Science is not objective.

#31

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.01.2018 03:47PM

1

2

3

11.01.2018 03:47PM

-->

@zedvictor4

I am saying that objectivity requires facts. A human mind does not generate facts, as such; it observes and experiences them. Subjectivity requires the feelings, opinions, etc. of a mind.

#32

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.01.2018 04:03PM

1

2

11.01.2018 04:03PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I read a little and your going to need to make it more readable and much shorter.

Don't spend a lot of time on it if you can sum up your conclusions in two sentences that'd be great. This way I will more easily understand what you have written previously.

Topic's author

#33

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.01.2018 04:29PM

3

4

9

11.01.2018 04:29PM

-->

@Paul

I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).

In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".

#34

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.01.2018 07:21PM

1

2

11.01.2018 07:21PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Science has already found the limit of our understanding in quantum mechanics. Renowned particle physicist Richard Feynman said, if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics, and he's right. What he meant by that to put it bluntly is that no human will ever be able to understand quantum mechanics. The universe probably has an infinite number of things going on that we will never see or be able to do science on.

Your perspective is human, but you can know how things work objectively.

Do you know how an internal combustion engine works objectively?

#35

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.01.2018 07:55PM

1

2

3

11.01.2018 07:55PM

-->

@Paul

How an engine works would be considered a knowable "phenomenon".

An engine as it exists independent of human sense or perception would be considered an unknowable "noumenon".

Topic's author

#36

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.01.2018 08:22PM

3

4

9

11.01.2018 08:22PM

-->

@Paul

How can you know if "quantum physics" or "dark energy" is Mysterium Invisus (merely undiscovered) or Magnum Mysterium (fundamentally unknowable)?

Please present your preferred definition of "objectivity" so we can compare notes and make sure we are talking about exactly the same concept.

#37

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.01.2018 08:55PM

1

2

11.01.2018 08:55PM

-->

@TwoMan

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

#38

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.01.2018 08:59PM

1

2

11.01.2018 08:59PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Quantum physics is fundamentally unknowable for humans.

#39

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.01.2018 09:07PM

1

2

3

11.01.2018 09:07PM

-->

@Paul

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

Actually, it makes a vibration. That vibration is translated into sound by ears and a brain so, technically, it doesn't make a sound.

Topic's author

#40

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.01.2018 09:12PM

3

4

9

11.01.2018 09:12PM

-->

@Paul

Quantum physics is fundamentally unknowable for humans.

You seem to be making assertions that are beyond your epistemological limits.

How can you know if quantum physics is unknowable and not simply (currently) unknown?

How can you possibly claim to know this?

#41

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.01.2018 09:28PM

1

2

11.01.2018 09:28PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Because particles commonly do things like being in two places at the same time and a whole bunch of other crazy things that utterly cannot happen in our world.

Is there an analogue you can think of in our world that you could use to explain how to be two places at the same time?

Topic's author

#42

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.01.2018 09:40PM

3

4

9

11.01.2018 09:40PM

-->

@Paul

A revolving door is a type of door that can be both open and closed at the same time.

The fact that there are different rules, does not mean that it is somehow impossible for us to learn them at some future point.

Most of physics is counter-intuitive in one way or another.

People used to think that if you drove a car over sixty miles per hour, the air would be blowing by too fast for a human to breathe.

#43

MagicAintReal

Debates: 12

Posts: 258

1

3

7

MagicAintReal

11.02.2018 01:27AM

1

3

7

11.02.2018 01:27AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Sorry but saying something is alive and dead is a contradiction, not a tautology. Logical definitions included.

#44

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.02.2018 01:43PM

1

2

11.02.2018 01:43PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Most of physics is counter-intuitive?

How so?

#45

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.02.2018 02:20PM

1

2

11.02.2018 02:20PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Instead of the above tell me if you understand how an internal combustion engine works.

I'm not going to disparage you if you don't I need to know because if you don't I'll have to think of another example that I could use.

Topic's author

#46

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 02:23PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 02:23PM

-->

@MagicAintReal

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. A simple example is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)" (or as a less abstract example, "The ball is green or the ball is not green"). (wiki)

Topic's author

#47

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 02:27PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 02:27PM

-->

@Paul

I know generally how an engine works. Please present your example.

Topic's author

#48

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 02:32PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 02:32PM

-->

@TwoMan

--> @Paul

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

Actually, it makes a vibration. That vibration is translated into sound by ears and a brain so, technically, it doesn't make a sound.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no human surveys the forest before or after, and if there is zero evidence that there was a tree or that it fell, does the "sound" technically "exist"?

The answer is obviously no (based on the definition of exist).

Topic's author

#49

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 02:52PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 02:52PM

-->

@TwoMan

In other words, can a hypothetical tree make a real sound?

#50

Paul

Debates: 0

Posts: 470

1

2

Paul

11.02.2018 03:36PM

1

2

11.02.2018 03:36PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Is the way it works counter-intuitive?

Topic's author

#51

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 04:08PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 04:08PM

-->

@Paul

There are many aspects of an engine that seem counter to common sense.

Why use two overhead cams when one will do the job?

Why use eight pistons when one is more efficient?

Why use and inline cylinder configuration vs. flat or rotary?

Why would anyone choose to travel with several gallons of highly toxic combustible petrol/gasoline/diesel within a few feet of themselves?

The earliest combustion engines were much more primitive than today's modern versions, this means that the improvements we've collectively made to the design were non-obvious/counter-intuitive and were generally arrived at through a process of trail-and-error.

Topic's author

#52

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 04:28PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 04:28PM

-->

@Paul

There are some interesting TV shows "Mind Games" and "Mind Field" and "The Brain w/ David Eagleman" that illustrate how reality is very often counter-intuitive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6-ej1ue46c

#53

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.02.2018 04:58PM

1

2

3

11.02.2018 04:58PM

-->

@3RU7AL

If a tree falls in the forest, and no human surveys the forest before or after, and if there is zero evidence that there was a tree or that it fell, does the "sound" technically "exist"?

The answer is obviously no (based on the definition of exist).

Are you suggesting that for something to exist it must be verifiable by a human? I'm not aware of a definition of "exist" with that stipulation.

Topic's author

#54

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 05:10PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 05:10PM

-->

@TwoMan

Are you suggesting that for something to exist it must be verifiable by a human? I'm not aware of a definition of "exist" with that stipulation.

Exist: To have actual being; be real.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3A+exist&t=h_&atb=v79-2&ia=definition

Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define%3A+real&atb=v79-2&ia=definition

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+fact&atb=v79-2&ia=definition

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+fact

(IFF) exist requires real (AND) real requires fact (AND) fact requires demonstration and indisputability (THEN) exist requires demonstration and indisputability.

#55

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.02.2018 05:23PM

1

2

3

11.02.2018 05:23PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I think I'll just stick to the definition of "exist" that does not require human verifiability. "To have actual being" is sufficient. Whether or not something can be demonstrated to exist is beside the point.

Topic's author

#56

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 05:28PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 05:28PM

-->

@TwoMan

I think I'll just stick to the definition of "exist" that does not require human verifiability. "To have actual being" is sufficient. Whether or not something can be demonstrated to exist is beside the point.

How would you distinguish "exist" from "fantasy" (or "does-not-exist")?

#57

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.02.2018 05:31PM

1

2

3

11.02.2018 05:31PM

-->

@3RU7AL

How would you distinguish "exist" from "fantasy" (or "does-not-exist")?

I wouldn't. How would you? How can be verifiability be verified?

Topic's author

#58

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 05:43PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 05:43PM

-->

@TwoMan

How can be verifiability be verified?

Verifiability can be verified either directly or indirectly through a trusted proxy.

#59

TwoMan

Debates: 0

Posts: 379

1

2

3

TwoMan

11.02.2018 05:52PM

1

2

3

11.02.2018 05:52PM

-->

@3RU7AL

How can you be certain your trusted proxy isn't a fantasy? And on and on we go.....

All I am saying is that existence is independent of human verifiability.

Topic's author

#60

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.02.2018 06:11PM

3

4

9

11.02.2018 06:11PM

-->

@TwoMan

All I am saying is that existence is independent of human verifiability.

Ok, that is an interesting metaphysical choice.

What if someone told you there is an alien base on the dark side (the side always facing away from us) of earth's moon?

Do you think it would be fair to say, "an alien base on the dark side of earth's moon exists"?

What are your general standards of evidence?