Tamayo wrote:
Here's some of the shit you wanted: in that there is no other way to know the universe but through our senses, our instruments for extending our senses, and our capacity to reason, there is just no point talking about "objective reality" as distinct from any other kind of reality.
You're talking about "knowledge" in (what I assume, from context) is the absolute sense. However, it is exactly this form of knowledge the existence of which I am questioning.
I'm not just saying that knowledge of the universe is impossible. I'm saying that the very concept of "knowledge of the universe" is ultimately fictional, and furthermore nonsensical.
Quote:
Science is the process of asking ourselves whether our beliefs about the universe actually match what we can observe about the universe.
No. Once again, you're injecting "belief" into it when you don't have to. Science is essentially made up of models (which are usually, but not always, simply convenient shorthand ways of understanding how various mathematical equations relate to each other). The goal of science is to develop models that can effectively predict the results of events. Now, a model is a form of representation, and thus we have a tendency to assume that it's representing something (namely, the universe) "accurately" (whatever that means). However, the relationship between representation and represented is tenuous at best (
Ceci n'est pas une pipe and all that.) But I digress. My point is that the reason we assume that the model represents reality is that the model is effective. However, I have not yet heard a single argument for the relationship between effectiveness and truth that does not simply conclude that they're two names for the same concept. If you want to claim that they are, fine; but that means abandoning the traditional concept of truth as correspondence between "objective reality" and "subjective reality" (whatever the hell
that means). If you cannot prove that any relationship exists between effectiveness and truth, then you have to concede that Science (which, as stated above, is based upon finding
effective models) has no relationship to truth.
Quote:
Statements that are not falsifiable are not within the purview of the scientist.
Exactly. Because science is not concerned with "reality" or "truth", it's concerned with which ways of looking at things will be effective.
Quote:
You say "what matters in science is whether the equations work". You're looking at it upside-down; what matters in science is whether we can find equations that fit the data,
i.e. equations that work,
Quote:
so that by means of those equations, we can predict what will happen in the general case.
Ah, but "data" is quite different than direct, experiential reality. "Data" the result of that reality being processed according to the dictates of science (i.e. using things such as mathematical measurement(*)). Science essentially takes raw experience, transforms it into "data", and then finds the most effective ways of relating different pieces of data together.
Quote:
You want "truth" with the quotes; I can't give it to you. I even think that looking for the kind of truth that comes with quotes is something better left to religion than to philosophy. Metaphysics is (almost) pointless.
If metaphysics were a name brand, religion would be like the cheap-ass Costco/Sam's Club/BJ's knock-off. It's far lower quality, but it also "costs" much less in terms of mental effort. Whereas metaphysics pursues truth by proposing explanations which are subject to criticism, religion simply gives you an explanation and tells you to accept it. Now, that's not to say religion is bad, if you interpret the acceptance as an "act of faith" or what have you. It just means that, judged as a metaphysical system, it's poor.
[EDIT]
Thinman wrote:
Yes. And you deserve it too. The idea that the universe goes away whenever I shut my eyes is silly.
That's not what I said.
I AM NOT A SOLIPSIST. REPEAT. I AM NOT A SOLIPSIST. I did not say that "the universe" (objectivity) is a concept dependent upon "myself" (subjectivity); I said that
both "the universe" (objectivity)
and "myself" (subjectivity), as well as their supposed relationship with one another (truth), are constructed concepts.
Quote:
Even if absolute Truth (which I guess we're taking to mean a provably true and correct reason for anything) doesn't exist, science can lead us from what truths we know to things that are ... more true. The larger our internally consistent model becomes, the more likely it is to be True.
Why is that, now? I don't understand your reasoning, but I have the suspicion that it assumes some sort of relationship between effectiveness and truth.[/EDIT]
(*) Mathematical measurement is one step away from pure experience; in other words, a form of distancing oneself from the raw experiential reality. I see, say, a tree. Now, before
any processing or judgment goes on, it's not even a tree yet, it's simply what I see. Seperating it from its surroundings, naming it and classifying it is the first step away from the intitial experience. The next step, which is not always taken, but is in the case of scientific experiments, is mathemaical measurement. Now, that's no longer just a tree; it's a
20-foot tree. Size has now been converted from a qualitative element, as it originally was, to a quantitative element.[/i]