The Half-life of Facts.

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
This new position I like much better than that other nonsense. Maybe you actually are starting to see the light.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you perceive this new position to be, and we'll go from there.

Here is what I think on this issue:

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I cannot reasonably rule anything in or out...other than obvious, definitional impossibilities (square circle kind of thing).

What IS...IS. That is the REALITY.

You seem to be agreeing.

If not...tell me what you disagree with.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Even Ptolemy's model would still appear sound if we had no telescopes or any of the other things that allowed Galileio to perceive more than Ptolemy.

I agree Ptolemy's model was a plausible mistake to make. Nevertheless, it was a real mistake rather than just a difference of opinion with present models. And in the absence of reality, all you can have is differences of opinion.

Cyracuz wrote:

Not a difference of opinion. A difference in perception. Galileo and Ptolemy didn't have identical perceptions.

But the point is that Ptolemy was really wrong, and that Galileo's perception proved that. It's more than a he-said, she-said conflict between two ways of perceiving the world.

In other words, while I appreciate your point that we can't tell whether Galileo was objectively right (pending refutation by future experiments) or if Galileo just perceived it that way, we can tell that Ptolemy was objectively wrong. And he had been wrong all along.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Frank's usage is consistent with the general rules of language, but his usage is not consistent with the definition that has been supplied.

"Has been supplied" --- by whom? And why ought Frank have preferred that person's definition to standard English usage?

0 Replies

If only Thomas(et al) could understand that "right" and "wrong" are only evaluated with respect to "what works in particular contexts". In short "objectivity" is an absolutist/idealist myth. All we ever have, or ever can have, is paradigmatic consensus.

3 Replies

@fresco,

Seems that Kuhn's term of scientific discovery is a fancy way of saying what Frank always says
(with a minor addition)
"We agree on what is, for NOW" = paradigmatic consensus

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

If only Thomas(et al) could understand that "right" and "wrong" are only evaluated with respect to "what works in particular contexts". In short "objectivity" is an absolutist/idealist myth. All we ever have, or ever can have, is paradigmatic consensus.

Could be. But that does not work with REALITY...because whatever actually IS...IS the REALITY.

REALITY has to be objective...because even if it requires paradigmatic consensus...that objectively IS what IS...and that is the objective REALITY.

The truly funny thing is that if you continue to argue that is not the case...you are essentially arguing that the objective REALITY is that it is not the case.

Your belief system has caused you to paint yourself into a corner, Fresco.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Supplied by whom? By the dictionary? You're having trouble with that yourself, so I wouldn't be too quick to point fingers at Frank.

What's the trouble, Joe?

You define "reality" as equivalent to "experiencing." No dictionary defines "reality" in that way, so you're not the best person to claim that Frank's position is flawed because it doesn't fit with the dictionary definition.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

All we ever have, or ever can have, is paradigmatic consensus.

How is that consensus arrived at?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Negotiation +common need +common physiology.

2 Replies

I hereby move that philosophy threads enact a cousin of Godwin's Law: In every philosophy thread, there inevitably comes a point where someone uses the word "paradigm". Whenever it comes to that, the thread is over, and whoever said "paradigm" first has lost the argument. No good has ever come from a thread after the invocation of the p-word.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I hereby move that philosophy threads enact a cousin of Godwin's Law: In every philosophy thread, there inevitably comes a point where someone uses the word "paradigm". Whenever it comes to that, the thread is over, and whoever said "paradigm" first has lost the argument. No good has ever come from a thread after the invocation of the p-word.

You are from New Jersey now, Thomas. The proper way to state what you said above is to say:

I gotcha "paradigm" right heah!

You should be grasping your crotch while saying it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

In the meantime, I second the motion.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

On the contrary, I suggest that "philosophy" starts with the word "paradigm". For example, anybody familiar with Clerk-Maxwell knows that his successful equations were originally based on the paradigm of "the aether", later to be abandoned with the ascendance of the relativity paradigm. It is the nature of that success which has significant philosophical issues attached to it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Unfortunately, wrt this subject , it is the core of what is a fact and how long is its "hlf life"

PARADIGM THIS!

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

No dictionary defines "reality" in that way, so you're not the best person to claim that Frank's position is flawed because it doesn't fit with the dictionary definition.

It's not the same at all...

Look at the definition of 'reality' from Webster:

Quote:

: the true situation that exists : the real situation

: something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc.

My point is that each of these can only be determined by experience. That you exist and experience is a prerequisite for determining any of these things.

So I am not defining 'reality' as equivalent with 'experience'. I am saying that for all practical purposes, due to how we humans are, experience is a prerequisite of reality.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion of "absolute reality".

Regarding Frank's use of that term:
This started with him objecting to the following sentiment; "absolute reality is an assumption".

That statement was made with this definition of "absolute reality" in mind:

Quote:

: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

Frank has already agreed that reality such as defined above, would necessarily be an assumption to a finite being who's only means of detecting reality is by perceiving and knowing it.

4 Replies

@Thomas,

Are you kidding?
What you are essentially saying is that we should not discuss and examine our paradigms. That comes frighteningly close to the notion that we should not discuss and examine our beliefs.

The first thing that struck me about Godwin's Law was that ever since it's formulation, it has probably gone a long way towards establishing it's own validity. By linking it here you essentially made that first reference. Congratulations. You lost.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Negotiation +common need +common physiology.

But our common physiology, and a large part of our common needs, emerged through biological evolution. If there's no reality independent of our perception, what enabled evolution to consistently favor some specific features in our ancestors' physiologies? How could it consistently weed out other specific features among the physiologies of their peers, who therefore didn't become our ancestors? Unless something favors some bodies over others, there's no reason for human evolution to converge towards a common physiology. On the other hand, if there is something that does the favoring, it has to be independent of our perception, because our perception would be a product of it, too.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Then you lost too. Congratulations.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
No dictionary defines "reality" in that way, so you're not the best person to claim that Frank's position is flawed because it doesn't fit with the dictionary definition.

It's not the same at all...

Look at the definition of 'reality' from Webster:

Quote:
: the true situation that exists : the real situation

: something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc.

My point is that each of these can only be determined by experience. That you exist and experience is a prerequisite for determining any of these things.

So I am not defining 'reality' as equivalent with 'experience'. I am saying that for all practical purposes, due to how we humans are, experience is a prerequisite of reality.

And that is that same trap you fall into every time your post on this issue, Cyracuz. You are confusing our perceptions of REALITY (actually, our ability to perceive REALITY) with REALITY.

REALITY IS whatever actually IS. Whether we can perceive it (or whether we have the ability to perceive it) or not MAY have no impact whatever on the REALITY. (There is always the possibility that your blind guess about REALITY is correct and that REALITY necessitates an experiencer…is correct. In that case, “experience” is necessary…but that then becomes the REALITY.)

Whatever IS…simply IS…no matter what it is.

Why you are blind to that is beyond me, although you seem to be intelligent enough to get it, so I have to assume it has something to do with an unwillingness to question this belief system you have developed on the issue.

I do not know what the true nature of REALITY is…and I strongly suspect you do not either.

I am willing to accept that it might be anything you or anyone else are supposing it to be…or that it might be something no human can even begin to imagine. And it might very well contain elements that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with anything any human or any other kind of being can ever experience. (The latter would be my blind guess!)

You, on the other hand, are limiting REALITY to only that which humans experience or can experience.

Why???

How can you possibly suggest that is a more enlightened and open-minded perception of the issue?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

If there's no reality independent of our perception, what enabled evolution to consistently favor some specific features in our ancestors' physiology?

It may be that evolution favors some specific features in perception. I do not propose to know how precisely that might work.

2 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know