18
   

Reality from the view point of theists

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 06:31 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
BUT I WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG…and so would all the other fathers telling their sons that same thing. We would have been wrong!


Yes I think that you are correct. It seemed that they thought they had empirical evidence back then doesn't it? The reason I say this is because you could see with your own eyes the sun going around the earth and the hours in the day could be counted and the many other things that backed up your empirical data that you were using at that time. They did not just believe it, they had an in depth understanding about it.

Quote:

The REALITY still would have been that the Earth rotating on its axis causes the illusion of which we speak.


We have in depth understandings about many things today. Do you think that we could be wrong in some of our understandings that we hold as empirical?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 10:44 pm
...whether we could be wrong on many aspects of our empirical knowledge is besides the point, indeed we could and we can, vague enough assessment...
...now the question rather is do we have any good reason to believe otherwise, and if we do when we do, what do we do about it...
...it seams to me that insofar science dealt well enough with its wrongs, that is precisely why science is a special case...it progresses from its own mistakes by constantly re-evaluating its beliefs systems and its assumptions while other more "mystical" approaches are based on hard dogmas...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 12:52 am
Okay, this constant bickering about the earth's rotation has tempted me back to SPELL IT OUT for some of you guys. Smile

1. It was me who raised the scenario in the first place.
2. I did it as an example that from the scientific position (post Einstein) THERE IS NO PRIVILEGED REFERENCE FRAME FOR MOTION. Science scouldn't care less whether "an observer" placed himself on a rotational earth or not ! Successful prediction can operate either way.
3. The STANDARD MODEL, functionally adopted by modern astronomers is for a rotating earth (etc) on the basis of the ELEGANCE OF THE MODEL FOR THEIR CONSENSUAL PURPOSES.
(Anybody not understanding points 2 and 3 would flunk Philosophy of Science 101 Wink ).
4. If you are honest with yourself (big IF !), you will have observed that we only use the word "reality" in actual life is as part of a social situations where "delusion","points of view" or "reasons" are being debated. Each protagonist accuses the other of "subjectivity" and claims for himself"objectivity". These are both LAYMAN'S CONCEPTS whose categorization ultimately rests on appeal to consensus. A concept of "reality"is irrelevant when everyday assumptions remain functional.
5. It follows that because our purposes and model modifications shift, and that we only have indirect access to what we conceive as external to us by virtue of our distinct physiology, that "reality" is context dependent, species specific, culture specific, consensual and negotiable.

The irony of this analysis is that other than addressing the misconceptions about the status of scientific models, it is entirely based on common sense rather than abstruse philosophy.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 03:17 am
@fresco,
No, you are referring to descriptons of reality, but you are so wedded to your dogmatic position, that you won't admit it. I have no objection to your characterization of descriptions of reality and how they arise. I do object to your attempt to use that to deny that there is an objective reality.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 03:34 am
@fresco,
Perhaps it would help if you mentioned the other, less accepted models, that explain things without the Earth spinning on its axis.
jeeprs
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 04:14 am
@izzythepush,
It might also be useful to consider that if we are talking about models of reality, how do we assume a position where we can compare 'the model' with 'the reality'? In other words, this seems to rely on a naive assumption that 'reality' is actually obvious or manifest, or what all of us know. But if that were the case, there would be no need for investigation in the first place. So there is obviously something we don't know. If 'what we don't know' is 'the nature of reality', then we are not really in a position to compare the models we painstakingly construct with 'reality'. What we do is experimental and observational science, which compares this or that theory or hypothesis with this or that aspect of reality. But we never actually know the reality in any complete or holistic sense.

And furthermore, an intelligent theism understands this better than a reflexive atheism, because the latter generally starts from the assumption that we actually know what is real, whereas the former understands that reality itself is really quite mysterious.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 04:17 am
@jeeprs,
Quote:
reality itself is really quite mysterious.
and you percieve this how?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 05:28 am
@farmerman,
Lady reporter to Louis Armstrong: 'Louis, just what is jazz'
Louis: 'Lady, if you don't know that, I can't tell you.'
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 05:37 am
@jeeprs,
Translation: Like Fresco, you're just begging the question of whether or not there is an objective reality, and you have no answer to FM's question.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 05:45 am
@jeeprs,
Quote:
And furthermore, an intelligent theism understands this better than a reflexive atheism, because the latter generally starts from the assumption that we actually know what is real, whereas the former understands that reality itself is really quite mysterious.
So you set up a premise and then fail to defend it or even answer a teeny question pertaining to the premise.
I can quote a similar bumpr sticker.
When Thomas Huxley heard of the account of the death of the Reverend Wilberforce by being pitched from a bucking horse and crushing his skull on the pavement, Huxley said.
"Well, that was the first time that reality had come into contact with the good Reverends head"
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 08:00 am
@Setanta,
Okay. Give an example of "objective reality". The heliocentric model clearly is not, so what is ?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 08:36 am
@fresco,
Fresco...if you are correct that there is no such thing as "objective reality"...then "no such thing as objective reality" is the objective reality. So you cannot be correct.

The objective reality of the issue is that "there is no objective reality" is an impossibility.

The "objective reality" is...WHATEVER ACTUALLY IS.

It does not matter if we can identify it; if we can know it; if we can describe it.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 08:52 am
@fresco,
I guess one cannot "give an example of objective reality--as opposed to an example of what is not reality". It is general not specific. Everything is reality which is one reason zen students cannot answer a koan in the ordinary way, i.e., a valid answer for a valid question. ANYTHING they say is valid so long as it is offered in the spirit of "EVERYTHING".
I agree with Frank's final resolution. It seems that this is one thread that may have resulted in something constructive.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 08:58 am
@fresco,
As Frank has just pointed otu, and as i have alreay pointed out, the inability to accurately describe objective reality does not constitute evidence that none exists. You just beg the question. You outline how people arrive at descriptions of reality, and what you offer is plausible. However, you then make the leap of assuming that no objective reality in fact eists, which is begging the question because your premise is the answer to the question. I'm not obliged to accurately describe objectively reality, as Frank points out, objective reality is that reality is whatever it is. But more than that, you have failed to address Farmerman's first post in which he asks if one alleges that scientific findings are some kind of conspiracy. If there were no objective reality, there would be no reason for scientific investigation to reach the same conclusions under the same circumstances. You claim there is no objective reality--prove it. Frank and FM an i have all offered examples of the effects of objective reality--time for you to stop the question begging and account for those effects. Are we to assume that you are a conspiracy theorist as FM suggests?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 09:05 am
@Frank Apisa,
No, You must read what I have said very carefully. I said that we use the word "reality" in those situations in which we need to negotiate consensual agreement. I also say that philosophers and cognitive scientists have shown by logical analysis and experiment that words are not representational of a situation which can be considered independent of the users context. By extrapolation, what we consider constitutes "the world" necessarily involves our interaction with the "world". To paraphrase Heisenberg the physicist "we can never observe nature directly, we can only observe the results of our interactions with it". So we end up with negotiation about the interpretation of the results rather than ever knowing "the world in itself". In such a situation, the concept of "an objective reality" is like mythical gold at the end of the rainbow. "Reality" boils down to what is functional or what we have confidence in regarding our future actions.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 09:19 am
@fresco,
Quote:
heliocentric model
I wouldnt use this term . A heliocentric "Model" would onlly be valid were earths rotation on an axis would not be visible.

The AGI definition of a MODEL is as follows:
"A working hypothesis or precise simulation by means of description, statistical data, or analogy, of a phenomenon or process that cannot be observed directly or is difficlt to observe directly". This definition may have been valid several hundred years ago but not today.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 09:20 am
@fresco,
This is just more question begging. As always, you show how people describe reality, but then make the leap to assuming that there is no other reality, that there is no objective reality. As i've pointed out, you have nor responded to this post. How do you account for FM's objections to your position?

farmerman wrote:
This is why I feel that most philosophy of existence is just a pile of rubbish. According to these philosophers , we have a collection of instruments all concieved and built to further the illusion that reality , and the measurements of its components, wre all conspired against us by having all these instrruments give us surprisingly overlapping consistent data of our world.

Even instruments based upon the quantum world overlap when fed the "unknown quantities" of matter that we wish to decipher.
The age of the planet is expressed in units that recognize how radioactive decay proceeds, how magnetism works, how sediments accumulate, and how life appeared.
What a conspiracy!! However, if its so, then someone must have been in charge and was futzing with all this reality to throw us all off. Its the concept of a world made of "vis Plastica" as the Muslim natural "philosophers" used to express.

Rubbish.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 09:23 am
@fresco,
Quote:
No, You must read what I have said very carefully. I said that we use the word "reality" in those situations in which we need to negotiate consensual agreement.


During discussions in a bar or on the golf course, participants sometimes refer to what you are doing here, Fresco, as “weaseling out.” (Or to be more exact, “attempting to weasel out.”)

Throughout this discussion you have given the clear impression that you think there is no such thing as “objective reality.” You have asserted it!

I can quote you : “There is no such thing as either "objective" or "subjective" reality. There is only agreed reality for the purpose of decision making with respect to subsequent action.”

http://able2know.org/topic/185542-1#post-4914658

What is, Fresco….IS. That IS the objective reality. Saying there is no objective reality is impossible by definition. There is no getting away from that…although I must compliment you on a valiant, albeit unsuccessful, attempt to do so.

It is time for you to put this to bed. There is an objective reality…and if you start playing games in an attempt to appear “correct” when you were wrong…it will look foolish.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 09:34 am
I agree with Frank's conclusion because I cannot deny the tautology that Reality is whatever is. That is a valid conclusion based on our culture's most revered, and tacit, presupposition, i.e., We are awake in Reality not sleeping in some kind of dream. I'm not sure how this relates to our concerns about truth statements regarding why we see the rotations of astral bodies as we do, or Sciences tendency to arrive at provisional consensuses.
One thing should be evident: Fresco is not stonewalling; he is trying to communicate a very subtle--and counterintuitive--point. I would hate to see him throw up his hands in frustration and give up on us, we members of the Church of Naive Realism.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2012 09:49 am
@JLNobody,
By the way, can we not say that Reality is both objective (it IS) and subjective (we know only our experience of it)?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/25/2020 at 02:55:51