Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself? >>>This is a perspective also. It's corresponding to the methodological rule that we never actually make touch-down with reality. <<<
no that is not what I'm saying
what I'm saying is that you can not build an entire skyscraper with just 1 brick likewise language being a small sliver of existence can in no way properly convey all of reality
kind of like you can't pick yourself up by your own bootstraps
>>>The standard model in physics is a static model in the sense that its parameters are fixed and unchanging through the evolution of the universe, only in a madly short time or high energy in need of new parameters non-existent at the natural energy scales globally present.<<<
that's exactly my point it's a model as in predetermined set of limitations and parameters before the experiment ever starts and those parameters were sent by Limited normal human beings that are dead by now and they have no more say in what reality is the next person, they're not gods. and so my original statement still stands
.
>>> I don't agree as far the methodology is involved. I don't believe in a reality that can't be known because the Ding an Sich can't be known. The Ding an Sich can be known and depends on the parameters of das Ding. <<<
says you and you aren't the Universe or a god your just a man
and somebody else could say that it can't be known and who is the right one?
What gives you more Authority than the next person?
See it's just a opinion because the majority might side with you does not mean you're more accurate in your statement
>>>We can say we are satisfied with a set of parameters and a mental image.That's the thing. Das Ding comes into existence by the parameters and an image corresponding to it. <<<
that would be a perspective and a perspective is not the entire thing it's just a sliver of it