Science Assumes Mind-Independent Reality

[FlashDangerpants]

There is this claim that whatever is assumed to be a mind-independent reality by science is actually real mind-independently.
This is very unintelligent in claiming what is assumed or posited in the theory is itself real.

This entire line of argument is a huge strategic blunder. VA's entire epistemology depends upon this "science-fsk" being the standard bearer" of knowledge and the most "credible" of these FSK things (rated in this thread at 99/100).

VA already has a huge bandwagon problem because the thing that makes any FSK "credible" is nothing but how many people believe it. But this line of argument takes away his last escape from bandwagon fallacy, in that the reason for choosing science over mythology is that it is backed up by obeservation such that it can be described as approximately true to reality. Belief in this latter realist thing (even if it is naive) is what explains the credibility of the FSK thing.

Undermine all that, and the credibility of the science-FSK thing is hollow, just one bandwagon among many.

[Flannel Jesus]

This entire line of argument is a huge strategic blunder. VA's entire epistemology depends upon this "science-fsk" being the standard bearer" of knowledge and the most "credible" of these FSK things (rated in this thread at 99/100).

Yeah. "The science fsk is the most objective". What an interesting word to use for an anti realist. "Objective". When someone makes a statement of truth, there's usually a subject and an object. "That apple looks blue." The object is the apple, and the implicit subject is the speaker.

For things to be objective means they are about the object, and true of the object, and not about the speaker, the subject. Subjective things, on the other hand, are about the speaker. "Steak tastes good" - even though the subject is only implicit in a statement like this, it's quite clear that statements like this are more about the subject than they are about the object. The truth-value of the statement can't be discovered by discovering things about the object itself, you have to also know things about the subject for the statement to be true, which is what makes it "subjective". It's truth value is reliant on the subject.

So, if the science fsk is the most objective, that means... what, exactly? It sounds like it's a statement leaning towards realism. The science fsk is finding out things that are true about the objects of study, truths that aren't very dependent on the subject. This implies there really is an object to study, to begin with.

And objective about what, exactly? About... reality, right? What else would it be objective about?

VAs wording throughout all these conversations has these threads of realism.

[Skepdick]

Yeah. "The science fsk is the most objective". What an interesting word to use for an anti realist. "Objective". When someone makes a statement of truth, there's usually a subject and an object.

And what happens when the "subject" makes true statements about themselves?

Where is the line where I stop being the "subject" and become the "object" of observation while I am observing myself?

[Skepdick]

For things to be objective means they are about the object, and true of the object, and not about the speaker, the subject. Subjective things, on the other hand, are about the speaker. "Steak tastes good" - even though the subject is only implicit in a statement like this, it's quite clear that statements like this are more about the subject than they are about the object.

What a confused way of thinking/speaking.

It's objectively true that I like the taste of steak.

[Atla]

So you don't know what you are talking about...


There is an external world, alright. But how do you know it's real?

Then you also don't know what you're talking about. Now what

I know exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about the exact same external world you are talking about.

You said it's "real". How do you know?

I said I don't know this with absolute certainty (neither do you).

[Iwannaplato]

This entire line of argument is a huge strategic blunder. VA's entire epistemology depends upon this "science-fsk" being the standard bearer" of knowledge and the most "credible" of these FSK things (rated in this thread at 99/100).

Yeah. "The science fsk is the most objective". What an interesting word to use for an anti realist. "Objective". When someone makes a statement of truth, there's usually a subject and an object. "That apple looks blue." The object is the apple, and the implicit subject is the speaker.

For things to be objective means they are about the object, and true of the object, and not about the speaker, the subject. Subjective things, on the other hand, are about the speaker. "Steak tastes good" - even though the subject is only implicit in a statement like this, it's quite clear that statements like this are more about the subject than they are about the object. The truth-value of the statement can't be discovered by discovering things about the object itself, you have to also know things about the subject for the statement to be true, which is what makes it "subjective". It's truth value is reliant on the subject.

So, if the science fsk is the most objective, that means... what, exactly? It sounds like it's a statement leaning towards realism. The science fsk is finding out things that are true about the objects of study, truths that aren't very dependent on the subject. This implies there really is an object to study, to begin with.

And objective about what, exactly? About... reality, right? What else would it be objective about?

VAs wording throughout all these conversations has these threads of realism.

He does dip into realism, though his communication is fuzzy often and not always easy to interpret. But you can have objectivity and antirealism. It's just not about what's 'out there' beyond the experience. Sometimes VA calls his objectivity intersubjectivity. Now that may see either wrong or a cop out, but in a sense, given that science is empirical, in the end we are dealing with intersubjectivity. Scientists check your research by running the same experiments/protocols and if they have similar observations, to yours, well, then you're starting to look confirmed.

There are scientists who are anti-realists and nevertheless consider their work objective.

(it should be added that here in PN the debate is viewed as binary: antirealism vs. realism, both global, but in the philosophy of science there are often divisions where some areas of knowledge are seen as realist and others as antirealist. this can be around observables vs. inobservables)

One problem with....

So, if the science fsk is the most objective, that means... what, exactly? It sounds like it's a statement leaning towards realism.

is that VA claims that all knowledge comes through an FSK, but which FSK did this knowledge come through. How did he evaulate science and, more foolishly than this, give a number to its accuracy.

But I think a case can be made that in the end, the final criteria in situ, and we are in situ, is intersubjective. Yes, most scientists mean that their conclusions have to do with what is out there, independent of minds. But in practice something is considered objective if we get consistant experiences. So, the antirealism drops the 'thing out there' from the conclusions and focuses on the experiences/observations. Objectivity is focused on experiences. Observers anywhere following the protocols will have the same experiences. If so, objective.

I have been wondering if antirealism might suffer from a homunculus problem, but I have to sit down and mull that over. Or maybe better put that if all that is is the experience - no separate object, out there, I think there ought not either be a subject in here, since this subject is not experienced. It has to be bracketed off just like the noumenon object is. Antirealism does no openly say there is this noumenal homunculus and it seems to me it would also not be considered real (if one goes to VAs extreme in relation to the object here also.)

[Skepdick]

Then you also don't know what you're talking about. Now what

I know exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about the exact same external world you are talking about.

You said it's "real". How do you know?

I said I don't know this with absolute certainty (neither do you).

It's weird that you are talking about "absolute" certainty when your certainty on the matter is nothing other than zero.

[Atla]

All of science is consistent with the view of the mind-external reality. I wonder how on Earth we could explain how and why all those things that seem to be external, aren't actually external.

[Atla]

I know exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about the exact same external world you are talking about.

You said it's "real". How do you know?

I said I don't know this with absolute certainty (neither do you).

It's weird that you are talking about "absolute" certainty when your certainty on the matter is nothing other than zero.

Then your certainty on any matter is also zero. Now what.

[Skepdick]

Then your certainty on any matter is also zero. Now what.

Obviously. I don't know and I can't know - so I am not a realist.

Which is why I don't use the adjective "real".

[Atla]

Then your certainty on any matter is also zero. Now what.

Obviously. I don't know and I can't know - so I am not a realist.

If you can't know anything then why do you say anything?

[Skepdick]

If you can't know anything then why do you say anything?

Why are you changing the subject from knowing whether the external world is "real" to knowing anything?

[Atla]

If you can't know anything then why do you say anything?

Why are you changing the subject from knowing whether the external world is "real" to knowing anything?

You changed the subject, not me

[Skepdick]

If you can't know anything then why do you say anything?

Why are you changing the subject from knowing whether the external world is "real" to knowing anything?

You changed the subject, not me

No, I didn't.

I am still talking about my inability to know whether the external world is "real" or "not real".

[Atla]

Why are you changing the subject from knowing whether the external world is "real" to knowing anything?

You changed the subject, not me

No, I didn't.

I am still talking about my inability to know whether the external world is "real" or "not real".

Yes and if there's 0% certainty for that, then there's 0% certainty for anything.