Science Assumes Mind-Independent Reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I have already discussed the above re 'objectivity'.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

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?

That "an object to study, to begin with .." is illusory, can only be an assumption which is unprovable within science itself.
The Science FSR-FSK itself acknowledge a mind-independent reality is unprovable within science itself, thus can only be an assumption. [references given].

1. What is most credible and real can ONLY [not scientism] be verified and justified via the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
2. The Science FSR-FSK itself acknowledge a mind-independent reality is unprovable within science itself, thus can only be an assumption. [references given]
3. Therefore mind-independent reality as an assumption is impossible to be real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then nothing is provable within science itself, can only be an assumption.
Therefore nothing is possible to be real.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It is only the p-realists who insist there exists a mind-independent reality and things.
As such for the p-realist scientists, such a claim of mind-independence can only be an assumption which is unprovable.

Science can give up the above assumption and can still prove something exists as real scientifically based on empirical evidences as grounded on its human-based Framework and System of Reality [FSK] & Knowledge [FSK].

The science FSR-FSK can prove the liquid resulting from burning hydrogen [H] with oxygen [O] is water [H2O].
If anyone don't believe this conclusion one can test to verify [based and in compliance with the conditions of the scientific FSR-FSK and confirm the existence of real water [scientifically] by anyone.
Anyone can ignore the mind-independent assumption, repeat the such a test 10, 1000 or > million times under the same methodology and conditions of the scientific FSR-FSK, the results will be the same- thus objective scientifically.
On these tests, no one will deny this same liquid is real 'water' [H2O] as conditioned to the scientific FSR-FSK.

Scientists can 'don't give a fuck with mind-independent reality and things' and yet can still arrive the same results and conclusion of 'what is real water' provided the comply with the conditions of the human-based scientific FSK.

As such, upon deep reflective thinking, this instinct of 'mind-independence' claimed by p-realists as the 'most real' is actually a psychological drive chasing an illusion.

[Atla]

Then nothing is provable within science itself, can only be an assumption.
Therefore nothing is possible to be real.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It is only the p-realists who insist there exists a mind-independent reality and things.
As such for the p-realist scientists, such a claim of mind-independence can only be an assumption which is unprovable.

Science can give up the above assumption and can still prove something exists as real scientifically based on empirical evidences as grounded on its human-based Framework and System of Reality [FSK] & Knowledge [FSK].

The science FSR-FSK can prove the liquid resulting from burning hydrogen [H] with oxygen [O] is water [H2O].
If anyone don't believe this conclusion one can test to verify [based and in compliance with the conditions of the scientific FSR-FSK and confirm the existence of real water [scientifically] by anyone.
Anyone can ignore the mind-independent assumption, repeat the such a test 10, 1000 or > million times under the same methodology and conditions of the scientific FSR-FSK, the results will be the same- thus objective scientifically.
On these tests, no one will deny this same liquid is real 'water' [H2O] as conditioned to the scientific FSR-FSK.

Scientists can 'don't give a fuck with mind-independent reality and things' and yet can still arrive the same results and conclusion of 'what is real water' provided the comply with the conditions of the human-based scientific FSK.

As such, upon deep reflective thinking, this instinct of 'mind-independence' claimed by p-realists as the 'most real' is actually a psychological drive chasing an illusion.

Utter, pure, sheer, unadulterated nonsense coming from someone who can only be an alien, and just landed on this planet.

Science verifies things about H2O fundamentally the same way, how it verifies its division of the world into the brain/mind and the rest of the world, and how it verifies its view that the rest of the world is entirely or almost entirely unaffected by what goes on in the brain/mind.

[Flannel Jesus]

The Science FSR-FSK itself acknowledge a mind-independent reality is unprovable within science itself, thus can only be an assumption. [references given].

You can't just say "references given" without giving references dude. Given where, in your head?

[Flannel Jesus]

Rather than repeat the arguments with the exact same words, try saying something new.

What is critical is the soundness of the argument, it is not about boringness.

Sure, and if people didn't think it was sound the first time around what kind of lunacy makes you think people would think it's sound the second time without even changing the wording?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Science FSR-FSK itself acknowledge a mind-independent reality is unprovable within science itself, thus can only be an assumption. [references given].

You can't just say "references given" without giving references dude. Given where, in your head?

Don't jump to conclusion it is in my head.
Didn't you read the OP;
viewtopic.php?p=652177#p652177
read it again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rather than repeat the arguments with the exact same words, try saying something new.

What is critical is the soundness of the argument, it is not about boringness.

Sure, and if people didn't think it was sound the first time around what kind of lunacy makes you think people would think it's sound the second time without even changing the wording?

As I had stated, opponents especially p-realists will condemn arguments by anti-p-realists as unsound because they threaten their survival subliminally [not consciously].

If you have any serious issues, bring it out to the fore.
It could be my fault for not being clear, but I am willing to trash it out as long at it takes [i.e. amicably].
Complains will only impede progress.

[Flannel Jesus]

The Science FSR-FSK itself acknowledge a mind-independent reality is unprovable within science itself, thus can only be an assumption. [references given].

You can't just say "references given" without giving references dude. Given where, in your head?

Don't jump to conclusion it is in my head.
Didn't you read the OP;
viewtopic.php?p=652177#p652177
read it again.

If you gave your references in a different post, you don't just say "references given" goofball, you point the people to where they can find your references.

[Flannel Jesus]

What is critical is the soundness of the argument, it is not about boringness.

Sure, and if people didn't think it was sound the first time around what kind of lunacy makes you think people would think it's sound the second time without even changing the wording?

As I had stated, opponents especially p-realists will condemn arguments by anti-p-realists as unsound because they threaten their survival subliminally [not consciously].

If you have any serious issues, bring it out to the fore.
It could be my fault for not being clear, but I am willing to trash it out as long at it takes [i.e. amicably].
Complains will only impede progress.

What p realists do is a separate topic from the fact that you've just repeated yourself without changing the wording, hoping to get a different response to it.

[Atla]

Sure, and if people didn't think it was sound the first time around what kind of lunacy makes you think people would think it's sound the second time without even changing the wording?

As I had stated, opponents especially p-realists will condemn arguments by anti-p-realists as unsound because they threaten their survival subliminally [not consciously].

If you have any serious issues, bring it out to the fore.
It could be my fault for not being clear, but I am willing to trash it out as long at it takes [i.e. amicably].
Complains will only impede progress.

What p realists do is a separate topic from the fact that you've just repeated yourself without changing the wording, hoping to get a different response to it.

What VA seems to be saying is that only you exist. And the entire universe only appears to exist in your mind, but that apparent universe is exactly like as if it wasn't just in your mind, as if it had a real external world with real other people in it. And the scientific process within this apparent universe can't prove that it isn't just apparent.

Oh and if you disagree with him on the above, then you do this out of mortal fear, and may want to kill him.

In short he's insane

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure, and if people didn't think it was sound the first time around what kind of lunacy makes you think people would think it's sound the second time without even changing the wording?

As I had stated, opponents especially p-realists will condemn arguments by anti-p-realists as unsound because they threaten their survival subliminally [not consciously].

If you have any serious issues, bring it out to the fore.
It could be my fault for not being clear, but I am willing to trash it out as long at it takes [i.e. amicably].
Complains will only impede progress.

What p realists do is a separate topic from the fact that you've just repeated yourself without changing the wording, hoping to get a different response to it.

I am not too sure of your point in respect of the OP.
Perhaps I represent my OP again and you can comment on it.

I raised this OP because there are posters [p-realists] who insisted,
The pursuit of Science is the discovery of an external mind-independent referent, that is the noumena,
that noumena is the real thing.
This is in line with Philosophical Realism;

• Philosophical realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

See OP viewtopic.php?p=652177#p652177
for a listing of such claims.

My counter is p-realists in this case are wrong.
Science do not claim the supposed mind-independent referent and noumena is something REAL, rather the noumena is merely an ASSUMPTION which scientists recognized as unprovable, thus can only be as assumption. [see OP]

Even if it is recognized as unprovable, thus unknowable, p-realists will still insist the noumena is still very real.
"Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable."
viewtopic.php?p=652266#p652266

My counter is;
The noumena cannot be real.
What is REAL can only [not scientism] be verified and justified objective via a human-mind-based science FSK.
Because the science FSR is human-mind-based, it follows deductively, its ultimate resultant reality has to be related to the human-mind conditions.
The ultimate resultant reality CANNOT be mind-independent.

As such, the noumena which is ASSUMED, unprovable, unknowable cannot be real.

If you think otherwise, show me proofs, the unprovable, unknowable noumena as an assumption in science can be real?

Views?

[Atla]

Even if it is recognized as unprovable, thus unknowable, p-realists will still insist the noumena is still very real.
"Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable."

viewtopic.php?p=652266#p652266

My counter is;
The noumena cannot be real.

It can be real, it's just ultimately unknowable whether it's real, or whether there's just solipsism (in other words only "my" appearances exist). Funny though that you're going to such great lengths trying to prove to me that you don't exist other than some appearance I'm having.

You can't prove that it ultimately can't be real, because you can't prove a negative. Negative noumenon is also just an ideology (and a dumb/destructive one), not proof.

Next?

[Flannel Jesus]

My counter is;
The noumena cannot be real.
What is REAL can only [not scientism] be verified and justified objective via a human-mind-based science FSK.
Because the science FSR is human-mind-based, it follows deductively, its ultimate resultant reality has to be related to the human-mind conditions.
The ultimate resultant reality CANNOT be mind-independent.

As such, the noumena which is ASSUMED, unprovable, unknowable cannot be real.

If you think otherwise, show me proofs, the unprovable, unknowable noumena as an assumption in science can be real?

Views?

Sounds like you're just assuming it's not real because it hasn't been proven. If you think it's not real, show me proofs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My counter is;
The noumena cannot be real.
What is REAL can only [not scientism] be verified and justified objective via a human-mind-based science FSK.
Because the science FSR is human-mind-based, it follows deductively, its ultimate resultant reality has to be related to the human-mind conditions.
The ultimate resultant reality CANNOT be mind-independent.

As such, the noumena which is ASSUMED, unprovable, unknowable cannot be real.

If you think otherwise, show me proofs, the unprovable, unknowable noumena as an assumption in science can be real?

Views?

Sounds like you're just assuming it's not real because it hasn't been proven. If you think it's not real, show me proofs.

I show that in the argument above;

• 1. What is most REAL can only [not scientism] be verified and justified objective via a human-mind-based science FSK.
  
  2. The Science FSK itself claimed the noumena as assumed in science is not provable and unknowable. [see OP]
  
  3. Therefore it is impossible for the noumena to be scientifically real [most real].

If you think otherwise, show me proofs, the unprovable, unknowable noumena as an assumption in science can be real?

[Flannel Jesus]

That isn't a proof at all. I was just about to say that that proof is the same caliber of proof as a recent post here that "proves" God cannot exist, but then I realised that's your post too.