Reality is Inaccessible

[RCSaunders]

Wow! "Things are the way they are for reasons we are incapable of understanding. They are too complex for us to understand in an intellectual way ..." but you are certain, "the chemical composition of water will certainly change as more sophisticated understandings become known in the future." But if we are incapable of understanding how can there be, "more sophisticated understanding," in the future?

I am not saying that the understanding is correct, it's just builds on previous incorrect understanding. It wasn't so long ago that physicians were drilling holes in patient's skulls to allow the evil spirits to escape.

Relatively speaking, things have improved [medically], but there are still a great deal of practices/procedures on-going that folks will look back at with disbelief.

Once you have a system in place, you build on it until the entire system becomes obsolete. The history of nearly everything is this way.

And there's your problem. There is no, "system," no accepted authority. There is no, "thing," called science, like a religion or ideology. There are only things which have been discovered and are known to be true and the entire technological world is the evidence of the certainty of that knowledge.

The circulation of the blood, the existence of bacteria and microscopic life, the nature of all the chemical elements, the nature of electricity, and aerodynamics (or do you think heavier than air human flight is still in question), for example. Those aspects of reality that have been discovered and their nature identified are lumped together and called science, because many of them are interrelated, but there is no thing, no ideology, no kind of preordained system called science.

It's stupid philosophers and academics who have attempted to turn science into another one of their ideologies they can corrupt and have, unfortunately, had some success in doing it.

[Terrapin Station]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We can at least agree on that much.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The circulation of the blood, the existence of bacteria and microscopic life, the nature of all the chemical elements, the nature of electricity, and aerodynamics (or do you think heavier than air human flight is still in question), for example. Those aspects of reality that have been discovered and their nature identified are lumped together and called science, because many of them are interrelated, but there is no thing, no ideology, no kind of preordained system called science.

It's stupid philosophers and academics who have attempted to turn science into another one of their ideologies they can corrupt and have, unfortunately, had some success in doing it.

In essence it is not that things are lumped together and called science.
What is science is grounded on a Framework, System and Methods of knowledge [FSK] identified as Science.

Whatever output of Knowledge from the Scientific FSK as grounded therein [thus Objective] must always be qualified to that specific FSK and can never be absolutely independent knowledge.

But the ground of the scientific FSK is subjective, i.e. dependent on the work and consensus of scientists as subjects.
Thus the Objectivity of scientific knowledge is fundamentally intersubjective.

So, there is no thing called science in the absolute sense, but always qualified upon the scientific FSK which is necessary subjective [inter not intra] in essence.

Science as an ideology i.e. Scientism is not relevant in this case.

Since science is heavily and fundamentally grounded on subjects [intersubjectivity] {entangled with and not-independent of subjects} it will not enable access to the reality as claimed by realists [philosophical] who claim that reality is independent of subject.

[RCSaunders]

The circulation of the blood, the existence of bacteria and microscopic life, the nature of all the chemical elements, the nature of electricity, and aerodynamics (or do you think heavier than air human flight is still in question), for example. Those aspects of reality that have been discovered and their nature identified are lumped together and called science, because many of them are interrelated, but there is no thing, no ideology, no kind of preordained system called science.

It's stupid philosophers and academics who have attempted to turn science into another one of their ideologies they can corrupt and have, unfortunately, had some success in doing it.

Which you have brilliantly illustrated, VA, with this horse-pucky:

In essence it is not that things are lumped together and called science.
What is science is grounded on a Framework, System and Methods of knowledge [FSK] identified as Science.

Whatever output of Knowledge from the Scientific FSK as grounded therein [thus Objective] must always be qualified to that specific FSK and can never be absolutely independent knowledge.

But the ground of the scientific FSK is subjective, i.e. dependent on the work and consensus of scientists as subjects....

That is exactly the kind of academic nonsense that is destroying any real science and turning it into some kind of religious ideology. It's why you neglected to quote the first part of my post:

There is no, "system," no accepted authority. There is no, "thing," called science, like a religion or ideology. There are only things which have been discovered and are known to be true and the entire technological world is the evidence of the certainty of that knowledge.

There is hardly anything more obscene than someone from the totally failed field of philosophy criticising the totally successful field of science. Just one more thing being spewed out of the cesspool of academia.

[Atla]

Anyone here without an axe to grind? Cool free-for-all though, I like it

[Veritas Aequitas]

The circulation of the blood, the existence of bacteria and microscopic life, the nature of all the chemical elements, the nature of electricity, and aerodynamics (or do you think heavier than air human flight is still in question), for example. Those aspects of reality that have been discovered and their nature identified are lumped together and called science, because many of them are interrelated, but there is no thing, no ideology, no kind of preordained system called science.

It's stupid philosophers and academics who have attempted to turn science into another one of their ideologies they can corrupt and have, unfortunately, had some success in doing it.

Which you have brilliantly illustrated, VA, with this horse-pucky:

In essence it is not that things are lumped together and called science.
What is science is grounded on a Framework, System and Methods of knowledge [FSK] identified as Science.

Whatever output of Knowledge from the Scientific FSK as grounded therein [thus Objective] must always be qualified to that specific FSK and can never be absolutely independent knowledge.

But the ground of the scientific FSK is subjective, i.e. dependent on the work and consensus of scientists as subjects....

That is exactly the kind of academic nonsense that is destroying any real science and turning it into some kind of religious ideology. It's why you neglected to quote the first part of my post:

There is no, "system," no accepted authority. There is no, "thing," called science, like a religion or ideology. There are only things which have been discovered and are known to be true and the entire technological world is the evidence of the certainty of that knowledge.

There is hardly anything more obscene than someone from the totally failed field of philosophy criticising the totally successful field of science. Just one more thing being spewed out of the cesspool of academia.

I quoted your point;

"Those aspects of reality that have been discovered and their nature identified are lumped together and called science, because many of them are interrelated, but there is no thing, no ideology, no kind of preordained system called science."

Isn't this the same as the point you accused me of "neglected to quote."

You are just making noises, but did not justify how in its details is ideological.
Anyway I am not surprised by your IGNORANCE.

I stated what is ideological with Science is Scientism, don't you know that.

As for scientific knowledge [outputs] cannot emerge without any System that take in inputs and process them to be outputs.

Note 'System"

• A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

It is not imperative that system must have any authority.
Your digestive system do not need your authority to churn out the food to take in as shit.
[ a good analogy for the arrogant points you raised above]

You still insist science is not subjected to a system?

[RCSaunders]

Which you have brilliantly illustrated, VA, with this horse-pucky:

In essence it is not that things are lumped together and called science.
What is science is grounded on a Framework, System and Methods of knowledge [FSK] identified as Science.

Whatever output of Knowledge from the Scientific FSK as grounded therein [thus Objective] must always be qualified to that specific FSK and can never be absolutely independent knowledge.

But the ground of the scientific FSK is subjective, i.e. dependent on the work and consensus of scientists as subjects....

That is exactly the kind of academic nonsense that is destroying any real science and turning it into some kind of religious ideology. It's why you neglected to quote the first part of my post:

There is no, "system," no accepted authority. There is no, "thing," called science, like a religion or ideology. There are only things which have been discovered and are known to be true and the entire technological world is the evidence of the certainty of that knowledge.

There is hardly anything more obscene than someone from the totally failed field of philosophy criticising the totally successful field of science. Just one more thing being spewed out of the cesspool of academia.

I quoted your point;

"Those aspects of reality that have been discovered and their nature identified are lumped together and called science, because many of them are interrelated, but there is no thing, no ideology, no kind of preordained system called science."

Isn't this the same as the point you accused me of "neglected to quote."

You are just making noises, but did not justify how in its details is ideological.
Anyway I am not surprised by your IGNORANCE.

I stated what is ideological with Science is Scientism, don't you know that.

As for scientific knowledge [outputs] cannot emerge without any System that take in inputs and process them to be outputs.

Note 'System"

• A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

It is not imperative that system must have any authority.
Your digestive system do not need your authority to churn out the food to take in as shit.
[ a good analogy for the arrogant points you raised above]

You still insist science is not subjected to a system?

I don't insist anything. Believe any idiotic thing you like. The objectively discovered facts of reality on which all successful technology is based is called, "science," to differentiate those things from the mystic nonsense the dominates the pseudo-intellectualism of the day, but there is no formal, "thing," with some academically dictated method called, "science."

[Terrapin Station]

I don't insist anything. Believe any idiotic thing you like. The objectively discovered facts of reality on which all successful technology is based is called, "science," to differentiate those things from the mystic nonsense the dominates the pseudo-intellectualism of the day, but there is no formal, "thing," with some academically dictated method called, "science."

Saying that there's nothing like scientific methodology results in there being no way to distinguish science from mystical nonsense.

[RCSaunders]

I don't insist anything. Believe any idiotic thing you like. The objectively discovered facts of reality on which all successful technology is based is called, "science," to differentiate those things from the mystic nonsense the dominates the pseudo-intellectualism of the day, but there is no formal, "thing," with some academically dictated method called, "science."

Saying that there's nothing like scientific methodology results in there being no way to distinguish science from mystical nonsense.

What distinguishes what, until recently, is called science from all mystical nonsense is not some orthodox dictated methodology, but a principle. The principle is that nothing which is not based on evidence that can be observed, studied, and verified by anyone is a correct means to knowledge--scientific or any other kind. Anything that correctly describes any aspect of physical existence that can be applied as successful technology is science.

Science is not about, "proving," guesses and hypotheses about reality, science is discovering the nature of reality by the direct study of reality itself. Now, if academics want to call just anything that follows some invented, "methodology," science, they can and will, which opens the door to endless, "studies," called science which are just as much nonsense as any religion, but more dangerous because they are put over as, "science."

[Eodnhoj7]

As I had presented, if the person hold on to Philosophical Realism as defined, i.e.

• [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

then logically, such a reality is inaccessible as I had demonstrated above.

There is no paradox if we reflect more deeply, i.e.
to claim that reality is directly accessible then one has to be an anti-Philosophical_Realist who can justify reality is accessible, e.g. Kantian Empirical Realism.

So which are you, a philosophical realist [as defined above] or anti-Philosophical_Realist?

To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind.

To say an object is dependent upon the mind is to in fact observe it as existing outside the mind given a principle which defined said object (and the mind by default) is what guides the mind (ie the principle exists beyond the mind as directing it much in the same manner of the mind being the subset of said principle).

The philosophical realist vs the antiphilosophical realist stance is a false dichotomy given not only do they define the mind (either apophatically by stating what the mind is not, or cataphatically by stating what the mind is) but both end in contradiction when left on there own terms.

I had presented what Philosophical Realism is claiming as above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

If you don't agree with Philosophical Realism then you are literally an anti-Philosophical_Realism. You cannot deny this literary.

Your points above makes you anti-Philosophical_Realist.

Not all anti-Philosophical Realists claim reality is dependent on the mind, but generally the mind is involved somehow.

I don't agree with the dichotomy of realism vs antirealism, I disagree with both.