Can we ever really know reality?

Can we ever really know anything except reality?

If by that you mean the word 'essence' is impossible to define in a clear and useful way, i agree. But Kant's theory is compatible with the scientific method.

Quote:

Can we ever really know anything except reality?

Good point about a possible implicit tautology.
Philosophers of language tend either to assign different "levels of embedded reference" to the two tokens of "reality" (Frege, I think) or dismiss the sentence as semantically aberrant (Wittgenstein, I believe).

Yes, I do apologize for focusing on your raising of the "yes" pole of the argument. This is based on former conversations with you indicating you are a "scientific realist". I agree with Olivier's point to you about Kant, which together with Heisenberg's remarks about "never observing nature directly" seem to leave "scientific realism" out in the philosophical backyard. That is why I favor the pragmatism of Rorty (et al) which dismisses the "reality debate" as futile.

BTW. I never rely on "appeals to authority". I often quote thinkers I feel illustrate my ideas by providing the context essential for their interpretation. Such semantic referencing is mandatory in the humanities (in which I include philosophy), and I find objections to it tend to be a form of simplistic posturing by people who are ignorant of the literature. (This of course is not directed to you personally).

BTW. I never rely on "appeals to authority". I often quote thinkers I feel illustrate my ideas by providing the context essential for their interpretation. Such semantic referencing is mandatory in the humanities (in which I include philosophy), and I find objections to it tend to be a form of simplistic posturing by people who are ignorant of the literature. (This of course is not directed to you personally).

All the ways in which humanity has attempted to grasp reality, from the earliest religions to the contemporary views of the natural and social sciences are all tied in some way to the perspective that humans have on existence.

......given that our sensory information comes to us....

"social dancing" to "staving off early dementia".

Don't forget Frank context is all.
Thank you for illustrating that point by attempting to re-negotiate it.

'Observational results' (facts) are not predictive. They are just facts. 'This phenomena were observed at that moment in this place under these conditions." Nothing predictive here.

Quote:

......given that our sensory information comes to us....

The word "given" certainly indicates naive realism. The word "information" is problematic to constructive accounts of epistemology. Such an account raises objections to your use of the word "observation", but you have no way of understanding them from your starting axioms which imply that perception is passive. A consideration of the central issue of "prediction" should yield that perception is an active process.
All this is very basic stuff which we have fought over in the past. You are unlikely to be moved out of your comfort zone by me, but I would be interested in knowing how you come to terms with such statements from quantum theory like "everything than can happen, does happen" (Brian Cox). Such statements would seem to pull the rug from under all realists, Einstein being no exception.

Nope, the essence of science is indeed predictive, it's not just some overly simplistic notion of so-called "Observational results (facts)". I'll go even further and assert that it does not matter if one claims to have applied the scientific method; no predictive ability equals at best incomplete scientific methodology, and at wost pseudo-scientific drivel.

Quote:

Nope, the essence of science is indeed predictive, it's not just some overly simplistic notion of so-called "Observational results (facts)". I'll go even further and assert that it does not matter if one claims to have applied the scientific method; no predictive ability equals at best incomplete scientific methodology, and at wost pseudo-scientific drivel.

Your position is incorrect.

Lots of recent observed phenomena of the universe was "never predicted" but were amazing views that are causing revolution in our knowledge in science.

Same applies with new learning about our genes. In other words, science always advances with the same old same old: trial and error, in order to succeed.

On the other hand, and going back to the topic itself. We have here a poster who doesn't know if the computer in front of him is "real", however he uses it to write me messages. Let's wait what time he finally will wake up to find out that it was not a "real dream" but a real objective motion of his fingers on the keyboard.

And even more. Many philosophers of the past tried to think about reality as something beyond the objective and subjective phenomena we are capable to perceive or know.

And my question is, if they are right, can someone explain such and existence without the objective world we perceive with out senses?

I truly laugh of the idea of an existent universe not connected to our physical objective universe. People can think whatever they want, but without existing brains they can't think at all.

The dependency in our own existence rules over any thought about something else. We must be REAL in order to think.

Unless someone can prove it different.