As science is true - philosophy is false!

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Clearly, there's a lot one can take issue with in that title to avoid addressing the meaningful content of that title - and that's philosophy! Like quantum physics, philosophy takes the object apart until there's nothing left, and calls the resulting meaninglessness philosophy. By contrast, science is cognizant of its assumptions and limitations - but is able to accept these and progress toward valid knowledge.

Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.

"Is it a duck or a rabbit?"
"Who said that?"

True to subjectivist philosophical assumptions; employed as criticisms of science, the only thing the subjectivist philosopher can possibly know is that the thinking thing exists! And yet they range far beyond the solipsistic trap of 'I think therefore I am' in their own arguments - requiring of themselves no methodological consistency while demanding absolute rigour and impossible proof of science!

In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am Clearly, there's a lot one can take issue with in that title to avoid addressing the meaningful content of that title - and that's philosophy! Like quantum physics, philosophy takes the object apart until there's nothing left, and calls the resulting meaninglessness philosophy. By contrast, science is cognizant of its assumptions and limitations - but is able to accept these and progress toward valid knowledge.

Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.

"Is it a duck or a rabbit?"
"Who said that?"

True to subjectivist philosophical assumptions; employed as criticisms of science, the only thing the subjectivist philosopher can possibly know is that the thinking thing exists! And yet they range far beyond the solipsistic trap of 'I think therefore I am' in their own arguments - requiring of themselves no methodological consistency while demanding absolute rigour and impossible proof of science!

In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
Gosh you've fallen into the trap of dichotomizing reality. Why can't science and philosophy coexist?

Just a suggestion, the proposition 'science is true' really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The human mind produces scientific theories, and no one completely understands the human mind nor all of physical existence. Right?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am Clearly, there's a lot one can take issue with in that title to avoid addressing the meaningful content of that title - and that's philosophy! Like quantum physics, philosophy takes the object apart until there's nothing left, and calls the resulting meaninglessness philosophy. By contrast, science is cognizant of its assumptions and limitations - but is able to accept these and progress toward valid knowledge.

Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.

"Is it a duck or a rabbit?"
"Who said that?"

True to subjectivist philosophical assumptions; employed as criticisms of science, the only thing the subjectivist philosopher can possibly know is that the thinking thing exists! And yet they range far beyond the solipsistic trap of 'I think therefore I am' in their own arguments - requiring of themselves no methodological consistency while demanding absolute rigour and impossible proof of science!

In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Gosh you've fallen into the trap of dichotomizing reality. Why can't science and philosophy coexist?

Golly, have I? I thought the dichotomy was between science and philosophy; and that's not a dichotomy of my own making!

3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Just a suggestion, the proposition 'science is true' really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
No, but it should - don't you think so?
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 1:53 pm
Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am Clearly, there's a lot one can take issue with in that title to avoid addressing the meaningful content of that title - and that's philosophy! Like quantum physics, philosophy takes the object apart until there's nothing left, and calls the resulting meaninglessness philosophy. By contrast, science is cognizant of its assumptions and limitations - but is able to accept these and progress toward valid knowledge.

Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.

"Is it a duck or a rabbit?"
"Who said that?"

True to subjectivist philosophical assumptions; employed as criticisms of science, the only thing the subjectivist philosopher can possibly know is that the thinking thing exists! And yet they range far beyond the solipsistic trap of 'I think therefore I am' in their own arguments - requiring of themselves no methodological consistency while demanding absolute rigour and impossible proof of science!

In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Gosh you've fallen into the trap of dichotomizing reality. Why can't science and philosophy coexist?

Golly, have I? I thought the dichotomy was between science and philosophy; and that's not a dichotomy of my own making!

3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Just a suggestion, the proposition 'science is true' really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
No, but it should - don't you think so?
Mercury!

Well, there is no dichotomy. In your OP, which I would argue against (resist the temptation of dichotomizing 'things'), I'm suggesting for one, it is self-refuting when you hint at ''idealism' since human ideas create scientific theories. Have I missed the obvious? I apologize in advance if I've missed it somewhere...

Anyway, Philosophy doesn't assume Objectivity can't exist as you suggest. Afterall, the paradoxical, metaphysical laws of abstract mathematical structures (laws of the universe) that effectively describe the universe is an attempt at pure Objectivity, no?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 1:53 pm
Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am Clearly, there's a lot one can take issue with in that title to avoid addressing the meaningful content of that title - and that's philosophy! Like quantum physics, philosophy takes the object apart until there's nothing left, and calls the resulting meaninglessness philosophy. By contrast, science is cognizant of its assumptions and limitations - but is able to accept these and progress toward valid knowledge.

Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.

"Is it a duck or a rabbit?"
"Who said that?"

True to subjectivist philosophical assumptions; employed as criticisms of science, the only thing the subjectivist philosopher can possibly know is that the thinking thing exists! And yet they range far beyond the solipsistic trap of 'I think therefore I am' in their own arguments - requiring of themselves no methodological consistency while demanding absolute rigour and impossible proof of science!

In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Gosh you've fallen into the trap of dichotomizing reality. Why can't science and philosophy coexist?

Golly, have I? I thought the dichotomy was between science and philosophy; and that's not a dichotomy of my own making!

3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Just a suggestion, the proposition 'science is true' really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
No, but it should - don't you think so?
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 2:16 pm
Mercury!

Well, there is no dichotomy. In your OP, which I would argue against (resist the temptation of dichotomizing 'things'), I'm suggesting for one, it is self-refuting when you hint at ''idealism' since human ideas create scientific theories. Have I missed the obvious? I apologize in advance if I've missed it somewhere...

Anyway, Philosophy doesn't assume Objectivity can't exist as you suggest. Afterall, the paradoxical, metaphysical laws of abstract mathematical structures (laws of the universe) that effectively describe the universe is an attempt at pure Objectivity, no?
I didn't use the term 'dichotomy' first, but I'm willing to accept it as a low resolution description of what in reality is a massive over-emphasis on subjectivism in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge. For example, in a thread entitled "Materialism is Nonsense" you wrote:

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Or simply said, as Mr. Davies posits, how did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative?"

That's not a valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge, but is instead a subjectivist straw man constructed as a critique of the assumption in science that effects have 'material' causes.

Discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge is conspicuous by its absence, and so we are consigned to simple expression: "science is true" knowing such a statement is philosophically inadequate.

It is not an allusion to any philosophical tradition - idealism or otherwise. 'Science is true' is a plain language statement of the obvious; where the philosophical cannon does not exist to contextualise it. Instead, we have 400 years worth of reasons why science is not true! And that's my point. As science is true - philosophy is false!
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Gertie »

Mercury
Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.
Right. 
Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists,
Well it's not that I (or philosophy) can't assume the world represented by my conscious experience exists, I do that nearly all the time.  It's a matter of how can that be tested?  And I don't believe it can be.  Because epistemologically, only the ontological existence of the experience itself can be directly known with certainty.
and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.
This is an epistemological  issue which arises once we have already made the assumption the world we experience ontologically exists.  The epistemological question then becomes, how much can we know of the reality of the world. What are our tools and methodologies, and what limits, if any,  are there on their accuracy.   At that point, we have to address the nature of being subjects in the world, relying on the content of our experience to know things about the world.  

The nature of being an experiencing subject in the world includes having a limited, private  and specific first person perspective. None of us are onmiscient with a complete and flawless 'god's eye' pov. But we can attain a third person epistemology by comparing notes with other first-person limited subjects like ourselves, and seeing where our different first person perspectives tally (or don't).  This works well for publically/third person accessible physical objects and measurements. And from this methodology of third person falsifiability, and theorising from patterns in in our observations and measurements, we've created a physicalist model of the physical stuff of the world and how it works which is reliable.  (Until it isn't, when we adjust the model).

It's that model which informs us we're evolved beings, 'designed' for functional utility rather than perfect observation and understanding.  This scientific model tells us about how physical brains work, optical illusions, that for example  colour,  solidity and defined edges only exist as mental experience, etc.  Our shared, third party falsifiable model tells us we are flawed and limited observers.  And as our notions of cause and effect, logic and  reasoning derive from observing how the world works, these too fall into doubt as complete and perfect ways of understanding reality.  (QM too suggests that they at least are subject to issues of granularity).

But the fact that we can create reliable and models of the world which work, and make testable predictions, when presented with an incredibly complex world, suggests our inter-subjective third person methodology is getting things right too. Science seems to be a journey of refining how right we're getting them, but what we don't know is if that journey is at the beginning or near the end, or if our limitations and flaws mean we can never get there, as we are within the model with no access to an outside 'god's eye' pov.
In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
I'd put it that science is an inter-subjectively falsifiable methodology, but what that methodology can accurately tell us about the actual reality of the world has to deal with the issues I outlined above.   But its coherence, reliability and predictability make it 'true enough' to work for us as a shared physicalist representation of the reality. (It notably struggles when it comes to experiential consciousness, because a toolkit relying on third person observation and measurement doesn't seem equipped to explain/integrate into a physicalist model that which isn't third party observable and measurable). 

These aren't criticisms of science or the physicalist model, rather noting  what it does incredibly well, and its apparent epistemological limitations.  Both can be true. And while  I care a LOT more about what science does incredibly well, philosophy asks us to address both. And probe the questions it leaves unanswered. That's a good thing imo, it's how we progress. It's what Philosophy of Mind is about for example.  Still I share your frustration that when we address questions which aren't accessible to third person/inter-subjective falsifiability, it's difficult to find an anchor to connect us to reality, and any old speculation which appeals can gain traction.

The notion that logic, reason or maths somehow transcend our observation-based understanding of the world, when they too are rooted in our observations of how the world works, is risky. The metaphysical toolkit derives from  the physicalist one. It provides more scope for manipulating concepts abstracted from our observations, which can offer insights.  But the door is opened to  a lot of over-confident dodgy musings (and conceptual codification issues like language) once you try to venture outside of the empirically anchoring physicalist model, and that's obviously a problem too.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Gertie wrote: November 11th, 2022, 7:19 pm Mercury
Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.
Right. 
Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists,
Well it's not that I (or philosophy) can't assume the world represented by my conscious experience exists, I do that nearly all the time.  It's a matter of how can that be tested?  And I don't believe it can be.  Because epistemologically, only the ontological existence of the experience itself can be directly known with certainty.
and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.
This is an epistemological  issue which arises once we have already made the assumption the world we experience ontologically exists.  The epistemological question then becomes, how much can we know of the reality of the world. What are our tools and methodologies, and what limits, if any,  are there on their accuracy.   At that point, we have to address the nature of being subjects in the world, relying on the content of our experience to know things about the world.  

The nature of being an experiencing subject in the world includes having a limited, private  and specific first person perspective. None of us are onmiscient with a complete and flawless 'god's eye' pov. But we can attain a third person epistemology by comparing notes with other first-person limited subjects like ourselves, and seeing where our different first person perspectives tally (or don't).  This works well for publically/third person accessible physical objects and measurements. And from this methodology of third person falsifiability, and theorising from patterns in in our observations and measurements, we've created a physicalist model of the physical stuff of the world and how it works which is reliable.  (Until it isn't, when we adjust the model).

It's that model which informs us we're evolved beings, 'designed' for functional utility rather than perfect observation and understanding.  This scientific model tells us about how physical brains work, optical illusions, that for example  colour,  solidity and defined edges only exist as mental experience, etc.  Our shared, third party falsifiable model tells us we are flawed and limited observers.  And as our notions of cause and effect, logic and  reasoning derive from observing how the world works, these too fall into doubt as complete and perfect ways of understanding reality.  (QM too suggests that they at least are subject to issues of granularity).

But the fact that we can create reliable and models of the world which work, and make testable predictions, when presented with an incredibly complex world, suggests our inter-subjective third person methodology is getting things right too. Science seems to be a journey of refining how right we're getting them, but what we don't know is if that journey is at the beginning or near the end, or if our limitations and flaws mean we can never get there, as we are within the model with no access to an outside 'god's eye' pov.
In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
I'd put it that science is an inter-subjectively falsifiable methodology, but what that methodology can accurately tell us about the actual reality of the world has to deal with the issues I outlined above.   But its coherence, reliability and predictability make it 'true enough' to work for us as a shared physicalist representation of the reality. (It notably struggles when it comes to experiential consciousness, because a toolkit relying on third person observation and measurement doesn't seem equipped to explain/integrate into a physicalist model that which isn't third party observable and measurable). 

These aren't criticisms of science or the physicalist model, rather noting  what it does incredibly well, and its apparent epistemological limitations.  Both can be true. And while  I care a LOT more about what science does incredibly well, philosophy asks us to address both. And probe the questions it leaves unanswered. That's a good thing imo, it's how we progress. It's what Philosophy of Mind is about for example.  Still I share your frustration that when we address questions which aren't accessible to third person/inter-subjective falsifiability, it's difficult to find an anchor to connect us to reality, and any old speculation which appeals can gain traction.

The notion that logic, reason or maths somehow transcend our observation-based understanding of the world, when they too are rooted in our observations of how the world works, is risky. The metaphysical toolkit derives from  the physicalist one. It provides more scope for manipulating concepts abstracted from our observations, which can offer insights.  But the door is opened to  a lot of over-confident dodgy musings (and conceptual codification issues like language) once you try to venture outside of the empirically anchoring physicalist model, and that's obviously a problem too.

Thanks for your reply; I accept it as a serious response, but disagree - speaking for a philosophical tradition that did not occur because of religious and political interference in philosophy, starting with Galileo and Descartes - and continuing unto the present day. You'll likely be aware that in 1635 Galileo was arrested and tried for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. What you may not know is that Descartes immediately withdrew a work on physics from publication, and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in which he employed a method of radical scepticism to cast doubt upon everything that may be doubted, including the existence of the object world, the evidence of the senses, even that he had a body, to conclude, nonetheless, 'I think therefore I am.' This subjective certainty was far more consistent with Church doctrine regarding the soul, and spiritual disdain for the mundane object world.

Galileo was held under house arrest for the rest of his life, while Descartes was appointed to the Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. Bearing in mind that the Church was the ultimate authority for the Divine Right of Kings, and also that the Church burned people alive for heresy right through to 1792 - the effect on European philosophy was considerable. Subjectivism was unduly emphasised while a philosophical tradition positively codifying scientific epistemology, and describing the truth value of scientific knowledge did not occur. On the contrary, scientific epistemology is defined in negative terms; in terms of subjective limitation, as you describe here. You say:

"Well it's not that I (or philosophy) can't assume the world represented by my conscious experience exists, I do that nearly all the time.  It's a matter of how can that be tested?"

Is that the pertinent question? Given that we do assume, naturally and unavoidably that the object world exists - why doubt it, if not by dint of Descartes tortured method of radical scepticism? Why even point out this is an assumption? It's not a natural starting point if one accepts a scientific epistemology and that science has truth value, it's a bizarre objection - easily dismissed. Speaking from that non-existent pro-science philosophical tradition, the existence of the object world is confirmed in every way. What I see is confirmed by what I touch, and by what you see and touch, and by the very fact of our survival. It's inconceivable a species could have survived while suffering from such a grand delusion, as that the reality they inhabit, that impresses itself upon their senses were somehow unreal. In adopting this starting point, we have fatally undermined scientific empiricism right from the outset - in that what is observed is not a basis for knowledge of objective reality.

Unless that is, the subjectivist tradition chooses, somewhat arbitrarily to rely upon science to show, for instance:

"...how physical brains work, optical illusions, that for example colour, solidity and defined edges only exist as mental experience, etc.  Our shared, third party falsifiable model tells us we are flawed and limited observers.  And as our notions of cause and effect, logic and reasoning derive from observing how the world works, these too fall into doubt as complete and perfect ways of understanding reality."

...without any apparent awareness of flipping between underlying methodological assumptions - but always driving toward variations of a particular pre-determined conclusion. Pre-determined by the bizarre objection subjectivism begins with; to the exclusion of the far more natural idea we are able to know objective reality through careful observation, and empirical confirmation. Scientific understanding of the mechanics of sensory perception thus only serves to re-enforce subjective theory; begging the question in every sense.

I cannot imagine; in the philosophical tradition that didn't occur, scientific method, and scientific knowledge would be described as:

" ...science is an inter-subjectively falsifiable methodology, but what that methodology can accurately tell us about the actual reality of the world has to deal with the issues I outlined above. But its coherence, reliability and predictability make it 'true enough' to work for us as a shared physicalist representation of the reality."

How convenient that science is true enough to work with when you say it is, but not otherwise. If only it were so, climate change deniers would solve the problem for us by dint of their subjective disbelief. But it's not so. I'll try and explain why with a quote:

“The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might–hope against hope–have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge."

Scientifically valid knowledge is all related and mutually confirming - because the reality it describes is a web of cause and effect relations. You cannot pick and choose. The biological reality described above is consistent with chemistry and physics - and it is that - that is true. Not the isolated perception of the experiencing subject, but the body of knowledge established by experiment, and careful observation, and empirical confirmation, in the context of competitive academia where each scientist is trying to disprove the other. I see none of that methodological rigour in subjectivism; quite the opposite - and yet it is the dominant philosophical tradition by a very long way.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Count Lucanor »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am [...]
Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.
You're implying only the philosophy of idealism exists, particularly in its anti-realist form. Even though it ruled for centuries before science came along, we can now have philosophy without any concession to idealism and anti-realism. Philosophy is foundational to science.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am [...]
Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.
Count Lucanor wrote: November 13th, 2022, 9:13 pmYou're implying only the philosophy of idealism exists, particularly in its anti-realist form. Even though it ruled for centuries before science came along, we can now have philosophy without any concession to idealism and anti-realism. Philosophy is foundational to science.
There are echoes of the allegory of the cave here, now you mention it, but I'm talking about the Cartersian subject/object dichotomy - as it relates to the status of science in society. In my view, there's a huge over-emphasis on subjectivism to the detriment of science ...and society!

While aware of idealism I can't say I'm familiar. With regard to the elements, the earth, air, fire and water idea - is overwritten by physics and chemistry. I'm guessing there's more to it, but I've never really engaged.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Count Lucanor »

Mercury wrote: November 13th, 2022, 9:37 pm
There are echoes of the allegory of the cave here, now you mention it, but I'm talking about the Cartersian subject/object dichotomy - as it relates to the status of science in society. In my view, there's a huge over-emphasis on subjectivism to the detriment of science ...and society!
Plato was an idealist, but also a realist. Modern idealism is represented by subjective idealists peddling anti-realism, and yes, it is an infectious intellectual disease that hinders human progress.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 13th, 2022, 9:37 pm
There are echoes of the allegory of the cave here, now you mention it, but I'm talking about the Cartersian subject/object dichotomy - as it relates to the status of science in society. In my view, there's a huge over-emphasis on subjectivism to the detriment of science ...and society!
Count Lucanor wrote: November 13th, 2022, 11:50 pmPlato was an idealist, but also a realist. Modern idealism is represented by subjective idealists peddling anti-realism, and yes, it is an infectious intellectual disease that hinders human progress.
Subjective idealism is another way of saying solipsism; the corner Descartes paints himself into with his method of radical scepticism. Having doubted all that could be doubted - his perceptions, the existence of the object world, and even that he had a physical body, he finds he can assert his existence 'I think therefore I am' - but only at the cost of everything else.

Solipsism: "the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."

Subjective idealism positively asserts that this is the case: "Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only minds and mental contents exist."

Descartes' method of radical scepticism was wrongful; not least because it requires far greater assumption to imagine a demon is deceiving him than it does to accept that what he sees exists. The epistemic assumption that reality exists, and that perception is accurate to, if not comprehensive of reality - is the least possible necessary assumption to knowledge. Further, the evolutionary origin of humankind requires perception is accurate to reality to facilitate survival. It's not merely inconceivable the human species could have survived unless perception were accurate to reality, but inconceivable evolution could build such a deluded organism. Subjectivism, solipsism and subjective idealism are clearly nonsensical; but useful politically, to those who would abdicate from a responsibility to scientific truths.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 4:41 pm
Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 1:53 pm
Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 10:13 am Clearly, there's a lot one can take issue with in that title to avoid addressing the meaningful content of that title - and that's philosophy! Like quantum physics, philosophy takes the object apart until there's nothing left, and calls the resulting meaninglessness philosophy. By contrast, science is cognizant of its assumptions and limitations - but is able to accept these and progress toward valid knowledge.

Most basically, science assumes objective reality exists - and that sensory perception is accurate to objective reality, such that - what is observed is both meaningful, and observable by an independent third party to provide empirical verification.

Philosophy falls at this first hurdle. Philosophy argues we cannot simply assume objective reality exists, and in any case - sensory perception is not accurate; a contention philosophy then claims to prove with experiments that assume reality exists, and that we perceive the object world.

"Is it a duck or a rabbit?"
"Who said that?"

True to subjectivist philosophical assumptions; employed as criticisms of science, the only thing the subjectivist philosopher can possibly know is that the thinking thing exists! And yet they range far beyond the solipsistic trap of 'I think therefore I am' in their own arguments - requiring of themselves no methodological consistency while demanding absolute rigour and impossible proof of science!

In my view, the statement "science is true" is defensible philosophically, even while it is obviously a low resolution proposition with much to be said about what science is, and what truth is, and what scientific truth is - it is nonetheless a valid statement.
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Gosh you've fallen into the trap of dichotomizing reality. Why can't science and philosophy coexist?

Golly, have I? I thought the dichotomy was between science and philosophy; and that's not a dichotomy of my own making!

3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:51 pm Just a suggestion, the proposition 'science is true' really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
No, but it should - don't you think so?
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 11th, 2022, 2:16 pm
Mercury!

Well, there is no dichotomy. In your OP, which I would argue against (resist the temptation of dichotomizing 'things'), I'm suggesting for one, it is self-refuting when you hint at ''idealism' since human ideas create scientific theories. Have I missed the obvious? I apologize in advance if I've missed it somewhere...

Anyway, Philosophy doesn't assume Objectivity can't exist as you suggest. Afterall, the paradoxical, metaphysical laws of abstract mathematical structures (laws of the universe) that effectively describe the universe is an attempt at pure Objectivity, no?
I didn't use the term 'dichotomy' first, but I'm willing to accept it as a low resolution description of what in reality is a massive over-emphasis on subjectivism in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge. For example, in a thread entitled "Materialism is Nonsense" you wrote:

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Or simply said, as Mr. Davies posits, how did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative?"

That's not a valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge, but is instead a subjectivist straw man constructed as a critique of the assumption in science that effects have 'material' causes.

Discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge is conspicuous by its absence, and so we are consigned to simple expression: "science is true" knowing such a statement is philosophically inadequate.

It is not an allusion to any philosophical tradition - idealism or otherwise. 'Science is true' is a plain language statement of the obvious; where the philosophical cannon does not exist to contextualise it. Instead, we have 400 years worth of reasons why science is not true! And that's my point. As science is true - philosophy is false!
No. Science is produced by human minds who have ideas. Metaphysical ideas involving the abstract concepts of mathematics. Science only has theories. Science does not have answers to many things, including conscious existence. Hence, the information narrative emerging form the matter narrative. These lists are endless oh grasshopper!

Keep trying?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 4:41 pmI didn't use the term 'dichotomy' first, but I'm willing to accept it as a low resolution description of what in reality is a massive over-emphasis on subjectivism in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge. For example, in a thread entitled "Materialism is Nonsense" you wrote:

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Or simply said, as Mr. Davies posits, how did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative?"

That's not a valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge, but is instead a subjectivist straw man constructed as a critique of the assumption in science that effects have 'material' causes.

Discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge is conspicuous by its absence, and so we are consigned to simple expression: "science is true" knowing such a statement is philosophically inadequate.

It is not an allusion to any philosophical tradition - idealism or otherwise. 'Science is true' is a plain language statement of the obvious; where the philosophical cannon does not exist to contextualise it. Instead, we have 400 years worth of reasons why science is not true! And that's my point. As science is true - philosophy is false!
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 14th, 2022, 9:11 amNo. Science is produced by human minds who have ideas. Metaphysical ideas involving the abstract concepts of mathematics. Science only has theories. Science does not have answers to many things, including conscious existence. Hence, the information narrative emerging form the matter narrative. These lists are endless oh grasshopper!

Keep trying?
Ricky Gervais once said something like; "If you tore up all the books - somehow destroyed every copy of every book, in a thousand years the science books would be back exactly as they are." Science is not a mere product of the mind; but the application of mind to questions arising from an objective reality with definite characteristics. Questions such as: 'Why is the sky blue?" "Why do objects fall to the ground?" or "How did humans come to be?" are unavoidable. They are not products of the free ranging, subjectively unencumbered mind, but of an intellect embodied in physical reality. Consequently, while there is no guarantee we'd re-create Heidegger's speculations on the metaphysics of "Being" - we'd certainly have to re-create Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table of chemical elements. Non necessary philosophical speculation cannot rightly displace necessary truth. So throw all the subjectivist flak into the air you like - in a thousand years, what is scientifically true will still be true. (Assuming humankind survives your subjectivist anti-science insanity.)
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Mercury wrote: November 14th, 2022, 10:39 am (Assuming humankind survives your subjectivist anti-science insanity.)
This is perilously close to personal insult. But I will comment in response that your sciencist preaching is easily as damaging — to human knowledge and understanding, and to science too.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: November 14th, 2022, 10:39 am
Mercury wrote: November 11th, 2022, 4:41 pmI didn't use the term 'dichotomy' first, but I'm willing to accept it as a low resolution description of what in reality is a massive over-emphasis on subjectivism in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge. For example, in a thread entitled "Materialism is Nonsense" you wrote:

"Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Or simply said, as Mr. Davies posits, how did the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative?"

That's not a valid discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge, but is instead a subjectivist straw man constructed as a critique of the assumption in science that effects have 'material' causes.

Discussion of the truth value of scientific knowledge is conspicuous by its absence, and so we are consigned to simple expression: "science is true" knowing such a statement is philosophically inadequate.

It is not an allusion to any philosophical tradition - idealism or otherwise. 'Science is true' is a plain language statement of the obvious; where the philosophical cannon does not exist to contextualise it. Instead, we have 400 years worth of reasons why science is not true! And that's my point. As science is true - philosophy is false!
3017Metaphysician wrote: November 14th, 2022, 9:11 amNo. Science is produced by human minds who have ideas. Metaphysical ideas involving the abstract concepts of mathematics. Science only has theories. Science does not have answers to many things, including conscious existence. Hence, the information narrative emerging form the matter narrative. These lists are endless oh grasshopper!

Keep trying?
Ricky Gervais once said something like; "If you tore up all the books - somehow destroyed every copy of every book, in a thousand years the science books would be back exactly as they are." Science is not a mere product of the mind; but the application of mind to questions arising from an objective reality with definite characteristics. Questions such as: 'Why is the sky blue?" "Why do objects fall to the ground?" or "How did humans come to be?" are unavoidable. They are not products of the free ranging, subjectively unencumbered mind, but of an intellect embodied in physical reality. Consequently, while there is no guarantee we'd re-create Heidegger's speculations on the metaphysics of "Being" - we'd certainly have to re-create Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table of chemical elements. Non necessary philosophical speculation cannot rightly displace necessary truth. So throw all the subjectivist flak into the air you like - in a thousand years, what is scientifically true will still be true. (Assuming humankind survives your subjectivist anti-science insanity.)
Nice quote. Many flaws though. With respect to an objective reality, which you seem to be endorsing (which I don't necessarily take exception to) the first question is, if a tree fell in the forest and nobody heard it, would it still have fallen? If so, how so?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021