonable belief.

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.

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

Originality is not something I'm known for. Plus, why reinvent the wheel. Tried and tested theories are preferrable to novel ideas that haven't been vetted by experts/veterans, oui? — Agent Smith

-because wheels don't work with staircases.....Our reasoning improves along with the available facts

As for atheism, the certainty of the claim makes me cringe, it doesn't sit well with the skeptic in me. — Agent Smith

-Atheism and certainty of claim...is like like saying the best way to cook burgers is with your freezer.
Maybe you are referring to Strong Atheism or Antitheism because the minimum position of Atheism is to "Not be convinced of the concept".
On the other hand the antheistic position in relation to specific version of the concept qualifies as a certain claim! i.e. Christian cosmology, morality, social injustice etc.

-"Why can't we do what we should be doing, suspend judgement (I don't know), and acknowledge the truth viz. we don't know whether god exists or not, ja? "
-This is exactly what it means to be an atheist...suspend belief until objective facts justify it.
Its the Null Hypothesis that demands the rejection of all existential claims until objective facts can falsify that initial rejection.
If you suspend your belief in the existence or non existence of god, then you are not a Theist or an Antitheist. You are an Atheist (A=without a theistic belief against or in favor).

-"Agnosticism is the most rational position to adopt."
-ONCE again. Agnosticism addresses knowledge, Atheism addresses belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.(we are justified in believing things that are based on knowledge claims).
Those two terms are NOT mutually exclusive. for example I am an agnostic atheist...this means that I am not convinced of the claim since I don't have knowledge to justify my belief in favor or against this concept.
This means that I need to reject it (not believe in it) until objective facts can justify a different belief.

-"Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball."
-Your example is not good. A Ballist and an A-ballist fight about whether it is reasonable to believe that a magical ball exists....we are not even close to talk about its color! Theist talk about the properties of the "ball" (all powerful divine, merciful good etc etc). So the color talk originates from one side only.
An atheist rejects the existence of the god (ball) because there aren't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in it. He doesn't necessary needs to adopt the Antitheistic burden.!
In the case of the christian god I would happily accept the antitheistic position due to the ridiculous claims made by the dogma of christianity.


-"Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball."
- I am not sure that atheists give any weight to the claimed properties of the "ball". As far as I can tell they demand theists to point out the ball and they will go from there.

In general:
Atheism addresses the belief claim of God's existence. It doesn't addresses its non existence...like in the court we address guilty- not guilty, we don't address innocence.
This is because the burden is on the side making the claim (theists for god existence and prosecutor for guilt).
Its more than inevitable to make logical errors (i.e. false dichotomy, shifting of the burden) when you try to address one then one statement (god exists, god doesn't exist).

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.