Faith is a virtue signal.

suffering=entropy

It was just a statement of fact. No judgment involved. I’m not claiming to be any better. — T Clark

It's not a fact though. I'm playing tit for tat. If you come titting at me, expect to be tatted.
And I'm kind of a smart ass, so expect to be tatted real good!
If you stop with the titting, I'll stop with the tatting.
Game Theory.

You’re kind of a bully. — T Clark

Projection!

That's smart ass for you started it!

I’m so proud. — T Clark

It's good to keep people updated with regards your emotional state.

Proud.

I see that!

If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? I don't expect you to answer, but maybe one of your followers can tell me!

Oh how dense can you really be. — Outlander

Not as dense as you are dishonest.

I tweeted Greta Thunberg everyday for months and got no replies, neither from her nor her followers. — karl stone

Or maybe you are dense.

Difficult to say without a colonoscopy!

It doesn't matter if it's geothermal or wind or solar, if the mechanics are sound, that's all that matters... — Outlander

Oh contraire. Part of the problem is that we need abundant constant clean energy going forwards - not to spend fortunes mitigating some small part of carbon emissions, intermittently, in ideal weather conditions. Without discussing what may very well prove a bone of contention for those invested, emotionally if not financially in wind and solar; in terms of what these technologies are able to deliver, then the question of feasibility is mooted.

I cannot show how Limits to Growth is misconceived without proving the qualitatively superior nature of high temperature geothermal technology, not thereby inspire with a vision of a prosperous and sustainable energy abundant future - wind and solar cannot promise.

These subjectivists are preparing to die; engaged in anti-enlightenment, anti-capitalist, anti-rationalist, post-modern nihilism, via antinatalism unto the absurd. How can I break through to them; that there is in fact a long and prosperous future ahead for the making, all to play, to hope for, to dream of and talk into existence were I contrainend from offering more than cursory demonstrations of fact?

It's like attending a meeting in an intellectual debate club, and everyone is dressed as asked, minimal themes, nothing shocking or ostentatious, and here you are, decked out in every piece of clothing, button, or pin that advertises your one belief. It's a distraction. — Outlander

I think I'm shadow banned on twitter and on youtube. I tweeted Greta Thunberg everyday for months and got no replies, neither from her nor her followers. I've commented on every science video on youtube, every climate video, the IEA, COP, IPCC...nothing. No-one sees it, or no-one cares. I don't know that I'm shadow banned. I kind of hope so. Point is, I'm not here for the social dimension. I'm here to put my ideas out there.

And from so deep within that heavy layer of non-necessity, I wouldn't be surprised if you failed to see such yourself. But. You're clearly capable of such. So. Come now. Step outside your current seemingly unbreakable will and current fascination, and see the larger debate for what it is. See the forest for the trees. — Outlander

I'm not sure I know what that means; but let me ask you if you are content with knowing that you are the weak link in a hypothetical chain linking every previous generation to every potential future generation of human beings? Are you unconcerned by a characterisation of yourself as betraying the struggles of your every ancestor, and all your children's children? Because I am not content. I am concerned. I will not fail for want of trying for a prosperous and sustainable future powered by endless clean energy from high temperature geothermal. Hume notwithstanding, if it is technologically feasible, it is morally obligatory!

This is more of a philosophy forum. The science is related, indirectly, sparsely, tangentially, perhaps. But a topic centered around discussing the scientific facts of a theory is categorically off topic. Absolutely fine in the Lounge, but again, this is more about philosophy. Non-physical things. It just comes off as this obsession, that may very well change the world we live in, but nonetheless ultimately rests outside of the scope of what this forum is intended for (philosophy). — Outlander

So by philosophy you mean metaphysics; intellectual logic chopping rather than anything concerned with truth, wisdom, or justice as it pertains to the real world? I cannot agree; that's not what philosophy is. It's more than a mere talking shop; it's about asking how we live.

Proving high temperature geothermal is technologically possible is not about mechanics; it's about the sustainability of human existence.

But that aside, why would you want to put anything beyond the scope? On what basis? And who decides that - assuming that Western philosophy is twaddle in the course of ecclesiastical error, then what's relevant to philosophy qua philosophy is again up for debate. No?

For someone who claims to be:

not be one of the players here, — Outlander

...you sure do have a keen insight into the site owners' inner workings. And you have taken the time to explain them to me, again. What a great friend you are! But to whom? Your younger self perhaps? I hate my younger self. His naivety in allowing people to befriend him for no apparent reason is responsible for at least half my woes.

I'm not a trendsetter; I'm a Galilean objectivist on a forum full of passive aggressive subjectivists. I'm not pushing the envelope. I'm correcting an error. I have explained this in the shoutbox, and I'm wondering how you - who have such insight into the thinking of someone you profess not to know, has no insight whatsoever into the thinking of someone you profess to be a friend?

I might appreciate my membership here more if it didn't feel I'm unwelcome. I can not care, but I'll be damned if I don't stand by my conscientious convictions. I think Galileo was right, that science is true, and philosophy should have followed in the course of a scientific objectivism. I think subjectivism is bunk, and much of Western philosophy is..metaphysics, papering over the cracks of a rational/spiritual schism wholly invented by the antithetical position the Church adopted to science.

That; alongside a Magma Energy solution to the climate and ecological threat - makes me something of a unicorn, and not someone you should want to drive off the forum because I'm not reading your facial cues or offering the required degree of deference.

The rationale depends upon whether it's a discrete, single game, or a potential series of games. Losing one game may not mean losing the series! Whereas winning one game will almost certainly mean losing in a series of games.

Professions of friendship confuse me. Why would you want to be my friend? Given that, again, you are questioning my conduct - as opposed to the treatment I've been subjected to, I'm not at all sure you are who you claim to be!

Bruh. What are you doing. — Outlander

Are we bruh's now? When did that happen? Do I get a say in this?

If either Nietzsche or Diogenes, had only these pages on which to communicate their ideas - everywhere else being shadow edited by AI's tuned to exclude anything that's not a reflection of the media narratives from ever being seen, Diogenes and Nietzsche would have died in obscurity and be forgotten by the world. Because they didn't conform - didn't want to conform, didn't have an identity rooted in conformity, could not conform!

I live in the UK, and the people here voted since 2010 for reduced immigration. Unfortunately, the Conservative government they elected did the exact opposite of what they said they would do - dismantling the Borders Agency, and overseeing a fourfold increase in annual immigration between 2010 and 2023.

All the while, they weaponised the immigration issue to win election after election; including the EU Referendum. They used rhetoric very similar to that employed by Donald Trump - targeting the same white working class demographic, with the same messaging, to divide and conquer.

When Donald Trump blackmailed $15bn from Congress (and the military budget) to build a wall, with the longest shutdown of the federal government in US history, and then built 50 miles of wall on a 2,000 mile border - I concluded he was exactly the same as the Conservatives in the UK.

Thinking along those lines, I suspect the current situation has more to do with Donald Trump's background in construction than it has to do with any belated attempt to make good on his election promises. After the LA fires, I imagine, there's a lot of juicy contracts - and a lot of immigrant labour gangs looking to cash in. I suspect Donald Trump is rounding up immigrants so that the Teamsters get the contracts to rebuild LA. That's why all this is going down in California right now; rather than in Texas, or anywhere else.

On the immigration issue itself, I do not think illegal immigration should be tolerated. Not in the UK, Europe or the US either. I think we need to revisit the 1951 Convention on Refugees, and reverse the obligations therein such that the costs of irregular migration accrue to the countries people come from. So, for example, every Mexican in a US prison should be paid for by Mexico; not by the US taxpayer. Mexico would quickly develop a keen interest in repatriating its wayward citizens.

Therefore, I can't go around wielding Hume's argument as if it were sound. — Leontiskos

I wonder. Consider Newtonian mechanics, as employed in space flight. It's good enough to get the job done. But it's no special relativity! Isn't sometimes a rule of thumb - or a lower resolution argument sufficient to get us from a to b? And if not, how DO we know what is real? And I mean KNOW!

When they said they wanted opinions I thought to give them one that hadn't been stated yet. — Moliere

Yours was the first reply in the thread. And it was a very definite answer, you didn't elaborate on, but I think would have some bearing on the broader question being discussed here: How do we know what is real? You must surely have a basis for knowing what's real if you are certain there are objective qualities.

I don't see how Kant's theory of aesthetics helps you very much, given that Kant maintains aesthetic judgements arise from a "free play of the imagination and understanding."

It's widely regarded as a solidly subjectivist theory. I would ask, how could it be otherwise where it not for your assertion that objective qualities exist? So my question is, how do you know there are objective qualities?

Self consistent? Oh, okay, so...

When Red Sky asked: "Is there an objective quality?"

and you answered: "Yes. Now what?"

...who were you appealing to then?

Hume? Aristotle? Kripke?

Yourself perhaps. Maybe you were...

...do what they did and write our own little thoughts, inferences, suppositions, and what-have-you. — Moliere

...So if your mum had never mentioned tigers you might have walked into a cage with a tiger...without knowing it's there? Or you just wouldn't know what to call it?

Science: It works because it's true, and it's true because it works.

Just because values are subjective doesn't mean they're infinitely relative. There's a very good reason people want a society that upholds a prohibition against murder; that is, so they don't get murdered. Also, so they are not required to commit murder - something people have a general disinclination to do.
Why?
Reciprocation!
We evolved as social animals; and have a moral sense attuned to reciprocal social justice.
Jane Goodall noted that in troops of chimpanzees, they would share food, share childcare responsibilities, groom each other, fight to defend the troop etc.
They also remembered which individuals engaged in these activities, and withheld services in future from those who did not.
An inclination toward sharing behaviours was rewarded, serving the interests of the individual within the troop, and such behaviours served the interests of the troop overall in the struggle for survival, ingraining a moral sense grounded in social reciprocity in the psychology of subsequent generations.
This is the basis of the evolved moral sense; a sense that might require one to commit murder in response to a murder being committed. i.e. An eye for an eye!
A society that makes it illegal to commit murder, even in response to a murder being committed, breaks the cycle of violence. It relieves the individual of the moral obligation to take revenge. i.e. Turn the other cheek!

I think it depends on what you mean by "objective." Within certain cultures or even human culture at large, I think there are some "objective" art standards that tend to appeal to how our brains are wired. However, I think what we see as objective truths are just subjective truths that are broadly applicable to our lived experiences, and are not based on true external universalities. If nothing else, there have been so many conflicting theories of art and what makes it good that it seems impossible for there to be a single "standard" for what makes objectively good art. — MrLiminal

There are deeper arguments that invoke evolution in relation to physical reality, in the construction of aesthetic psychological architectures, but I think that's a lot to lay on the OP, who - it seems to me, is probably not an expert.
There are also arguments that might be made about whether x painting is an objectively good example of a certain style of painting, maybe. But again, I think you're then into philosophy as it plays out in a socio-cultural milieu - again, pretty advanced stuff.
The short answer to the OP's question is 'no.' There is not an objective quality. That's a contradiction of terms. Rule of thumb: Qualities are subjective. Facts are objective. And then we can see how far we can bend the rule.

If it were objectively true that Seinfeld broke new ground when it first came out; that wouldn't necessitate that someone like it. Maybe some people don't enjoy new things. That's a subjective value judgement. Nor is it necessary that just because something has been emulated - that it is robbed of what makes it interesting. Again, that's a subjective value judgement.
Getting down to long established philosophical principles.... no quantity of objective facts add up to a subjective value. If the purpose here is discussion rather than learning philosophy, maybe I'm stepping on the discussion, but I feel like the OP asked a specific question deserving of, what is - the well established answer.

And I’m saying it implies there is an objective fact of the matter. If it were merely subjective, there would be no reasonable disagreement. It would be e.g., “I find this boring” vs “I find this exciting”.

The subjective is about the subject. The moment people disagree, they are talking about what is not specific to a subject. — Jamal

If you ignore Hume's dictum, there are certainly objective facts about a piece of art that can be pointed out in support of a subjective value judgement; but they do not necessitate such a judgement. After all, people liked Star Wars.

I'd admit the special effects, the art and design, the music and so on were all good. But the writing was bad, the light/dark moral dichotomy - simplistic and positively damaging, the politics was contrived, the force is wholly unscientific, there are allusions to bestiality, I could go on.

The fact it was popular is not an objective fact that necessitates subjective approval.
I positively disliked Star Wars; other people loved it.

I have always wondered whether there is an objective quality. Specifically for different forms of art and such. — Red Sky

Short answer, no!
See David Hume's is/ought distinction.
Objective facts do not add up to subjective values.
Aesthetic judgements are subjective.
You cannot have an objective standard for a subjective quality.

Is my “red” your “red”?: Evaluating structural correspondences between color similarity judgments using unsupervised alignment
Genji Kawakita1,2,7 ∙ Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston3,4,7 ∙ Ken Takeda1,7 ∙ Naotsugu Tsuchiya3,4,5,6,8 naotsugudottsuchiyaatmonashdotedu ∙ Masafumi Oizumi1,8,9 c-oizumiatgdoteccdotu-tokyodotacdotjp

Whether one person’s subjective experience of the “redness” of red is equivalent to another’s is a fundamental question in consciousness studies. Intersubjective comparison of the relational structures of sensory experiences, termed “qualia structures”, can constrain the question. We propose an unsupervised alignment method, based on optimal transport, to find the optimal mapping between the similarity structures of sensory experiences without presupposing correspondences (such as “red-to-red”). After collecting subjective similarity judgments for 93 colors, we showed that the similarity structures derived from color-neurotypical participants can be “correctly” aligned at the group level. In contrast, those of color-blind participants could not be aligned with color-neurotypical participants. Our results provide quantitative evidence for interindividual structural equivalence or difference of color qualia, implying that color-neurotypical people’s “red” is relationally equivalent to other color-neurotypical’s “red”, but not to color-blind people’s “red”. This method is applicable across modalities, enabling general structural exploration of subjective experiences.

We've considered why right winged interests would not enthusiastically embrace Magma Energy; now let's consider why left winged - supposed environmentalists would still be pushing a Limits to Growth policy proscription 40 years after Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstration of the potential for boundless clean energy from high temperature geothermal.

It might be noted that Meadows and Meadows, 1974 The Limits to Growth - was quite authoritative in its day, coming as it did from a group of computer scientists at MIT, and feeding into a conservationist environmental movement. Save the Whale! etc. Leaning, if not explicitly upon Malthusian logic - (proven wrong by 200 years of technological advance that promoted food production far ahead of population growth) the idea of finite resources being used up had an internally logical appeal.

Insofar as it appealed also to a Marxist anti-capitalist sensibility, it served as a staunch critique of capitalism at a time when the genocidal horrors of 20th century communism had as yet, barely come to light. Little wonder then, Limits to Growth became unquestionable on the left; even while, from 1982 onward - the environmental value of boundless clean energy from high temperature geothermal should have been obvious.

These remarks; insofar as they might provide some insight, do not adequately answer the question of how the environmental left found themselves in a conspiracy of opposition; offering one of two juxtaposed false narratives - Limits to Growth relative to climate denialism. An impasse characteristic of the Cold War era! Because scientifically, it's inexplicable that The Limits to Growth was not refuted by Nasa/Sandia Labs findings, and the impasse broken, such that the environmental debate took place between continuing with fossil fuels, and a practically limitless constant clean energy alternative!

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful enmity. — T Clark

Then you are already two steps behind!

Yeah, please, don't nitpick it apart!

I mean the latter. Raw perceptions are a myth - a construction from our recognition that there are interpretive processes at work. The moment that the light or sound or whatever arrives at our sense organs, the process of selection, editing and interpreting begins. A perception that was raw could not be perceived by us, and a perception that can be perceived by us is not raw. — Ludwig V

Whereas an evil demon who maybe keeps our brain in a jar is a justifiable methodological device? Net down for your serve again!
There are sound waves that strike our eardrums causing them to vibrate; light that strikes our eye, to which the organism is responsive. So far we are talking about pure physics.
From there we transition to evolutionary biology, to describe the physiological response of an organism evolved in relation to reality, that must be sufficiently correct to reality to facilitate survival.
Thereafter, we are into psychological interpretation, across the brain/mind distinction. I'd suggest subjectivism lies mostly within the realm of the latter - the mind as opposed to the brain, and less yet organs of sensory perception.

Take your average perceptual illusion; like the duck/rabbit - it is an ambiguous image. The mask illusion is quite compelling - we see an inside out mask facing outward, but put a mark on the face and the illusion disappears!
The point being, interpretational models are not subjective. Consider the conservation of quantity in developmental psychology; something infants 2-3 are unable to understand, but then suddenly grasp at the age of 4. They're not subjectively constructed interpretational models, but largely in the realm of the brain function of an organism able to survive within a physical environment.
The subjectivist takes the implications of a distinction between sense data and interpretation too far.

Can we just concentrate on this? It doesn't help me much, because I don't understand what you are trying to say. It is true that experience of an objective reality requires two poles. That's because it is a relationship. The perceiver (subject) experiences the reality (object). I don't see that any metaphysical consequences follow.
To see what I mean, look at Descartes' argument. He points out that we can distinguish between mind and body and so concludes that they are two distinct things and thence that they are different substances. He interprets "distinct" in a specific way and the metaphysics grows from that. But there is no need to interpret "distinct" in that way. — Ludwig V

You don't help me much; arguing the subjectivist perspective while denying you're a subjectivist. Could you pick a lane? When you say, "I don't see any metaphysical consequences follow" who are you saying that as? A Cartesian, or not a Cartesian?
What I'm trying to say is that sure, the subject exists, but it is of almost no consequence. Valid observation of an external reality is demonstrably possible. Were it otherwise, we'd be extinct. We are clearly able to negotiate the physical world, and only in the most deliberately ambiguous circumstances are our perceptions, and/or perceptual models unable to process what we see. I'm saying that your assertion:

I do doubt the validity of some of my perception - often rightly. — Ludwig V

...is overstated. Assuming you are of adequate health, it's extremely rare that your perception is not accurate to reality.

Well, you are not the first to present this sort of account, a scientists setting to rights the poor benighted philosophers. — Banno

I'm sure I've explained how Galileo was right; while Descartes wrote Meditations as a preemptive defence against impeachment by the Inquisition. I'm not a scientist setting philosophers to rights. I'm a philosopher of science; a Galilean objectivist seeking to reimagine the philosophy that would have resulted had the Church welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation.

It's easy to provide an answer when you haven't understood the issue. — Banno

My inadequacy to the task is something I struggle with; the impossibility of rewriting 400 years of European philosophical history in the course of Galilean objectivism. It is however, the terms in which I arrived at a Magma Energy solution to the climate and ecological crisis - while left winged subjectivist accounts run aground upon Marxist Limits to Growth.

Hang around for a bit, see if you notice anything odd or problematic in what you've decided. Then we might have an interesting chat. — Banno

How very Cartesian of you!

Ok. Since you have it all worked out, I'll leave you to it. — Banno

I was expecting an even longer response, and dreading my even longer response to your even longer response. I respect your initiative in breaking the cycle.

The first argument:
I don't think dualism is an assumption. It's a description of a state of affairs.
— karl stone
A description. So you are saying that it's an empirical observation? What is it we are observing here... — Banno

We observe a state of affairs. The state of being conscious of a world existing externally to ourselves. Is it an empirical observation? Yes and no. You cannot confirm my observations of this state of affairs. You can only report a similar experience of an 'I' - looking out through your eyeholes. Is that sufficient for empiricism?

I understand what it means to observe the sky, or the horizon, or the sound of the sea. I'm not sure of what it could mean to observe internal and external worlds. I see the sky with my eyes, hear the sea with my ears - what sense do I use to observe my own mind? And who is it that is doing the observing of that mind, if not my mind...? — Banno

Apparently not. If you don't know what it is to observe internal and external worlds - then you cannot even confirm similar experience of a subject/object distinction. I can only assume you must be some sort of robot.

That all seems very odd. A long stretch. — Banno

Beep boop, beep beep beep boop!

The second argument:
Senses that are evolved to enable us to survive; and thus, demonstrably accurate to external reality.
— karl stone
I'm not at all keen on Donald Hoffman, a chap with whom you have some points in common, but one point he makes is that there need be no relation between what the evolved mind presents to us and what is "out there". — Banno

His 2015 TED Talk, "Do we see reality as it is?" argues that our perceptions have evolved to hide reality from us.

I'm not familiar with his work, but he's not the only university professor arguing for a subjectivist understanding of perception. There's an entire industry dedicated to - telling us there's no such thing as colour, for example. That colour is subjectively constructed. Something I cannot reconcile with the physical reality of the different wave-lengths of different colours of light.

I don't think the question is very well framed. Obviously we don't see reality as it is. Our sight is confined to a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. We hear a small auditory range. Better put, the question would be - Is what we see real?
And the answer is yes. How could it be otherwise? We could not have survived as a species if our senses were inaccurate to reality. Limited certainly, but not false.

Evolution selects not for veridical perceptions, but for fitness-enhancing ones — and these two are not only distinct but often incompatible. We cannot assume that perceptual accuracy correlates with survival success. — Banno

A Lamarckian, is he? He cannot be a Darwinian. He imagines that evolution knows the blacksmith son will need big muscles? It's just not how evolution works. The surviving adult organism passes on traits that allowed for their survival to their offspring; while those traits that didn't allow for survival are extinguished from the genetic line. Consequently the senses are sufficiently veridical to enable survival; based on prior selection. They're not predictive of what will, in future constitute fitness.

When one decides on one's enemy - subjectivism, perhaps, whatever that is - one tends to see them everywhere. One might find oneself criticising an argument that hasn't been presented. — Banno

One might find oneself scratching one's head, wondering what you're talking about? I'm not looking for enemies. I'm looking for truth. I find enemies of truth; but that's incidental to what I'm doing.

Isn't it rather that in order to make an observation at all, you become an observer seperate from what you are observing? — Banno

I find myself observing unbidden, such that I am not making an observation or becoming an observer - but an observant being, prior to, during and after any particular observation. I have not become an observer, because I already was one. The subject/object dualism is the prevailing state of affairs; a description of that state - of being inwardly conscious of an external reality. I make very little of it in an empirical worldview - subjectivism is a near irrelance compared to the significance of objectivism. That is, an external world with definite physical characteristics, to which the organism must be physiologically, behaviourally and intellectually correct to survive.

Is my “red” your “red”?: Evaluating structural correspondences between color similarity judgments using unsupervised alignment
Genji Kawakita1,2,7 ∙ Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston3,4,7 ∙ Ken Takeda1,7 ∙ Naotsugu Tsuchiya3,4,5,6,8 naotsugudottsuchiyaatmonashdotedu ∙ Masafumi Oizumi1,8,9 c-oizumiatgdoteccdotu-tokyodotacdotjp

Whether one person’s subjective experience of the “redness” of red is equivalent to another’s is a fundamental question in consciousness studies. Intersubjective comparison of the relational structures of sensory experiences, termed “qualia structures”, can constrain the question. We propose an unsupervised alignment method, based on optimal transport, to find the optimal mapping between the similarity structures of sensory experiences without presupposing correspondences (such as “red-to-red”). After collecting subjective similarity judgments for 93 colors, we showed that the similarity structures derived from color-neurotypical participants can be “correctly” aligned at the group level. In contrast, those of color-blind participants could not be aligned with color-neurotypical participants. Our results provide quantitative evidence for interindividual structural equivalence or difference of color qualia, implying that color-neurotypical people’s “red” is relationally equivalent to other color-neurotypical’s “red”, but not to color-blind people’s “red”. This method is applicable across modalities, enabling general structural exploration of subjective experiences.

.. and you interpret all that in dualistic terms. But that's an interpretation, not a fact. — Ludwig V

Not dualistic in the sense a subjectivist infers or employs dualism. I accept there's an object world, and subjective experience of it. I'll answer the subjectivist argument, but for me - subjective experience can be shown to be aligned to an objective reality.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise - given that our senses are evolved to negotiate a world that could kill us, and consequently remove us from the evolutionary development of our senses?
Observation of objective phenomena (i.e. an apple falling from a tree) allows us to derive knowledge of how things work, (planetary motion) and re-apply that knowledge in different circumstances, (rocket science) to create technologies that function. If you introduce ideas of the subjective variability of perception then rocket science wouldn't work.

I'm not a subjectivist and I don't doubt the validity of perception as such, though I do doubt the validity of some of my perception - often rightly. — Ludwig V

What do you mean by perceptions here, exactly? Are you referring to raw sense data? Or the entire process of observation and interpretation of observations? Because sure, we might misunderstand what we see. But that's different from questioning the validity of raw sense perception - to reality.

In one sense, it is not possible that they conflict. But people think they do, so an explanation is in order. It is true that Newtonian physics is intuitive now. But it wasn't before he came up with it and many people found it seriously counter-intuitive. Ditto Relativity. — Ludwig V

At one time, people believed the Earth was stationary. It actually feels as if the Earth is stationary to someone stood on the surface. Thing is, the relative motions of planetary bodies in space is a subtly different question to why the Earth seems stationary to someone stood on the surface.
In short, it is not what we are observing that's mistaken, but our understanding of observations.

The sun appears to rise and set; that's how we think about it. But in fact the Earth is rotating.

Similarly, you can drop a ball from a tower and it will appear to fall straight down. But in absolute space, the trajectory is curved. It actually falls a good distance from... where the base of the tower was when the ball was dropped from the top. Only the base of the tower has also moved in absolute space.

If you were travelling at the speed of light, relativity would make perfect sense, he said, ducking out of even attempting to explain relativity!

All this is supplemental to the point, that there's really no alternative to accept the dualistic nature of subjective experience of an objective reality. It's what we make of that fact that matters. And what I'm saying is that subjectivists since Descartes have had an anti-science agenda.

Do you mean that our experience confirms it? If not our experience, then what? — Ludwig V

Traffic lights. Their very existence presupposes a commonality of perception. And they're everywhere! As is art, colour coded electrical wires, signs saying Keep Off the Grass! etc. This very sentence assumes your ability to see, and psychologically translate perception into meaning similar - if not identical to, that which it is intended to convey.

In most instances, particularly traffic lights, the meaning of the external object is intentionally clear. Certainly, images can be intentionally obscure - like the duck/rabbit illusion, and that does demonstrate the operation of psychological models through which perception is interpreted.

However, the subjectivist takes the implications of the existence of interpretational models far too far - and does so with the intent of casting the validity of perception into doubt, to undermine the empirical basis for scientific knowledge.

Yes, but given the way that physics conflicts with common sense, it is important to point out that observations themselves tell us that some observations are wrong, mistaken, misleading and that observations themselves enable us to correct those mistakes - usually. — Ludwig V

Does physics conflict with common sense? I don't think it does. Certainly not Newtonian physics; it's very intuitive. Relativity gets a bit weird, but at velocities approaching the speed of light. And quantum physics gets weird, but again, by virtue of being as small and lightspeed is quick! It's hardly surprising that conditions far removed from our experience, to the absolute extremes of velocity and scale, are difficult to understand in common sense terms.

I don't think dualism is an assumption. It's a description of a state of affairs. It's like saying gravity is an assumption. What reasonable evidence have I for disputing the tyranny of gravity?
It is everywhere confirmed that there's an internal world, and an external world - mediated by the senses. Senses that are evolved to enable us to survive; and thus, demonstrably accurate to external reality.
Not comprehensive, that thin gruel I'll gladly grant subjectivists - while denying that the external world is created by the subject.
Observation in science, is thus a valid basis for knowledge of the external world, particularly when observations are confirmed by an independent observer.
Empirical method.
What if? Could you not leave hanging what you're alluding to? The double slit experiment perhaps? Telekinesis? Or something even more mystical and weird, like subjectivism!?

Thanks. I had some vermu's and forgot!

President Trump's best friend Vlad is a problem, because, while the US is a big fossil fuel energy producer, the US would not need to divest and diversify between now and 2050 half as much as Russia would need to.
Russia is very much dependent on fossil fuel revenues and would be all veto and thumbs down were this a vote in the UN.
Fortunately, President Trump doesn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail for votes in the UN!

No! Not if he was saying black, black, black, err, no I meant white! No! That strongly implies an external influence. And we know what that influence was, and it is contemporaneous. You can propose, I suppose, he had some come to jesus moment, but then display your jesus. Subjectivism is bunk! Science rocks!