Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2017, 07:35 PM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2017 07:38 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
[General comment]

As for this being the philosophy section...

Sure. But philosophy doesn't exist independent from reality, nor from all the concepts it considers. You're either talking about reality or you're not. If you're not, then that should be clearly stated so that the whole thing is entirely a thought experiment at best.

If you are, then all the relevant concepts have to be dealt with accurately for the discussion to mean anything. This isn't the "what if this was my imaginary land" forum.

In this case, science has immediately been dragged in and misrepresented. That needed sorting out.

This is just my commentary and opinion, of course. Say whatever you like. But you have to expect that what you say is going to be critically evaluated. If you don't want that, then don't say anything. You're in the wrong part of the forum, or perhaps in the wrong place entirely.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Robvalue's post
21-04-2017, 08:13 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Mirror therapy for amputees also fools the senses, look it up, fascinating.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
21-04-2017, 08:19 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
I've read about that before (mirror therapy), it's astonishing!

Coming back to my whining, it's also unreasonable to expect a new post to exist independently from everything else that person has written. In this case, I've spent some 60 pages trying to get a dude to understand why science is the way it is, as he misrepresents it in one extreme way. He then starts another topic misrepresenting it in the complete opposite way, as if it's an entirely different concept.

What am I possibly meant to make of this? Is it rampant dishonesty, or some sort of psychological problem? Unfortunately this guy has misrepresented virtually every concept he has ever introduced in any discussion. It's really hard to know how much of this is ignorance, how much is dishonesty and how much is being stubborn. Or something else, I don't know.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
21-04-2017, 10:06 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
The issue with philosophy, as I see it, is that it isn't utilitarian. You can mind fuck yourself from here till the end of time with it but in the end someone still has to get up from the couch and do the laundry.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
22-04-2017, 12:24 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
I agree. Philosophy without science is basically making up whatever shit you want. It's blind speculation. You get to set the rules however you like, and there's never any standard to meet.

I think Nails is under the impression science works the same way. He talks about understanding it, but I don't believe that he does. He seems to think there's these different brands of science, and each makes up their own load of theories which then just get accepted by popularity. His use of language when discussing science gives this away.

It's kind of like how a religious person sometimes assumes atheism must work the same way, and is trying to figure out who atheists get their marching orders from.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2017, 02:59 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 08:19 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I've read about that before (mirror therapy), it's astonishing!

Coming back to my whining, it's also unreasonable to expect a new post to exist independently from everything else that person has written. In this case, I've spent some 60 pages trying to get a dude to understand why science is the way it is, as he misrepresents it in one extreme way. He then starts another topic misrepresenting it in the complete opposite way, as if it's an entirely different concept.

What am I possibly meant to make of this? Is it rampant dishonesty, or some sort of psychological problem? Unfortunately this guy has misrepresented virtually every concept he has ever introduced in any discussion. It's really hard to know how much of this is ignorance, how much is dishonesty and how much is being stubborn. Or something else, I don't know.

For the last time, WHEN have I misrepresented science? How am I doing it now? You think the philosophy of science misrepresents science? Jesus Christ you think I have psychological problems because I talk about philosophy? Have you no moral bone in your body? Will you do anything to smear someone?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2017, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2017 03:06 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(22-04-2017 12:24 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I think Nails is under the impression science works the same way. He talks about understanding it, but I don't believe that he does. He seems to think there's these different brands of science, and each makes up their own load of theories which then just get accepted by popularity. His use of language when discussing science gives this away.

What? When have I ever talked about different brands of science? And when have I ever talked about popularity? In a constructive empiricist view of science, a theory is adopted when it is shown to be empirically adequate. This has nothing to do with popularity of a theory. And the realist view is that it's centered around truth of theories. I don't think you understand my understanding of science. As I've said multiple times, I was merely presenting these views and asking for input. Why do you continue to evade my responses? It's almost what some would call... dishonest.

Quote:It's kind of like how a religious person sometimes assumes atheism must work the same way, and is trying to figure out who atheists get their marching orders from.

Sure anything to tie me back to the religious. Good god you're on fire.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2017, 03:15 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 07:35 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  But philosophy doesn't exist independent from reality, nor from all the concepts it considers. You're either talking about reality or you're not. If you're not, then that should be clearly stated so that the whole thing is entirely a thought experiment at best.

Google definition: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

I haven't been following the back-and-forth in any detail. So other posters don't agree with Naielis's premises about science and philosophy?

Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2017, 03:24 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(22-04-2017 03:15 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Google definition: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

I haven't been following the back-and-forth in any detail. So other posters don't agree with Naielis's premises about science and philosophy?

Huh

Funny thing is that I haven't given any premises regarding science. I've merely shown two opposing views. And occasionally I mention which one I think is more viable. But my premises for philosophy probably are contended by many here, considering I think philosophy is valuable as its own study. Obviously, it's not separate from reality. It lays down the foundations of our knowledge about reality. How could they be separate? I don't know where Robvalue gets this stuff.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
22-04-2017, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2017 05:14 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(22-04-2017 03:15 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(21-04-2017 07:35 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  But philosophy doesn't exist independent from reality, nor from all the concepts it considers. You're either talking about reality or you're not. If you're not, then that should be clearly stated so that the whole thing is entirely a thought experiment at best.

Google definition: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

I haven't been following the back-and-forth in any detail. So other posters don't agree with Naielis's premises about science and philosophy?

Huh

I doubt many people would agree with his OP here where he misrepresents what scientific knowledge is. He's trying to imply that such knowledge affects reality, rather than simply modelling it, thus being at odds with beliefs not affecting reality. If he's not saying this, then he's arguing with some extremely weird fringe position held by... no one I've ever even heard of. Some insane branch of "science".

Considering how long I've spent talking to him about what scientific knowledge is before, the idea that he still has no idea what it is becomes increasingly hard to believe. I know he's watched my videos where I've gone into extreme detail about this.

He's also stated before that he can somehow use philosophy to extract certainty about reality, meaning that he does actually think his beliefs can affect reality.

The stuff he claims is such a mess that I gave up ages ago trying to make any sense of it. I really tried discussing it, way longer than I probably should have from the point of view of my sanity.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: