Critiques of Kant's Noumenon

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you don't call the empirically verified, real referent noumenon "noumenon" then what do you call it? What is science studying if not the noumenon?

An "empirically verified, real referent noumenon" is an oxymoron.
There is no such thing as 'noumenal water', "noumenal apple" or an noumenal empirical object.

The focus of Science is empirical evidence and forming scientific conclusion thereupon a human-based scientific FSK: the central basis of Science holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation; scientific theories generalize observations.

As such, the human based science-FSK is "studying" merely real empirical evidences based on observations and nothing more.

What is 'noumenon' is merely an assumption.
Science Assumes Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40339

Science itself has declared the noumenon is unprovable in science, that is why it has to be an assumption.
ibid.

Insisting the noumenon is really real other than what is realized in science is delusional.

[Atla]

If you don't call the empirically verified, real referent noumenon "noumenon" then what do you call it? What is science studying if not the noumenon?

An "empirically verified, real referent noumenon" is an oxymoron.
There is no such thing as 'noumenal water', "noumenal apple" or an noumenal empirical object.

The focus of Science is empirical evidence and forming scientific conclusion thereupon a human-based scientific FSK: the central basis of Science holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation; scientific theories generalize observations.

As such, the human based science-FSK is "studying" merely real empirical evidences based on observations and nothing more.

What is 'noumenon' is merely an assumption.
Science Assumes Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40339

Science itself has declared the noumenon is unprovable in science, that is why it has to be an assumption.
ibid.

Insisting the noumenon is really real other than what is realized in science is delusional.

It's far more delusional to think that science is studying nothing, and yet that nothing consistently behaves as if it wasn't nothing. That's why you'll always be wrong about this kind of noumenon, and that's why morality will also never be objective unless we can show that it's objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science is definitely realizing and studying "something" realistically, but that "something" studied is definitely not a scientific-noumenon.

Thus science conclude there is an empirically verified water as H20 based on empirical evidences and that is conditioned upon the human-based science-chemistry FSK and not something as stupid and delusional as an 'empirically verified noumenal water'.

Show proofs that is such a thing as a scientific-noumenon.

[Atla]

Science is definitely realizing and studying "something" realistically, but that "something" studied is definitely not a scientific-noumenon.

Thus science conclude there is an empirically verified water as H20 based on empirical evidences and that is conditioned upon the human-based science-chemistry FSK and not something as stupid and delusional as an 'empirically verified noumenal water'.

Show proofs that is such a thing as a scientific-noumenon.

Science is the study of the empirical noumenon. Your core argument, science-FSK, is based on the idea of the real noumenon.

Or do you have a third category in addition to phenomena and noumena? Maybe an equivocation on philosophy's "phenomena" and science's "phenomena"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The idea of an empirical-noumenon is an oxymoron.
To insist there is a real noumenon is delusional because a noumenon is an illusion which cannot be real within a credible objective scientific FSK.

What is empirical is always related to phenomena never to the noumena.

Show proof that there is such things as a really-real empirical-noumena.

[Atla]

The idea of an empirical-noumenon is an oxymoron.
To insist there is a real noumenon is delusional because a noumenon is an illusion which cannot be real within a credible objective scientific FSK.

What is empirical is always related to phenomena never to the noumena.

Show proof that there is such things as a really-real empirical-noumena.

At least 99% of science deals with empirical-noumena. So that's just about everything we have scientific proof for. Even the scientists themselves and the tools they use are empirical-noumena from your perspective. Less than 1% of science deals with philosophical phenomena, and that too only in a third-person soft-science way.

When will you learn that you nuked yourself in the foot years ago, with this science-FSK..

[Veritas Aequitas]

The idea of an empirical-noumenon is an oxymoron.
To insist there is a real noumenon is delusional because a noumenon is an illusion which cannot be real within a credible objective scientific FSK.

What is empirical is always related to phenomena never to the noumena.

Show proof that there is such things as a really-real empirical-noumena.

At least 99% of science deals with empirical-noumena. So that's just about everything we have scientific proof for. Even the scientists themselves and the tools they use are empirical-noumena from your perspective. Less than 1% of science deals with philosophical phenomena, and that too only in a third-person soft-science way.

When will you learn that you nuked yourself in the foot years ago, with this science-FSK..

Show references where 99% of science mentioned the term "empirical-noumena"?

It is more likely driven by your current psychological state to claim the above to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

[Atla]

The idea of an empirical-noumenon is an oxymoron.
To insist there is a real noumenon is delusional because a noumenon is an illusion which cannot be real within a credible objective scientific FSK.

What is empirical is always related to phenomena never to the noumena.

Show proof that there is such things as a really-real empirical-noumena.

At least 99% of science deals with empirical-noumena. So that's just about everything we have scientific proof for. Even the scientists themselves and the tools they use are empirical-noumena from your perspective. Less than 1% of science deals with philosophical phenomena, and that too only in a third-person soft-science way.

When will you learn that you nuked yourself in the foot years ago, with this science-FSK..

Show references where 99% of science mentioned the term "empirical-noumena"?

It is more likely driven by your current psychological state to claim the above to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Show references that 100% of science tries to look inside the human head to try to see philosophical phenomena?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Show references that 100% of science tries to look inside the human head to try to see philosophical phenomena?"
This is very stupid strawman.

Science is based on the empirical and the phenomena.

Science is a neutral, rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. It may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing rules or laws in relation to any objects or phenomena examined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation

Theoretical science and scientific predictions are not based on direct evidence of the empirical and phenomena but nevertheless it is still based on what is empirically and phenomenally possible or related.

Show references where 99% of science mentioned the term "empirical-noumena"?

[Atla]

"Show references that 100% of science tries to look inside the human head to try to see philosophical phenomena?"
This is very stupid strawman.

Science is based on the empirical and the phenomena.

Science is a neutral, rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. It may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing rules or laws in relation to any objects or phenomena examined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation

Theoretical science and scientific predictions are not based on direct evidence of the empirical and phenomena but nevertheless it is still based on what is empirically and phenomenally possible or related.

Show references where 99% of science mentioned the term "empirical-noumena"?

Most of science's phenomena are philosophy's noumena. You are dishonest to the core here.

How does the James Webb space telescope investigate the appearances in your head? Where is your explanation?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Show references where 99% of science mentioned the term "empirical-noumena"?

Most of science's phenomena are philosophy's noumena. You are dishonest to the core here.

How does the James Webb space telescope investigate the appearances in your head? Where is your explanation?

There are two perspective to science's phenomena vs noumena, i.e.
1. The science-FSK sense of reality [ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism]
2. The science -philosophical realism sense.

Both 1 and 2 acknowledge the noumena of appearances are not in the head but the external world is mind-independent, thus external to the person.
Thus what the James Webb space telescope investigate IS NOT in the head of the investigator.

However, the difference is;

As a Philosophical Realists [advise if otherwise], your Philosophical Realism claims that reality and really-real things [positive noumena] exist as absolutely mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

But Philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion, i.e. the absolutely mind-independent positive noumena cannot be really-real.
Here are the threads I have raised why the Philosophical Realism to claim your positive noumena of your basis for science is absurd, illusory and non-sensical.
You have not provided any solid counter to them, if so, where?

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
viewtopic.php?t=40272

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

To Wittgenstein Pure Realism is Solipsism
viewtopic.php?t=40416

Philosophical Realism's Dilemma -Challenges
viewtopic.php?t=40366

Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40002

viewtopic.php?p=655011#p655011

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975
- thus has a barbaric potential

Given the above, your claim of positive-noumena as most real and existing independent of mind based on philosophical realism is nonsensical and absurd.

When I ask for evidence and proof your positive noumena as a basis for your view of science, you are unable to provide any.

On the other hand, the noumena which is unprovable as acknowledge by science and recognized as an assumption within a human-based science FSK is the most realistic view.

Your thinking is that of a philosophical gnat making noises yet being arrogant grounded on ignorance.

[Atla]

Show references where 99% of science mentioned the term "empirical-noumena"?

Most of science's phenomena are philosophy's noumena. You are dishonest to the core here.

How does the James Webb space telescope investigate the appearances in your head? Where is your explanation?

There are two perspective to science's phenomena vs noumena, i.e.
1. The science-FSK sense of reality [ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism]
2. The science -philosophical realism sense.

Both 1 and 2 acknowledge the noumena of appearances are not in the head but the external world is mind-independent, thus external to the person.
Thus what the James Webb space telescope investigate IS NOT in the head of the investigator.

However, the difference is;

As a Philosophical Realists [advise if otherwise], your Philosophical Realism claims that reality and really-real things [positive noumena] exist as absolutely mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

But Philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion, i.e. the absolutely mind-independent positive noumena cannot be really-real.
Here are the threads I have raised why the Philosophical Realism to claim your positive noumena of your basis for science is absurd, illusory and non-sensical.
You have not provided any solid counter to them, if so, where?

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
viewtopic.php?t=40272

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

To Wittgenstein Pure Realism is Solipsism
viewtopic.php?t=40416

Philosophical Realism's Dilemma -Challenges
viewtopic.php?t=40366

Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40002

viewtopic.php?p=655011#p655011

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975
- thus has a barbaric potential

Given the above, your claim of positive-noumena as most real and existing independent of mind based on philosophical realism is nonsensical and absurd.

When I ask for evidence and proof your positive noumena as a basis for your view of science, you are unable to provide any.

On the other hand, the noumena which is unprovable as acknowledge by science and recognized as an assumption within a human-based science FSK is the most realistic view.

Your thinking is that of a philosophical gnat making noises yet being arrogant grounded on ignorance.

This is just word salad where you have no idea anymore what I've been claiming and what you are claiming.

Whatever. This whole topic isn't particularly difficult actually, and can be summed up in a few sentences, few paragraphs max, in plain English. But only by those who actually know what they are talking about, and are capable of being logical. I see the only thing you achieved in a few years and hundreds of threads is confuse yourself more.