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

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

:rofl:

:up:

:rofl:

Or easy for an individual that can read.

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

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

:chin:

What we're "doing" when we do science is treating the world as natural or physical -- i.e., objective -- as substantive, quantitative, material. It takes on a view of the world as an object, a machine, or as forces acting on matter. — Xtrix

We look for natural explanations to natural phenomena. All of what I said above is an ontological position. None of it is "arbitrary," nor did I say that.
— Xtrix

science doesn't assume the world is material, mechanical etc. — Nickolasgaspar

-You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. — Nickolasgaspar

…

[Science] deals with ontology within nature since we figured out this is the only ontology that makes senses and has epistemic value. — Nickolasgaspar

It’s almost as if you’re making it up as you go. As if you’re more interested in posturing. :chin:

I eventually felt that he lead me nowhere. — Manuel

insight that I can try to do something with. — Manuel

I hear you. But what would you like to do with it?

I feel the question itself, the history, etc., is very focusing. It offers a new understanding of being human, really. That has plenty of application — to politics, to technology, and so on.

I used to like Heidegger, now less so, but he's interesting. — Manuel

Why less so now? I’m curious.

Fires and floods seem to be focusing folk's attention. One might be hopeful. — Banno

Yes...and if we had another 20/30 years of runway, this would be good. But much like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry will fight to the bitter end to burn their products -- and that means the politicians they control and the misinformation they put out (now greenwashing) will continue to lose us time. By the time it becomes a non-partisan issue, there likely won't be time left.

We can put our hopes into carbon-removing technology, but that doesn't seem very promising.

To really halt excess CO2 production instead of just slowing it down would require some sort of global covenant: a new global religion, basically. — frank

There's truth to this. But I would make two points: (1), I view capitalism as the real religion, and a particular variant of it seems to be dominating the minds of the plutocracy -- whether or not this can change, I don't know. But I wouldn't say it's global. (2) This religious conversion is only necessary if people continue not to organize/act collectively.

On a positive note: climate change has been reported far more than in the past, the country seems to be moving a little in prioritizing it (according to polls), and there's a significant movement compared to even 10 years ago. Plus, younger people seem much more likely to care about this crisis, for good reason. Big business, including fossil fuel companies, have moved from outright denial to admitting we have to do something -- i.e., the delay-as-long-as-possible phase. But that's still movement. Renewable energy and clean technology has advantaged and become much cheaper, etc.

This would all make me very hopeful...if it were 1988. But since we've essentially wasted 34 years, most of the warming is locked in. We have only some idea of how destructive 1.5 to 2.5 degrees warming will be -- but given the level of destruction we've already seen (and are seeing) at just 1.2 C, it's likely to be hellish.

People have had 50 years to awaken. It's not going to happen, mate. — Benkei

Maybe not. But the way I see it, if that's true -- it's hopeless anyway. But since that's not set in stone, I will keep trying.

By the way, I see it being closer to 40 years, from around the beginning of the Reagan administration. That's still a long time. But many in the 1930s probably felt the same way -- that no one will organize. We face our own set of obstacles now, but it wasn't that long ago that things were better. I think we began to see the end of the neoliberal era in 2008. There are signs of it everywhere. We see it in the shift to "stakeholder capitalism" to the election of several progressives to the widespread labor strikes.

I think it's all becoming a "supersaturated solution." I think the 'awakening' is right in front of our noses. I think Bernie tapped into it.

It will not pass. If Manchin decides to pass something, which has been reported he's interested in doing so piece-meal, it will be devoid of anything meaningful. That's assuming anything passes whatsoever.

Of course, it isn't just Manchin. He's taking the fall on this, and happy to do so, but most of the Democratic party isn't interested in passing anything meaningful for the working/middle class, for the environment, or for really anything that threatens their plutocratic masters' position and power. They made their choice long ago; it was particularly evident in how the DNC effectively, unlike the RNC, beat back the more popular candidate, Bernie Sanders. The rest has mostly been empty lip service and placation to corral his supporters -- and the last year has taken away any doubt whatsoever of this (their vote was against Trump anyway, not for Biden -- which is a crucial distinction).

So the legislation is indeed dead, and the fossil fuel kingpin is largely (but not entirely) to blame. It was already largely watered down, which is what initially made me think that it had a chance of passing (given that the biggest provision was already removed and the price tag came way down). Alas, my own foolishness.

We're wasting with time we don't have, either way. Democrats only nibble around the edges.

I'm thinking now that there are two options before us: (1) the people can give what's called the "extreme" sides of the political spectrum full control over the government -- abolish the filibuster or give supermajorities, etc -- so that we see what truly comes out of either vision (including, unfortunately, the Republican party). This is probably spells doom, and wastes 2-6 years. But at least the citizens will get a real sense of what it looks like, as they do in state governments dominated by one party or the other.

Or (2) is that we wait for a much-needed cultural and economic upheaval. 9/11 obviously didn't cut it. 2008 financial crisis and recession came close, but mostly that just got us Trump. The coronavirus obviously didn't bring anyone together, although it has shifted people around in their jobs, perhaps increased remote work, and apparently has energized, to a degree, the labor movement (Starbucks, Amazon, all the strikes taking place). But none of it is enough. We need a real crash and a real depression. Things need to get far worse, evidently -- because the 80% of the American populace is still convinced that there are "two sides."

What I'm waiting for is the massive crash of the stock market -- which I have little doubt will happen. Watch what the Fed does.

Unfortunately, if this does happen it will most likely bring the Republicans in power -- and possibly Trump again. But perhaps that's what's necessary to awaken the large movement (bordering on revolution if not outright revolution) that's needed, at this point.

Beyond that, I see no way we avoided future catastrophe.

(BTW, I don't want to minimize the huge success of the people organizing in unions and going on strikes, etc. -- the concession of Shultz to freeze $20 billion in stock buybacks is a MAJOR victory for labor, and shouldn't be dismissed.)

I wouldn’t bother too much with Ayn Rand dogmatists/liars who are interested only in posturing.

Let them be happy with “philosophy becomes science when it is objectively verified” or whatever Nickelodeon characterization they’re attached to.

You’d have a better chance talking to a sea blob.

It is not the empirical analysis of things that we first encounter in the world. It is meaning, and analysis follows on this. — Constance

:clap: :up:

Well said.

But I do think that many of the classical philosophical questions are so hard, we don't even know how to go about even giving a good answer. Free will, for instance, or how can matter think? We know it can, but have zero clue as to how it does this. — Manuel

Very true. Plenty of bad answers, of course. Sometimes the question itself isn't formulated well enough that there can even be an answer.

Incidentally, as a side note, Locke and Hume were MUCH more sophisticated than many so called "empiricists" today — Manuel

Agreed. I'm always impressed when reading those guys. Hume's thoughts on government everyone should read.

current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries. — Manuel

So’s science, no? Plenty of mysteries in science— unsolved problems, puzzling questions, etc.

Science is able to answer questions because it sets certain goals and standards for itself — it is more restricted. But it is by no means the final arbiter of truth. What is or isn’t true is a philosophical question. Nature and naturalism is an interpretation and fundamentally an ontological position.

Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science. — Manuel

I think the questions of philosophy can be answered, and in fact are answered all the time. We make our choices and live our lives largely on the basis of these answers, tacitly or explicitly. There’s many reasons and arguments for and against these answers. They don’t come out of nowhere— they come out of the human mind.

Again, empiricism isn’t necessarily the final word on the truth it falsity of something. Empiricism is itself a way of interpreting and engaging with the world, and with truth.

Incidentally, I value empirical evidence and reasons as much as the next person. I just don’t think we need to take the labels too seriously. Thinking, asking questions, solving problems, etc. — all worthwhile human activities. We can try to define various labels for what we do — but in the end the questions and problems themselves are what’s more interesting to me.

145 thousand years ago, human beings still existed. They still lived and raised families and suffered and contemplated the world and told stories. They created new tools and explanations and codes of conduct without a shred of care about whether they were “doing” philosophy or science or technology or religion. Just as they didn’t know or care that they were living in what later humans would call the Stone Age. I think we can learn something from them. Which is why I offered a very general picture of philosophy as a label for a kind of thinking — a kind of thinking distinguished by its universal questions. Natural thinking/philosophy is exactly that — it restricts its questions (and answers) to nature— to matter, to causes and effects, to observable and experimentally verifiable phenomena, to quantification, etc. We now call that science, and want to relegate everything else to religion (read: blind faith, superstition, mythology) and philosophy (the academic pondering of unanswerable questions and ultimately unproductive navel-gazing). That’s generally what I see happening here. Not necessarily you.

But this is only one man’s opinion.

Science did not so much "come out of natural philosophy" as it took what was "natural" and categorized it. — Constance

I don’t see the difference.

Science seeks to understand nature, seeking naturalistic explanations. That’s natural philosophy. Yes, we’ve since given it another label — but ontologically it’s no different.

What is left is religion: the narrative driven unobservable world that defies categorical thinking. It is the "openness" of our existence in all knowledge claims. — Constance

Eh. I myself don’t take the conventional distinctions between religion, philosophy, and science very seriously— any more than I take historical epochs like the “middle ages” and “renaissance” seriously. They’re useful in everyday discussion, but when looking at it a little closer they aren’t at all as clear or as neat as one would like to think.

What’s called religion in many ways deals with the same questions as philosophy…and science. I think the knee jerk reaction to this is historical — the Catholic Church persecuting early astronomers, or creationists trying to get ID taught in schools, etc. There’s a fear that our sense of truth is undermined if science and “religion” aren’t separated — that one deals with facts and the other with faith, etc. I used to think the same, and in many instances still do— but with the acknowledgement that it’s not always so simple.

Ah yes, the ontology of knitting. — Constance

This did give me a chuckle.

But philosophy is not an empirical approach. — Constance

True— not now, anyway. But remember, science comes out of natural philosophy, and is not without its ontological foundations. Once we acknowledge that, clear demarcations begin to get blurred.

:yawn:

Liar says what?

Sorry, I don’t interact seriously with liars.

The Fountainhead is calling you.

Science is, of course, NOT philosophy. It is pre-philosophical. — Constance

This depends on whether we want to define them as entirely different. I look at it as a spectrum. The difference between natural philosophy and science isn’t always clear.

Science rests — like everything else — on an ontology (namely, naturalism/materialism). Ontology is usually considered philosophy. The idea of “nature,” causality, time, and being all have philosophical underpinnings in science.

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to? — Xtrix

No response.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.
— Xtrix
I reject their objections — Nickolasgaspar

What objections? What exactly are their “objections” that you refer to? Since you’re lying, and have no clue what they argue, they could be in full agreement with you. But again, you wouldn’t know — because you’re a liar, and haven’t read a word of their work.

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?
— Xtrix
-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, — Nickolasgaspar

you need to do the hard work here. — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

After a Google search:

there are ideas of his that agree with (i.e.why scientific knowledge doesn't share characteristics of revolution) — Nickolasgaspar

That’s not Kuhn’s argument. Keep trying.

I notice not one reference to a work or one passage cited. Hmm…I guess that’s too “hard.”

Next time, don’t claim to be familiar with authors you’ve never heard of. Understand?

Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? — Nickolasgaspar

No — failing to know what those “critiques” are does.

What work of Kuhn have you read? Not hard work — just give a title. Go Google it if you need to.

I’ll skip the rest. I’ve already given this lying bullshitter too much of my time.

Go read more Ayn Rand.

Nick isn't having a conversation. He is running a PR campaign. — Yohan

For Ayn Rand and his own bloated sense of self.

Garrett Travers was more fun — Joshs

Yeah…may even be the same person. Who knows.

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

Says the Ayn Rand follower. 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..... — Nickolasgaspar

So you don't know what normative means. Got it.

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...... — Nickolasgaspar

You realize I can scroll back and see what you said, right? Like:

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.... — Nickolasgaspar

Good God you're embarrassing.

-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. — Nickolasgaspar

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, since you've never read a word of their work. But I realize your ego won't allow you to admit this. And say "normative critique" and wave your hands. Typical of Ayn Rand enthusiasts.

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.... — Nickolasgaspar

Because I haven't once claimed, like you have with the authors mentioned, to be familiar with Hoyningen.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.

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... — Nickolasgaspar

So Kuhn's work -- which you've never read and have no clue about -- is equivalent to a geocentric framework.

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?

I'll continue not to hold my breath. Keep evading, by all means.



Well you claim to be familiar with them -- because you're a liar. So it's only right to ask for what exactly you find wrong with their arguments.

But since you have no clue about their arguments, you instead are desperately trying to save face by sad attempts at vague generalities.

Again, the authors were: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse. Keep pretending to be an expert on things you have no clue about. Your bullshit doesn't work here, and can be smelled a mile away.

"Bohr's analysis is wrong...he's way too normative!" See? How easy it is! Brilliant.

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. — Nickolasgaspar

"epistemic success" is a value judgement, if it's even coherent. No one here is making normative claims other than you.

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

You're honestly so poor of a writer that it's embarrassing.

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? — Nickolasgaspar

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

Try to follow along with the discussion.

Paul Hoyningen — Nickolasgaspar

I never once mentioned this guy. I asked about the authors cited above -- not about Hoyningen.

-I am aware of this outdated Normative approach — Nickolasgaspar

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.

science's success — Nickolasgaspar

Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

How cute.

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

For goodness shake, he denies Objectivism, one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny.

-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. — Nickolasgaspar

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.

How utterly pathetic.

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

Translation: Never read a word of Kuhn or Feyerabend.

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

you hold factually and fractally wrong beliefs — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

Thanks for the laughs.

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

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

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

Science does not produce objective facts.

Let me help you:

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

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

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

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

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

What you have said:

Science is the most reliable, methodical and systematic method we currently have. — Nickolasgaspar

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

(Emphasis mine.)

:chin:

Glad to see you've changed your mind.

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

No. This is your own home-spun definition.

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

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

You've simply fallen into a tautology.

Science has the ability to verify processes and structures with a specific ontology. This is due to Pragmatic Necessity NOT because of a subjective philosophical bias. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

That's not the definition of scientism.

Common definition:

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

From SEP:

Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude toward the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism. This article explains what scientific realism is, outlines its main variants, considers the most common arguments for and against the position, and contrasts it with its most important antirealist counterparts.

From Wiki:

Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.[1][2]

And what I say about it:

"Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view. It puts faith in the methods of science. Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism." — Xtrix

It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. — Xtrix

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

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

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

:rofl:

Oh, ok!

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

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

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

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

keep your metaphysical naturalism out from the philosophical backbone of Science — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

I understand that you are desperate to protect your death denying ideology and objective facts together with Logic spoil your party.
So the only thing you are left with is to discredit the method that provide the evidence that render your beliefs unfounded and irrational. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

Another Ayn Rand follower. What a shocker.

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

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

This forum is for adults. Not posturing children.

To return to what was originally stated (correctly):

The "science" in this case being based on human reason, intelligence and creativity. Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief. "Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view. It puts faith in the methods of science. Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism." It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. This is why nearly everyone who wrestles with these questions should read Descartes and Kant, at minimum, or at least familiarize yourself with their arguments. Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful.

At the end of the day, I think what's called "science" is the best we have for making predictions and understanding causal relations. But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy." — Xtrix

All of this stands.

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

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

Science doesn't produce objective facts.

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

-So you don't get which quality is responsible for "independent verification"..... Let me give out some letters...it starts with "object" and ends with "ivity"...............
The objective nature of facts allow independent verification. — Nickolasgaspar

Science doesn't produce objective facts.

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

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

Yes, please educate us all about what you've learned about the "Scientific Method" (which isn't capitalized, by the way) and its "objective nature" from your high school science course.

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

But in case anyone is following along this weird exchange: metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about.
— Xtrix
-you literally stated :"-"Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief."
Science identifies what is real by justifying Knowledge Based beliefs...not a philosophical ones. This is achieved because the scientific claims that describe reality are Objectively true with Current facts( not absolute true based on ultimate knowledge/red herring). — Nickolasgaspar

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

"Science identifies what is real by..."

Yes, that's exactly my point. What is called "real" is, according to the view I was discussing, determined by science. Science, in turn, is not without ontology. You, like other believers in scientism, like to claim that there's a special "method" that "produces" objective facts -- that somehow this "knowledge" is distinguished from philosophy. None of that is the case.

Science has a philosophical basis. Science -- modern science -- has, in fact, emerged from philosophy, what used to be called "natural philosophy." Eventually you get to assumptions, axioms, beliefs, that cannot further be justified by appeals to empiricism, the senses, or "objectivity." I don't expect you to understand any of this, however -- you certainly haven't understood anything else I've written. You're interested solely in posturing, and you're making a fool of yourself.

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

MEthodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical worldview — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

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

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

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

When one can arrive at the same results with the method published by others that means that the conclusions are objective based on an objective methodological process. — Nickolasgaspar

Riveting!

"Conclusions are objective because they are based on objective methodological processes."

:up: :rofl:

Start with this:

The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

A much better explanation.

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

Again I am not sure you understand what Objectivity is!
Objective it doesn't mean absolute true or correct. IT means that a claim or an observation is in agreement with current accessible facts and others can verify that!!!!!!! — Nickolasgaspar

:)

Google "correspondence theory of truth," honey.

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

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

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

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

A nice historical story, believed mostly by posturing simpletons.

Never mind. — Yohan

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

Science doesn't produce objective facts. "Science respects Objectivism" is meaningless to me -- and I don't know why you capitalize it. If you're referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy, then I have no idea why you'd invoke it here.
— Xtrix
1. Objective, independent verification is one of core scientific standards used in the evaluation of all theoretical framework. If that says nothing to you then you should take a modern course on Philosophy of Science ASAP. — Nickolasgaspar

Science doesn't produce objective facts.

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

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

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

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

:yawn:

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

You're mostly a waste of time. But in case anyone is following along this weird exchange: metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. Whatever "confusion" you're referring to you've simply invented, so that you can further pretend to act as an authority of some kind. But that's your own business.

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

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

-"It's as if you treat science as an industry that "produces" and "provides" human beings with "objective evidence," etc. If you pardon me, but that's a rather outdated view."
-You are confusing scientists with science. Again...take that course. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

And what's the objective verification or objective verification?

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

Or we can stick with the faith (religion) vs. science view -- very commonplace, very simplistic. If this is what all this "philosophy of science" class-taking produces, I'm not impressed.

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

You're out of your league.

The article I posted above deals with this kind of despair. If we all lose heart, we guarantee the worst.

I recall us having discussions about whether it would make a relevant difference voting for Trump or Biden. Just wondering, because I'm not taking US laws and politics in this area, has Biden done anything relevant yet? — Benkei

Biden has been mostly rhetoric on climate change. But yes, there have been some relevant moves. The appointment of judges is also helpful to climate change.

I still am baffled by the question of whether or not voting against Trump was the right move. I didn't for a moment think that Biden was a good candidate, however, or would do wonders for the climate. He's been about the same as Obama.

-Science respects Objectivism. Emprirical methodologies are accepted due to their ability to produce objective frameworks....not because of an arbitrary belief. Any method being able to produce objective facts is and will be highly respected. — Nickolasgaspar

Science doesn't produce objective facts. "Science respects Objectivism" is meaningless to me -- and I don't know why you capitalize it. If you're referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy, then I have no idea why you'd invoke it here.

What is called science -- astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology -- has a multitude of methods, questions, assumptions. If we want to make generalizations, I tend to hold to the historical perspective, where "science" is natural philosophy. What we're "doing" when we do science is treating the world as natural or physical -- i.e., objective -- as substantive, quantitative, material. It takes on a view of the world as an object, a machine, or as forces acting on matter. Without this naturalistic assumption, it's hard to believe one is doing science. We look for natural explanations to natural phenomena.

All of what I said above is an ontological position. None of it is "arbitrary," nor did I say that.

ITs the rules of logic and evidence that point to what is real. Science just provides the objective evidence for us to make the ruling. — Nickolasgaspar

It's as if you treat science as an industry that "produces" and "provides" human beings with "objective evidence," etc. If you pardon me, but that's a rather outdated view.

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

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

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

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

Having a belief in a system that has proven itself again and again its called "being reasonable". Science is the most reliable, methodical and systematic method we currently have. — Nickolasgaspar

Proven itself how? Also failed us, many times.

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

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

-" It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. "
-It signifies a certain way to evaluate irrational claims and irrational claims...not Truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truths since its frameworks are tentative based on current objective facts and observations( observations advance,facts change thus our science may change). — Nickolasgaspar

Science deals in truth. Facts and reality.

I never once mentioned "absolutely truth."

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

There's no contradiction.

4.300 conflicting religious dogmas, 160+ spiritual supernatural worldviews etc have proven the untrustworthiness of subjective interpretations, feelings and opinions used as foundations for ontological claims. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

None of this contradicts my point about ontology.

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

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

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

-Those two great philosophers have really bad arguments on metaphysics and what is real. Everyone should read them but they should also be informed of the epistemology and Basic Logic which render their arguments unsound and bad philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

-" Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful."
-They are useful ...only in an idealistic frame of reference. Within Methodological Naturalism and Instrumentalism they are useless. Its a waste of time and a huge argument from ignorance in my opinion. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

-" But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy." "

-That is a factually wrong statement. — Nickolasgaspar

:roll:

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

First of all science doesn't assume the world is material, mechanical etc.
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism meaning that we understand that the limits of our current methods of investigation and observations are limited within the Natural realm. So investigating the Natural aspects of the cosmos (matter, physical properties) is a Pragmatic Necessity, not an arbitrary philosophical bias. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have to take this information with several grains of salt. Given how the war is going, how close Ukraine is to Russia geographically and culturally and just how badly they assessed this war going, gives us sound reason to suspect that Putin is very much in his own "Trump world". — Manuel

Yeah, I learn towards that position but I wouldn't be at all shocked if it turns out to be something I hadn't considered altogether.

I don't have a crystal ball so no clue really and I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times. — Benkei

Fair enough.

It is an established fact that the Russians thought it would be a ride in the park.

There are testimonies of arrested or kidnapped Ukrainians who report that their Russian captors argued with them about pretty much the same things argued on this thread: " But but but why are you resisting? We are only fighting NATO. Why do you hate us so much?" — Olivier5

I don't have a strong position on this issue, but I'm a skeptical when you say it's "established fact." I'm sure there are testimonies, and I'm sure some soldiers were convinced it would be a cake walk -- but does that include high commanders and Putin himself? Who knows. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case, but I'm truly uncertain.

A New York Times article recently suggests that Putin, being surrounded by "yes" men, had no idea the war would go this way. He thought Russian forces would (by and large) be welcomed with open arms. Do you all believe this?

Do you imagine Yalom is mistaken in his understanding of Heidegger, or is he being somewhat deceptive in order to add some kind of prestige to his model? — Tom Storm

I think he's taking some liberties and simplifying a little too much. But he's not completely wrong, in my view.

Heidegger spoke of two modes of existence: the everyday mode and the ontological mode. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I like Yalom a lot, but the link he finds to therapy is his own. The above wording isn't exactly right, either. The terms are ready-to-hand and present-at-hand modes of being. Both happen in our average everyday world, although it is argued that the ready-to-hand activities (especially our use of equipment) are primary.

What I think Yalom is doing is trying to take Heidegger and fit it into his often-discussed "here and now" emphasis of individual therapy. To not flee the fear of death, to look at oneself clearly, to put down everyday distractions and concerns. All that is fine, but links to Heidegger should be taken with a grain of salt.

Not to say that it only exists because we believe it exists but it must exist because the science says it must. — GBG

The "science" in this case being based on human reason, intelligence and creativity. Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief. "Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view. It puts faith in the methods of science. Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism." It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. This is why nearly everyone who wrestles with these questions should read Descartes and Kant, at minimum, or at least familiarize yourself with their arguments. Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful.

At the end of the day, I think what's called "science" is the best we have for making predictions and understanding causal relations. But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy."

While critical thinking and philosophy may sometimes sound like the same thing, I believe the areas of critical thinking that is considered to be philosophy (or perhaps just philosophy) is when such methods are used to solve real world issues and not just ponder academic ones — dclements

I agree that philosophy is a kind of thinking. I'm sure it involves aspects of critical thinking, too. But not all critical thinking is philosophy.

When I want to solve a puzzle or practical problem, I can employ critical thinking skills, but the question or problem at hand isn't necessarily a philosophical one. So I think you have it backwards in the last sentence: when something is done to solve real world issues, it's often not called philosophical.

Again I come back to my own opinion on this, which is that philosophy is a kind of thinking distinguished by its questions. The question of questions, in my view (and here I'm channeling Heidegger), is the question of being. The next question, equally important, is "What is good?" (in the sense of a good life, and thus how to live, and thus morality).

Science doen't matter if we believe in it or not it is still real. Whereas Dogma needs belief to exist. — GBG

It’s just not that simple. No matter how much Richard Dawkins we read.

Science was (and is) natural philosophy. The very concept of “nature” and “physics” has a long history. Defining “reality” as anything physical or natural is also not uncontroversial, so to make sweeping declarations like this is just childish.