Are you claiming that only propositions that can be demonstrated may be true? If so, how would you propose this could be demonstrated? — aletheist

I was claiming that there is no way to demonstrate that nominalism is true or false.
I don't think it is possible.

this is extremely ironic to me

Some version of nominalism may be true — aletheist

How would you propose this could be demonstrated?

I lean toward realism myself, but the usefulness of our models is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate that realism is true and nominalism is false. — aletheist

Nominalism cannot be falsified, it cannot be true or false.

My point is how is it even useful?

What predictions does it make, what breakthroughs are the result of applying nominalist assumptions?

Why should nominalism be taken seriously?

That is clearly how you prefer to frame the issue. However, nominalists do not dispute that "using models with universal laws produces useful results"; what they dispute is that those laws are real apart from how we use them. — aletheist

How should we be able to apply those laws at all if they do not represent some reality?

Fine the models are not real, but it is real that there is consistency in nature, if there were not then application of models should produce no results, nor should those models improve as our ability to observe the consistency in nature improves.

None of what you have here addresses that question.
Why does science work at all if there is not something real out there?

No, the model of geocentrism was that the earth was at the center of the universe. Its usefulness was that it facilitated accurate (enough) predictions of certain phenomena, including when the sun would rise and set each day, and the locations of the stars and planets in the sky. It was when these predictions increasingly failed, requiring more and more ad hoc adjustments to the model, that it became imperative to come up with a different model. — aletheist

The only prediction it had was wrong, as soon as we were able to observe that it was useless.

Yes - under certain conditions, and therefore for certain purposes, that model is accurate enough. — aletheist

Why should they be useful at all though unless nature is consistent?

Right - and, returning to the thread topic, the consistency of nature calls for an explanation. Realists believe that the laws of nature are real and genuinely govern actual events, including those that will occur in the future. — aletheist

I think it is more accurate to say realists claim the consistency in nature is real, and hence using models with universal laws produces useful results.

I referred to when the sun rises and sets - i.e., the time of each event - which varies each day. That was a prediction, and it was quite accurate under geocentrism. Likewise for the locations of the stars and planets in the sky - again, with various ad hoc adjustments over time. — aletheist

The prediction of geocentricism was that the earth was at the center of the universe, not that the sun rises and sets.

Newtonian mechanics will give you incorrect answers for certain scenarios; therefore, it is (to that extent) inconsistent with reality, and thus useless for solving those kinds of problems. It is not entirely useless, though, because it is consistent enough with reality for many other scenarios. Again, whether a particular model is an adequate representation of reality depends on the purpose in for which it is being used. — aletheist

Newtonian mechanics is how we put men on the moon.
To this day Newtonian mechanics is still taught in the classroom because it remains useful.
Newtonian mechanics still produces reliable predictions.
But GR produces even better results as a model of gravitation, so it is currently accepted as the more accurate model.

It is true that models improve over time, as does our ability to observe the accuracy of our models.
That newer models produce more accurate results hardly explains why the older models produced consistently reliable but less accurate results.

You raise a fair point though.
If nature was inconsistent and had no universal principles why should our models be useful, and why should we be able to improve upon them?

If nature was inconsistent we might get lucky with a given model, and it remains useful but less accurate, instead what happens is we are able to improve our models by accounting for newly observed consistencies in nature.
That should not be the case should it?

It provided very accurate predictions, especially as various ad hoc adjustments were incorporated over the centuries. For example, the sun rose and set right when the predictions said that it would. — aletheist

That the sun rises and sets was an observation not a prediction.

In other words, you now acknowledge that a model can be useful despite being inconsistent with some aspects of reality, as long as the modeler does not consider those aspects to be significant given the purpose of the model. — aletheist

Newtonian mechanics is not what I would call inconsistent with reality.
That would make it as useless as geocentricism.

The distinction is already formed from the very definition of the self. The self is defined in the first place as the entity within us which receives and interprets the "self subjective". — hunterkf5732

You can't form a definition of self with exclusive self reference, this leads to self recursion.
The only way to avoid infinite regress is if there is an independent existence which is not self.

To put it simply self and that which is not self must necessarily be independently existent things not logically equivalent things in reality.
If there was nothing which existed independent of self you would have the issue of self recursion.
Because self recursion is not an issue, we can be logically certain that solipsism is not the case in reality.

You've made this or similar assertions numerous times and all that it demonstrates is that you do not understand what "useful" means. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is you that does not understand that if nature were not consistent then models that predict consistently would not be useful.

How was geocentricism useful, it did not provide accurate predictions?
And Newtonian mechanics is still useful, there are simply more accurate models.

True

Or Whitehead?

I was torn between Boole and Godel.

Maybe art does not have a direct evolutionary purpose but is a by product of creativity and inventiveness.
The act of creating and inventing certainly serves a purpose.

Self esteem is just having rational expectations of yourself and self value when comparing yourself with others.

Ha!

I think the important element missing in the annoying, age-old debate about solipsism is "belief". I know it's dirty word on philosophy forums. Maybe intuition is a better word. Basically, in the simplest terms, everything is experience. In this sense, everything is subjective. This is where the road to solipsism begins. However, we usually either begin going down that road at this point, or we argue back that everything is not, in fact, subjective. The problem is, for instance, when m-theory says — Noble Dust

I suppose you might argue that everything reduces to experience and to me this is no different than saying everything reduces to the physical.
But the issue with solipsism is the claim that we only have subjective access to self.
This would result in the infinite regress of self recursion.

We are able to form the distinction between self and everything which is not self.
That should not be possible if solipsism were true.
If that distinction did not exist in reality, it would not be possible to form that distinction.

Man I will be honest.
I have no interest in readying all that.
Your posts are kind of long winded and seem to miss my point.
You always seem to end up saying because those models serve a purpose, but the purpose of those models is to confirm an assumption about reality, that assumption is that reality is consistent such that reality can be predicted if you apply the correct universal rules.

My point is there is no way to account for why our models are useful if those models are not of something real.

No, the point is that you are drawing the conclusion that if they are useful, then they are "of reality". So the onus is on you, to justify this claim, by supplying an acceptable principle which would necessitate this conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is very real that our models are useful.

Or are you suggesting that this is only imagined as well?

Useful in which way, for what? — Metaphysician Undercover

The models that assume nature are consistent are useful because...nature does indeed appear to be consistent.

This is why we need to define the ends, what are we trying to achieve with the model, in order that we can properly judge its usefulness. If the goal is to deceive, then clearly being useful does not indicate that the model is "of reality". If the goal is to get more funding, then we have to consider the possibility of deception, because we know that the prospects of money may influence some to deceive. — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought I had done this.
Why is producing reliable results not an end?

You don't get more funding if you don't produce results.

Trolling should not be confused with flame warring or cyber bullying.
Trolling is a unique form of art.

By definition the term objective includes all subjective perceptions.
The only need for distinction is between a subjective belief and an objective truth.
Things can be objectively true irrespective of subjective beliefs.
That is to say the truth of objective states is not contingent upon any particular subjective belief about that state.

Solipsism leads to an ill defined infinite regress and cannot be a reality.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Self-Recursion.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

If we only had access to the self subjective, and no access to any independently objectively existent things, then we would not be able to from the distinction of what is our self and what is not our self.
Nor would we be able to form any conclusions about anything as we would be trapped in a never ending loop of self reference recursion.

So there must be an objective reality of things that exist independent of the self that we are able to reference in order to avoid that infinite regress.
This must be an objective truth, because it is not the case that we are trapped in a self recursive loop.
We can form conclusions, and we do perceive ourselves as an dependent and distinct thing from everything which is not the self.
These things prove, objectively, that solipsism is not the case.

That is good enough for me.
That you agree that is not within our subjective control what is true and what is not true.

In the dog example, the belief that all dogs are black is absolutely correct — hunterkf5732

I disagree.
It was not absolutely correct, if it were absolutely correct there should not have been any encounter with a brown dog.
It was only absolutely believed.
But the belief was mistaken.

Let's try a different approach.
Do you agree that mistaken beliefs are most often, if not always, involuntary.
That is to say we do not choose to have our beliefs be mistaken?

Besides you didn't answer my last question. Could you name something we have access to, which is not subjective? — hunterkf5732

Refuting solipsism is a topic for another thread.

I think a lot of people are not aware that they are in a filter bubble when they search or browse.
So it is an issue.
As for myself personally, I am not sure to what extent the evil corporations have entangled me in their vast and ever reaching tentacles.

The explanation is that our subjective interpretation of the world changes according to the data the world provides to our senses. — hunterkf5732

Yes but it changed because something other than what we believed was the case irrespective of that existing belief.

Simply saying that beliefs change does not explain why beliefs turn out to be mistaken.
It is not that beliefs change randomly.
There is a pattern to the change, you believe a thing that turns out to not be the case.
The explanation for this is because something else was the case irrespective of your prior beliefs.

Well that was sort of my point.
Facebook and google can stick you in a filter bubble where you are not exposed to the fact that the BS you are consuming is BS.

It was subjectively true only until the time at which you first met a brown dog. It was falsified afterwards because then, a brown dog entered your subjective interpretation of the world.
The mistake here is that you seem to think that subjective truths are not subject to change. — hunterkf5732

This is a great description of being mistaken, but it doesn't explain why you were.
I am not asking for a description of being mistaken, I was asking you what could explain it.

I offer the explanation that this happens because things can be true irrespective of subjective beliefs.
To me that is the most simple explanation, and the most reasonable.

Here you seem to be thinking that a subjective reality must reside entirely inside your own mind. My contention all along was that there exists a world around us which is independent of us, but which we can only know of through our subjective experience of it through our senses. — hunterkf5732

I don't agree that we only have access to subjective, that amounts to solipsism.

I disagree.
With the likes of google, facebook, and other online companies, they will place you in a filter bubble where you are exposed to things which are consistent with your patterns of suffering.

If you surf BS, you are more likely to be exposed to BS as a recommendation or search result.

This was not necessarily true before the age of targeted advertising and the gathering of big data.

The belief that dogs are black is mistaken because you have now encountered a dog in your subjective experience of the world, which is brown and hence, not black. — hunterkf5732

Yes but subjectively it was true that there were no brown dogs, how should you have encountered a brown dog if that was in fact true?
Subjectively there were no brown dogs, that is what was true, except it wasn't true was it.
Are you saying that you simply changed your mind and decided that dogs could also be brown, and that was why you encountered a different color?
Forgive me if I regard this as a not very reasonable explanation.

Or do you agree that subjective beliefs can be mistaken, because there are things which are true irrespective of subjective beliefs.

Also of our two options which one seems the more reasonable beliefs.
That reality changes to suit what we are willing to believe, or that some things are true irrespective of given subjective beliefs?

Exactly. So why did you cite mistaken beliefs as evidence for objective reality? — hunterkf5732

I site objective reality as an explanation for mistaken belief.
It does a better job of explaining the phenomena than your assumption does.

You have not really explained why your initial belief, that dogs are black, was mistaken. You simply gave an example of a belief that turned out to be mistaken, you did not explain why it was mistaken.

Also you can't know if mistaken beliefs are evidence of objective reality or not.

By your assumption something could be evidence of objective reality and you would not know if it is or is not.

You can't know if objective truth is possible or not.
By definition, from you foundational assumptions, you can't know if something is or is not objectively true.
It may well be objectively true and by your assumptions you can't know.

Your assumption is not very useful either, because it does not explain how we can believe things which turn out to not be true.
How can we have mistaken beliefs if there is no objective reality?

If you can't know that there is or is not objective truth then you can't claim that something is or is not objectively true.

You can only say that you don't know.

lol
Well it is not objectively true that there is no objective truth.
So what is the problem?

I hate to ask the annoying question, but - how do you define culture? I realize it's a hard word to define; I'm just asking for clarity. — Noble Dust

Man that is a tough one.
I am not sure how it should be defined, the more I think about the more I am inclined to believe it has to do with language.

Where do you get the idea that art doesn't show up until the evolution of language? Again, just asking honestly; are there studies? Maybe I'm just not aware of them. But, if so, how can culture exist at all prior to language? Language, to me, is our interface with reality and experience. Language is another element of humanity that is inseparable from things like culture and art. It's not so cut and dry that we can differentiate periods of time before/after language, and thereby before/after culture or art. This feels tangential to the topic, though. But any thoughts are welcome. — Noble Dust

Oh I did not mean to suggest that it does or does not, I was just thinking well what kind of culture did human ancestors have, did they have art?
When does art show up and is it about the same time language does?
If so I think it would be safe to say they are related

I thought it was an interesting question and the more I thought about it the more I thought that maybe culture was closely linked to language, I do not actually know if that is the case or not, I have not researched the subject enough.

I don't see a conflict here.
To say that art is an expression and/or an experience of culture, in my view, is no different than saying that art is culture.
I am merely making a distinction between creating art and experiencing art.

I think art is a way to communicate culture, but culture can be communicated in ways that are not necessarily art.

Art can give us new perspectives on culture or of ourselves.
We can learn things about our ourselves and/or about society from art.

You touch upon something that I am not sure I agree with.
You say that art is culture.

If it were the case that our ancestors that had developed cultures also had art, I would agree.
But if art does not show up until the evolution of language then I would say that it art is not strictly culture it is communication about culture.

I said art can be an expression of culture but it can also be an experience of culture (the audience of art experiences culture the artist expresses culture).

I also mean that we develop our since of identity from expressions or experiences of culture.
It helps shape our view of our societies and our place within those societies.

That is not the point that you believe them separate things.
The point is how should they be useful at all if they do not relate to reality?

Why do they produce consistent results if there is no objective consistency to speak of in reality?

Apparently it is a matter of opinion and ours disagree.
I don't agree with your opinion that the debates were about the principle of relativity.
You can claim they were about local realism, but that is not precisely the same thing as the principle of relativity.
You can even claim that local realism has not survived quantum mechanics and I would not dispute that, but realism philosophy has survived quantum mechanics.
So I would not agree with the claim that quantum mechanics proves there is no objective reality.

We could go on with many examples, and it is quite evident that there is a disjoint, a separation between what the model says, or indicates, and what actually exists in reality. I say it's two kilometres from here to the store, but it's really about 2.1. We say there's 365 and a quarter day — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course there is a disjoint, our models are meant to be as simple as possible yet produce as many accurate predictions as possible.
Our models are not meant to be simulations of all reality.
But the reason are models are useful is because they are simple but reliable.

Which should not be the case if the laws of nature are not consistent or do not exist.