Reality is Inaccessible

[RCSaunders]

I asked for an example of what you would consider empirical claim,

What I cited gives an example: "The moon is made of green cheese."

Even the worst idea of empiricism would not accept that. Empiricism means based on what is observed, not conjecture. The whole emphasis of empiricism was that there had to be observable evidence for any, "claim."

Calling supporting evidence of something "proof" is a loose manner of speaking that misses what we're saying re "empirical claims are not provable."

It's not, "supporting evidence," which would only be needed in the case of a hypothesis. Evidence is what is actually observed, and can be by anyone. When one observes chlorine gas one does not have to have supporting evidence that it exists. It's observation and identification in terms of what is observed (its attributes) is all that is required. Everything else science learns about chlorine will be about the gas originally identified.

[Vitruvius]

The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

Actually there is an almost endless number of things which one knows with certainty.

In common sense terms, I agree. Not because I can be absolutely sure, for example, I'm not in the Matrix - but because it is unreasonable to doubt my apparent reality on the basis of a mere speculation that I might be in the the Matrix.

You are right that certainty does not require either omniscience or infallibility. But don't let those who want to repudiate certain knowledge convince you nothing is known for certain.

Knowledge need not aspire to certainty beyond reason. It's a false virtue.

[Terrapin Station]

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption -

And you're not hearing me. That we're employing assumptions make "proof" not applicable. Once you hear that we'll move to the next part. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over.

I will type the same thing over and over rather than agree that something unreasonable is reasonable. The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

What in the hell are you talking about? Anti-science?

Do you believe that I'm saying that there's something wrong with, inferior about, etc. empirical claims because they can't be proved, and that I'm saying that we should be shooting for certainty?

[Terrapin Station]

Since I regard the entire corpus of accepted, "philosophy," is a complete failure, I'd hardly believe philosophers are in position to define what science is, especially to differentiate between science and religion, since most philosophy is as mystical and irrational as most religions.

I don't think science actually needs to be, "defined." Real science is whatever actually discovers the nature of existence which is proved by its successful application in technology. It doesn't have to be, "called," anything.

Are you not familiar with the historical development of the sciences?

[RCSaunders]

Since I regard the entire corpus of accepted, "philosophy," is a complete failure, I'd hardly believe philosophers are in position to define what science is, especially to differentiate between science and religion, since most philosophy is as mystical and irrational as most religions.

I don't think science actually needs to be, "defined." Real science is whatever actually discovers the nature of existence which is proved by its successful application in technology. It doesn't have to be, "called," anything.

Are you not familiar with the historical development of the sciences?

Quite. Both the true physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine, from their beginnings to the present day, as well as the development of the pseudosciences: sociology, anthropology, psychology (not to be confused with the real science of neurology), ecology/environmentalism (not to be confused with the real sciences of botany and zoology), and various conjectural hypotheses like evolution and cosmology.

My main interest has been in the individual's actual work in making their discoveries such as: Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Francesco Redi, Sir Isaac Newton, Christiaan Huygens, Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Edward Jenner, Alessandro Volta, John Dalton, Georg Ohm, Amedeo Avogadro, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Dmitri Mendeleev, William Crookes, J.J. Thomson, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Alexander Fleming, and James Chadwick. My own fields of work were mostly chemistry, electronics, digital electronics, information technology, communication electronics, and solid state physics.

How about you?

[Terrapin Station]

Since I regard the entire corpus of accepted, "philosophy," is a complete failure, I'd hardly believe philosophers are in position to define what science is, especially to differentiate between science and religion, since most philosophy is as mystical and irrational as most religions.

I don't think science actually needs to be, "defined." Real science is whatever actually discovers the nature of existence which is proved by its successful application in technology. It doesn't have to be, "called," anything.

Are you not familiar with the historical development of the sciences?

Quite. Both the true physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine, from their beginnings to the present day, as well as the development of the pseudosciences: sociology, anthropology, psychology (not to be confused with the real science of neurology), ecology/environmentalism (not to be confused with the real sciences of botany and zoology), and various conjectural hypotheses like evolution and cosmology.

My main interest has been in the individual's actual work in making their discoveries such as: Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Francesco Redi, Sir Isaac Newton, Christiaan Huygens, Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Edward Jenner, Alessandro Volta, John Dalton, Georg Ohm, Amedeo Avogadro, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Dmitri Mendeleev, William Crookes, J.J. Thomson, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Alexander Fleming, and James Chadwick. My own fields of work were mostly chemistry, electronics, digital electronics, information technology, communication electronics, and solid state physics.

How about you?

Sure. So in the historical development of the sciences, wasn't science seen as something different, in terms of its premises and methodology, than earlier and then-in-vogue methods of inquiry about what the world is like?

[Vitruvius]

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption -

And you're not hearing me. That we're employing assumptions make "proof" not applicable. Once you hear that we'll move to the next part. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over.

I will type the same thing over and over rather than agree that something unreasonable is reasonable. The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

What in the hell are you talking about? Anti-science?

I'm talking about the things I wrote. That writing was, and remains an instance of me talking about the things that writing is about.

Do you believe that I'm saying that there's something wrong with, inferior about, etc. empirical claims because they can't be proved, and that I'm saying that we should be shooting for certainty?

Yes.

[Terrapin Station]

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption -

And you're not hearing me. That we're employing assumptions make "proof" not applicable. Once you hear that we'll move to the next part. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over.

I will type the same thing over and over rather than agree that something unreasonable is reasonable. The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

What in the hell are you talking about? Anti-science?

I'm talking about the things I wrote. That writing was, and remains an instance of me talking about the things that writing is about.

Do you believe that I'm saying that there's something wrong with, inferior about, etc. empirical claims because they can't be proved, and that I'm saying that we should be shooting for certainty?

Yes.

Okay, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. So I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something "anti-science" or why you think that I'm saying we should be shooting for certainty.

[Vitruvius]

Okay, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. So I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something "anti-science" or why you think that I'm saying we should be shooting for certainty.

So you don't know what in the hell I said, or why I said it? Then I can consider my time well spent so far. Nice talking with you!

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. So I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something "anti-science" or why you think that I'm saying we should be shooting for certainty.

So you don't know what in the hell I said, or why I said it? Then I can consider my time well spent so far. Nice talking with you!

Right. I have no idea why you saw what I said as anti-science, etc. It would be nice if you'd explain why you saw it that way, but I'm guessing that's an option you won't be taking, lol.

[Vitruvius]

Okay, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. So I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something "anti-science" or why you think that I'm saying we should be shooting for certainty.

So you don't know what in the hell I said, or why I said it? Then I can consider my time well spent so far. Nice talking with you!

Right. I have no idea why you saw what I said as anti-science, etc. It would be nice if you'd explain why you saw it that way, but I'm guessing that's an option you won't be taking, lol.

It would probably be easier on both of us if you just said what you think - rather than harking on about what you think I thought you think. You seemed to be defending the whole reality is inaccessible, subjectivist viewpoint. I'm criticising that viewpoint. If you don't understand why subjectivism is anti-science then perhaps you shouldn't defend subjectivism.

[RCSaunders]

Are you not familiar with the historical development of the sciences?

Quite. Both the true physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine, from their beginnings to the present day, as well as the development of the pseudosciences: sociology, anthropology, psychology (not to be confused with the real science of neurology), ecology/environmentalism (not to be confused with the real sciences of botany and zoology), and various conjectural hypotheses like evolution and cosmology.

My main interest has been in the individual's actual work in making their discoveries such as: Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Francesco Redi, Sir Isaac Newton, Christiaan Huygens, Leibniz, Antoine Lavoisier, Edward Jenner, Alessandro Volta, John Dalton, Georg Ohm, Amedeo Avogadro, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Dmitri Mendeleev, William Crookes, J.J. Thomson, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Alexander Fleming, and James Chadwick. My own fields of work were mostly chemistry, electronics, digital electronics, information technology, communication electronics, and solid state physics.

How about you?

Perhaps

Sure. So in the historical development of the sciences, wasn't science seen as something different, in terms of its premises and methodology, than earlier and then-in-vogue methods of inquiry about what the world is like?

Perhaps Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton might have thought in terms of, "what the world is like," but most of those in science who made the major early discoveries all later science depended on were dedicated to discovering the nature of particular things, like Lavoisier, Jenner, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, and the Curies. What is called, "science," today was not even called science when most of those men and women were making their discoveries. (It was referred to variously as natural history, natural philosophy,

Of course they were successful and the one principle that differentiated their methods from all other failed methods, like religion and rationalism, was their insistence on accepting nothing as knowledge that was not based on observable demonstrable evidence.

So you are right that their, "premises and methodology," were different from all other failed methods, and we call those premises and methods science. Unfortunately, what goes by the name science today has abandoned true scientific rigor and is corrupted by ideas in defiance of those "premises and methodologies,"
like induction, statistical analysis, falsification, so-called, "scientific studies," consensus, peer review, and scientific "authority."

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point above aside, I believe ALL humans are "programmed" to search for certainty to facilitate survival, thus, in that sense it is natural. Until Hume and others, all humans has this certainty and they want that certainty, the Sun will rise tomorrow and other certainties that they have expected.

Then you'd be completely and utterly, 100% wrong. The human mind doesn't await certainty of knowledge, because it's built to survive in the wild. Reacting to perceptual clues that suggest a predator, I could be wrong - but I'd survive if I were right, so the evolutionary advantage does not lie with certainty. Awaiting certainty of knowledge will get you killed.

You are wrong again in confusing certainty with accuracy.

Point here is the mind jumps to certainty very quickly despite the lack of accuracy so as to facilitate survival.

Upon the slightest perceptual clues, our ancestors' mind demanding certainty and will immediately jump to conclusion that there is indeed [certainly] a predator and run as quick as possible or hide from the 'threat'.
If they had started to doubt, analyze and think [dilly dally], they are not likely to survive if the clue turned to be a real predator and its too late for them to outrun it, so die.

It is this trigger for certainty [despite the accuracy] that enabled our ancestors to survive and produce ending with present humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, you have not proven there is a really real thing existing independently out there.

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable? Are you just not capable or learning or what?

Your above a strawman.

Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

Note,

• Prove: [google dictionary]
  demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
  demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.
  
  elsewhere.
  prove = confirmation of act by evidence

If empirical claims cannot be proven, how is it that so many criminals are proven to be guilty of crimes [empirical] in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

If one is to ask to prove the Moon exist [an empirical claim], the process is to bring forth the empirical evidence to prove it exists.

What sort of world are you living in when you claimed empirical claims are not provable.

Note my question;
"Btw, you have not proven there is a really real thing existing independently out there."

Can you confirm, do you believe,
what are things to you exist independently of you out there as Objective Reality independent of individual opinion and beliefs.
Note I stated "a really real thing".

If you do, note Vitruvius highlighted,

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption - challenged only by the unreason of skeptical doubt.
viewtopic.php?p=524215#p524215

Point is empirical claims can be proven by empirical evidences [as in Science] but they cannot prove the existence of a really-real-thing of Objective Reality which you are presupposing upon the empirical object.

[Age]

The point above aside, I believe ALL humans are "programmed" to search for certainty to facilitate survival, thus, in that sense it is natural. Until Hume and others, all humans has this certainty and they want that certainty, the Sun will rise tomorrow and other certainties that they have expected.

Then you'd be completely and utterly, 100% wrong. The human mind doesn't await certainty of knowledge, because it's built to survive in the wild. Reacting to perceptual clues that suggest a predator, I could be wrong - but I'd survive if I were right, so the evolutionary advantage does not lie with certainty. Awaiting certainty of knowledge will get you killed.

You are wrong again in confusing certainty with accuracy.

Point here is the mind jumps to certainty very quickly despite the lack of accuracy so as to facilitate survival.

Upon the slightest perceptual clues, our ancestors' mind demanding certainty and will immediately jump to conclusion that there is indeed [certainly] a predator and run as quick as possible or hide from the 'threat'.
If they had started to doubt, analyze and think [dilly dally], they are not likely to survive if the clue turned to be a real predator and its too late for them to outrun it, so die.

It is this trigger for certainty [despite the accuracy] that enabled our ancestors to survive and produce ending with present humans.

Talk about confusing 'certainty'. You accuse "another" of confusing 'certainty' when you are doing the exact same thing here "veritas aequitas".

As already explained, waiting for certainty can also get the human "killed".

Also, one does not necessarily jump to a conclusion that there is indeed, for sure without doubt (certainly) a predator, but one can and will react just in case there is a predator, instead.