Science >95% Certainty of Absolute Objective Reality??

[Iwannaplato]

This memory issue is irrelevant as an assumption in this particular case.

It is completely relevant to the criticism in the OP that realism is invalid because it has a metaphysical assumption. So, does antirealism. So, does any argument against realism (or antirealism).

We begin with metaphysical assumptions or active choose (possibly working) metaphysical assumptions in all belief systems.

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

Sure, antirealists make other assumptions however. see above.

The question of whether every scientists make assumptions other than the above is a off topic and irrelevant.

Well, scientists also, but EVERYONE, in specific antirealists also make metaphysical assumptions.

Scientists do not make any assumption that memory of the past is reliable.

Of course they do. Everything is based on the repetition of observations. Repetition means at different points in time X happened. And even in the process of thinking they HAVE to trust memory.
Otherwise all they (we) have is this moment, plus this sense (memory) that things have happened before.

Rather scientists understand the fact that memory of the past is unreliable which is more conservative.

Which is why I said earlier 'to some degree' accurate.

With the understanding of the above unreliability of memory, whatever they do will be processed within the conditions of the scientific FSK as countered check by peers to eliminate any elements of the unreliability of past memories [whatever].

Which all requires trusting memory. The memory that they followed the same protocols, their memory of their protocols, their memories of their observations.

And to be clear. I am not arguing that antirealism is wrong because it contains metaphysical assumptions. Hardly. I am pointing out that if it is damning to have them, then all belief systems fall, including realism, antirealism, monism, whatever - all processes for drawing conclusions: deduction, induction, abduction.....

What happened a second ago as memory? what about nanoseconds ago and at what point is an event not considered a memory element.

Nanoseconds?? If one can claim that trusting one's memory of what happened nanoseconds ago is not assuming anything, then we still need more memory to perform science.

The antirealism in every single argument, chain of thinking, exploration, discussion is using memory about past events and past event in that very process.

And yet, they have no direct access to the past. You cannot directly sense the past. And yet it is treated as real, both in the argument and in any investigation.


Your observation is astute, and it touches upon an important aspect of empiricism. Indeed, the reliance on memory is an inherent part of empirical inquiry. Empiricists use observations and experiences as a foundation for knowledge, and these observations are often based on past events or phenomena. However, the reliance on memory introduces a layer of complexity and potential limitations.

Here are some points related to the necessity of trust in memory within an empirical framework:

Temporal Continuity: Empirical investigations often involve the assumption that there is temporal continuity — a past, present, and future. The empirical method relies on the idea that observations made in the past are relevant to understanding and predicting events in the present and future.

Consistency of Experience: Empiricism assumes that there is a certain degree of consistency and coherence in our experiences. This implies that our memories accurately reflect past events and that the regularities observed in the past will continue in the future.

Reproducibility: Empirical research often involves repeating experiments or observations. This repetition assumes that the past experiences can be reliably remembered and replicated, contributing to the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge.

Reality's Stability: The empirical method presupposes a stable external reality. The assumption is that the world behaves in a consistent manner over time, allowing for the generalization of observations and the formulation of laws or principles.

Existence of an Objective Past: Empiricism inherently implies the existence of an objective past that is accessible through memory and observation. This assumption is necessary for building a foundation of empirical knowledge.

Coherence of Perception - this one clearly is needed for any Kantian antirealism that posits anything at all about what is real and what is not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This memory issue is irrelevant as an assumption in this particular case.

It is completely relevant to the criticism in the OP that realism is invalid because it has a metaphysical assumption. So, does antirealism. So, does any argument against realism (or antirealism).

We begin with metaphysical assumptions or active choose (possibly working) metaphysical assumptions in all belief systems.

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

Sure, antirealists make other assumptions however. see above.

The question of whether every scientists make assumptions other than the above is a off topic and irrelevant.

Well, scientists also, but EVERYONE, in specific antirealists also make metaphysical assumptions.

Did you read the OP properly??
READ!!

• OP: The fact is science, realist [not antirealists] scientists merely make an ASSUMPTION that there is a mind-independent objective reality out there. As an assumption, it has no significance to any scientific conclusion.
  
  Antirealists do not have to make the assumption of "a mind-independent objective reality out there" yet can still do science, i.e. as long as it conform to the conditions of the scientific FSK.

The OP referred to a SPECIFIC assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there

Sure antirealists [Kantian] do make well-qualified assumptions where necessary, but the OP deal with one specific assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

Stick to the topic.

[nemos]

If according to your claim of absolute reality at 100%, where are all the billions of "I AM"s of the dead humans since humans first appear?

I assume that they disappeared together with their carriers.

Whence has science ever proven such a "I AM" existed with 100% certainty?

I can only sympathize with your lack of confidence in your existence. And science will hardly be able to help you much in this matter, because it also is based on assumptions, for example, that reality exists and is knowable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If according to your claim of absolute reality at 100%, where are all the billions of "I AM"s of the dead humans since humans first appear?

I assume that they disappeared together with their carriers.

Whence has science ever proven such a "I AM" existed with 100% certainty?

I can only sympathize with your lack of confidence in your existence. And science will hardly be able to help you much in this matter, because it also is based on assumptions, for example, that reality exists and is knowable.

I am very confident of and value my existence, to the extent if anyone cornered and try to kill me, I will do it first to him in self-defense.
What is critical is to live optimally within known constraints.

What I don't have is an "I AM" that survives after physical death.

Actually you are the one who lacked confidence in your own existence so has to invent and believe in an illusory self.

[Iwannaplato]

This memory issue is irrelevant as an assumption in this particular case.

It is completely relevant to the criticism in the OP that realism is invalid because it has a metaphysical assumption. So, does antirealism. So, does any argument against realism (or antirealism).

We begin with metaphysical assumptions or active choose (possibly working) metaphysical assumptions in all belief systems.

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

Sure, antirealists make other assumptions however. see above.

The question of whether every scientists make assumptions other than the above is a off topic and irrelevant.

Well, scientists also, but EVERYONE, in specific antirealists also make metaphysical assumptions.

Did you read the OP properly??
READ!!

• OP: The fact is science, realist [not antirealists] scientists merely make an ASSUMPTION that there is a mind-independent objective reality out there. As an assumption, it has no significance to any scientific conclusion.
  
  Antirealists do not have to make the assumption of "a mind-independent objective reality out there" yet can still do science, i.e. as long as it conform to the conditions of the scientific FSK.

The OP referred to a SPECIFIC assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there

Sure antirealists [Kantian] do make well-qualified assumptions where necessary, but the OP deal with one specific assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

Stick to the topic.

Did you not read my reply?????????????????????????????????????????? YOu are saying there is a problem with realism because it makes an Assumption. I pointed out that all belief systems do this.
Thus is it not a damning problem if there is an assumption, a metaphysical one or any other.

But since you DO NOT INTERACT WITH POSTS BUT MERELY RESTATE YOUR POSITIONS, your responses are non-responses. You responded to none of the points I made, just disagreed with the conclusion. Well, duh. The OP presents a position that I am disagreeing with. I presented points in response to that. You do not address all the assumptions that both realism and antirealism make, many of the metaphysical/ontological.

My response above was right on topic.

And your assurance that any assumptions you might make are well-qualified, also does not constitute a response.

If you think it's off topic, ignore it. You'll look silly to the few people who still bother to read your posts, but I can't for the life of me understand why you think restating your position, not responding to points made and making assurances are worth writing. The OP is already there. Writing a condensed version is a waste of everyone's time especially yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is completely relevant to the criticism in the OP that realism is invalid because it has a metaphysical assumption. So, does antirealism. So, does any argument against realism (or antirealism).

We begin with metaphysical assumptions or active choose (possibly working) metaphysical assumptions in all belief systems.
Sure, antirealists make other assumptions however. see above.
Well, scientists also, but EVERYONE, in specific antirealists also make metaphysical assumptions.

Did you read the OP properly??
READ!!

• OP: The fact is science, realist [not antirealists] scientists merely make an ASSUMPTION that there is a mind-independent objective reality out there. As an assumption, it has no significance to any scientific conclusion.
  
  Antirealists do not have to make the assumption of "a mind-independent objective reality out there" yet can still do science, i.e. as long as it conform to the conditions of the scientific FSK.

The OP referred to a SPECIFIC assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there

Sure antirealists [Kantian] do make well-qualified assumptions where necessary, but the OP deal with one specific assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

Stick to the topic.

Did you not read my reply?????????????????????????????????????????? YOu are saying there is a problem with realism because it makes an Assumption. I pointed out that all belief systems do this.
Thus is it not a damning problem if there is an assumption, a metaphysical one or any other.

But since you DO NOT INTERACT WITH POSTS BUT MERELY RESTATE YOUR POSITIONS, your responses are non-responses. You responded to none of the points I made, just disagreed with the conclusion. Well, duh. The OP presents a position that I am disagreeing with. I presented points in response to that. You do not address all the assumptions that both realism and antirealism make, many of the metaphysical/ontological.

My response above was right on topic.

And your assurance that any assumptions you might make are well-qualified, also does not constitute a response.

If you think it's off topic, ignore it. You'll look silly to the few people who still bother to read your posts, but I can't for the life of me understand why you think restating your position, not responding to points made and making assurances are worth writing. The OP is already there. Writing a condensed version is a waste of everyone's time especially yours.

You are so ignorant you think you are right on target.
I raised the OP so I know what I are my intentions.
Your bitching will ensure you remain ignorant of this point.

Both realists and antirealists can make a million assumptions on an issue, but the main point is realists made a fundamental & specific contentious assumption-X and antirealists do not make assumption-X.

[Atla]

Did you read the OP properly??
READ!!

• OP: The fact is science, realist [not antirealists] scientists merely make an ASSUMPTION that there is a mind-independent objective reality out there. As an assumption, it has no significance to any scientific conclusion.
  
  Antirealists do not have to make the assumption of "a mind-independent objective reality out there" yet can still do science, i.e. as long as it conform to the conditions of the scientific FSK.

The OP referred to a SPECIFIC assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there

Sure antirealists [Kantian] do make well-qualified assumptions where necessary, but the OP deal with one specific assumption, i.e.
there is a mind-independent objective reality out there.

Stick to the topic.

Did you not read my reply?????????????????????????????????????????? YOu are saying there is a problem with realism because it makes an Assumption. I pointed out that all belief systems do this.
Thus is it not a damning problem if there is an assumption, a metaphysical one or any other.

But since you DO NOT INTERACT WITH POSTS BUT MERELY RESTATE YOUR POSITIONS, your responses are non-responses. You responded to none of the points I made, just disagreed with the conclusion. Well, duh. The OP presents a position that I am disagreeing with. I presented points in response to that. You do not address all the assumptions that both realism and antirealism make, many of the metaphysical/ontological.

My response above was right on topic.

And your assurance that any assumptions you might make are well-qualified, also does not constitute a response.

If you think it's off topic, ignore it. You'll look silly to the few people who still bother to read your posts, but I can't for the life of me understand why you think restating your position, not responding to points made and making assurances are worth writing. The OP is already there. Writing a condensed version is a waste of everyone's time especially yours.

You are so ignorant you think you are right on target.
I raised the OP so I know what I are my intentions.
Your bitching will ensure you remain ignorant of this point.

Both realists and antirealists can make a million assumptions on an issue, but the main point is realists made a fundamental & specific contentious assumption-X and antirealists do not make assumption-X.

And the "science-FSK" is so consistent with that assumption-X, that imo we can make that assumption with over 95% confidence. You're betting on that other less than 5%. You're welcome.

You sound like a creationist who insists that human evolution can't be real, because we haven't found every single missing link yet. So the whole thing must be bunk.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Both realists and antirealists can make a million assumptions on an issue, but the main point is realists made a fundamental & specific contentious assumption-X and antirealists do not make assumption-X.

And the "science-FSK" is so consistent with that assumption-X, that imo we can make that assumption with over 95% confidence. You're betting on that other less than 5%. You're welcome.

You sound like a creationist who insists that human evolution can't be real, because we haven't found every single missing link yet. So the whole thing must be bunk.

You are VERY ignorant.

Newton, Mendel, all scientists who were Christians or Muslims would have assumed God created everything to be discovered by humans.
Newton would have assumed the 'moon' and all planets were already there, as put-there [created] by God before there were humans. Their views at least make some sense but of low credibility and objectivity.
You as a philosophical-gnat is making the same assumption albeit without God which make no sense and is delusional.

[Atla]

Both realists and antirealists can make a million assumptions on an issue, but the main point is realists made a fundamental & specific contentious assumption-X and antirealists do not make assumption-X.

And the "science-FSK" is so consistent with that assumption-X, that imo we can make that assumption with over 95% confidence. You're betting on that other less than 5%. You're welcome.

You sound like a creationist who insists that human evolution can't be real, because we haven't found every single missing link yet. So the whole thing must be bunk.

You are VERY ignorant.

Newton, Mendel, all scientists who were Christians or Muslims would have assumed God created everything to be discovered by humans.
Newton would have assumed the 'moon' and all planets were already there, as put-there [created] by God before there were humans. Their views at least make some sense but of low credibility and objectivity.
You as a philosophical-gnat is making the same assumption albeit without God which make no sense and is delusional.

You have to be a complete philosophical idiot to think that an objective reality isn't possible without God. And you want to become an acknowledged philosopher? Seriously?

[Age]

So, if the people who claim to be or who are called "scientists" claim that the Universe, Itself, began and/or is expanding, then, according to the, again, made up, by "veritas aequitas", numbers, 'this' is greater than a 95% certainty of being a so-called 'absolute objective reality'.

Now, one just wonders how many so-called "scientists" would have to make this claim about the Universe for this topic title claim above here to be actually Accurate and Correct.

Or, maybe it would take a percentage of so-called "scientists" to say and claim that 'science', itself, is greater than 95% certainty of being a so-called "absolute objective reality'.

And, now I wonder "which scientists" would have to say and claim 'this' before 'this' becomes greater than 95% certainty of being 'absolute objective reality'?

Or, maybe just the one here known as "veritas aequitas" alone can claim that "science", itself, (whatever that actually is), is somehow greater than 95% certainty of so-called absolute objective reality' for 'it', itself, to be even more than 99% certainty of being a so-called "absolute objective reality"?

Just out of curiosity where did you get the 95% number and figure from, exactly? And, where did you get the claim that 'science', itself, is greater than that figure in relation to 'certainty', which is in relation to so-called 'absolute objective reality', from, exactly?

[Age]

Both realists and antirealists can make a million assumptions on an issue, but the main point is realists made a fundamental & specific contentious assumption-X and antirealists do not make assumption-X.

And the "science-FSK" is so consistent with that assumption-X, that imo we can make that assumption with over 95% confidence. You're betting on that other less than 5%. You're welcome.

You sound like a creationist who insists that human evolution can't be real, because we haven't found every single missing link yet. So the whole thing must be bunk.

You are VERY ignorant.

Newton, Mendel, all scientists who were Christians or Muslims would have assumed God created everything to be discovered by humans.
Newton would have assumed the 'moon' and all planets were already there, as put-there [created] by God before there were humans. Their views at least make some sense but of low credibility and objectivity.

So, does this now mean, that 'science' done by "christians", and "muslims" is not now greater than the 95% figure certainty of being so-called "absolute objective reality"?

If yes, then what is the figure of 'science', itself, being greater, or lesser, than certainty of so-called "absolute objective reality" done by "scientists" who are "christian" and/or "muslim", exactly?

You as a philosophical-gnat is making the same assumption albeit without God which make no sense and is delusional.

[Iwannaplato]

Realists are really Pragmatists, which means they are actually Skeptics
Realists are people who believe that the world exists independently of our perceptions and that we can know it objectively through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. Pragmatists are people who believe that the best way to solve problems and evaluate ideas is by their practical consequences and usefulness, regardless of whether they align with our beliefs or values. Radical skeptics are people who doubt the possibility of any certain knowledge and question the validity of any source of evidence or reason.

One might think that realism and pragmatism are incompatible, since realism implies a commitment to a fixed and objective reality, while pragmatism implies a flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances and goals. However, I will argue that realism and pragmatism are actually compatible, and that realists are in fact pragmatists. Moreover, I will argue that pragmatism leads to radical skepticism, and that realists are therefore radical skeptics.

The first premise of my argument is that realism is a pragmatic stance. Realists adopt realism because they think that it is the most effective and reliable way to achieve their epistemic goals, such as understanding the world, predicting the future, and controlling the environment. Realists do not assume that realism is true in itself, but rather that it is the best approximation of the truth that we can attain. Realism is thus a pragmatic choice, not a dogmatic one.

The second premise of my argument is that pragmatism is a skeptical stance. Pragmatists do not accept any idea or theory as final or absolute, but rather as provisional and contingent. Pragmatists are always open to revising their beliefs and methods in light of new evidence and experience. Pragmatists do not claim to have any certain or infallible knowledge, but rather to have more or less useful and successful knowledge. Pragmatism is thus a skeptical attitude, not a confident one.

The conclusion of my argument is that realists are radical skeptics. Since realists are pragmatists, they share the same skeptical outlook as pragmatists. Realists do not believe that they have access to the true and objective reality, but rather that they have a working and approximate model of reality. Realists do not trust their senses, reason, or evidence as sources of certainty, but rather as tools of inquiry and problem-solving. Realists are thus radical skeptics, not dogmatic believers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realists are really Pragmatists, which means they are actually Skeptics
Realists are people who believe that the world exists independently of our perceptions and that we can know it objectively through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. Pragmatists are people who believe that the best way to solve problems and evaluate ideas is by their practical consequences and usefulness, regardless of whether they align with our beliefs or values. Radical skeptics are people who doubt the possibility of any certain knowledge and question the validity of any source of evidence or reason.

One might think that realism and pragmatism are incompatible, since realism implies a commitment to a fixed and objective reality, while pragmatism implies a flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances and goals. However, I will argue that realism and pragmatism are actually compatible, and that realists are in fact pragmatists. Moreover, I will argue that pragmatism leads to radical skepticism, and that realists are therefore radical skeptics.

The first premise of my argument is that realism is a pragmatic stance. Realists adopt realism because they think that it is the most effective and reliable way to achieve their epistemic goals, such as understanding the world, predicting the future, and controlling the environment. Realists do not assume that realism is true in itself, but rather that it is the best approximation of the truth that we can attain. Realism is thus a pragmatic choice, not a dogmatic one.

The second premise of my argument is that pragmatism is a skeptical stance. Pragmatists do not accept any idea or theory as final or absolute, but rather as provisional and contingent. Pragmatists are always open to revising their beliefs and methods in light of new evidence and experience. Pragmatists do not claim to have any certain or infallible knowledge, but rather to have more or less useful and successful knowledge. Pragmatism is thus a skeptical attitude, not a confident one.

The conclusion of my argument is that realists are radical skeptics. Since realists are pragmatists, they share the same skeptical outlook as pragmatists. Realists do not believe that they have access to the true and objective reality, but rather that they have a working and approximate model of reality. Realists do not trust their senses, reason, or evidence as sources of certainty, but rather as tools of inquiry and problem-solving. Realists are thus radical skeptics, not dogmatic believers.

The above is typical of a narrow and shallow thinker.

Suggest you open a new thread for the above.
Before you arrive at your conclusions, lay down all the specific definitions and the main and nuances of 'pragmatism', 'metaphysical or philosophical-realism' and skepticism.

You will surely find some holes in the above hasty claims.

[Iwannaplato]

No, no. You don't understand VA.

Let me come at it from another angle. Science is actually realist and this distinguishes it from, for example, Alchemy which is anti-realist. Otherwise they are the same:

Science is often regarded as a rational and objective pursuit of knowledge, based on empirical observation and experimentation. Alchemy, on the other hand, is usually dismissed as a pseudoscience, based on superstition and mysticism, that tried to transform base metals into gold and discover the elixir of life. However, this is a false dichotomy that obscures the historical and philosophical connections between science and alchemy. In fact, science is actually merely alchemy, and they have the same Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK).

The FSK of science and alchemy is based on the idea that nature is governed by hidden laws and principles, that can be revealed by human inquiry and manipulation. Both science and alchemy seek to understand the nature of matter and its transformations, and to apply this knowledge for practical and moral purposes. Both science and alchemy use observation, experimentation, and reasoning as their methods, although they may differ in their degree of rigor and validity. Both science and alchemy also rely on symbols, language, and metaphors to communicate and interpret their findings, although they may differ in their degree of clarity and consistency.

One of the main differences between science and alchemy is not in their FSK, but in their historical and cultural contexts. Science emerged as a dominant mode of knowledge production in the modern era, especially after the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, when natural philosophy became more secularized, standardized, and institutionalized. Alchemy, however, was a more ancient and diverse tradition that spanned across various civilizations and religions, and was often intertwined with esotericism, spirituality, and art. Alchemy was also more marginalized and persecuted by the authorities, and thus had to resort to secrecy and allegory to preserve and transmit its teachings.

Another difference between science and alchemy is not in their FSK, but in their epistemological and ontological assumptions. Science tends to adopt a realistic and materialistic view of reality, that assumes that there is an objective and independent world that can be known and measured by human senses and instruments. Alchemy, however, tends to adopt an anti-realist and idealistic view of reality, that assumes that there is a subjective and interdependent world that can be influenced and transformed by human will and imagination. Alchemy also recognizes a spiritual and moral dimension of reality, that transcends the physical and natural realm.

Therefore, science is actually merely alchemy, and they have the same FSK. The apparent differences between them are due to their historical and cultural contexts, and their epistemological and ontological assumptions. Realists have been confused that there is a difference between alchemy and science, but anti-realists understand this. Science and alchemy are not opposed, but complementary, aspects of human curiosity and creativity, that reflect the diversity and complexity of reality.

[Age]

If according to your claim of absolute reality at 100%, where are all the billions of "I AM"s of the dead humans since humans first appear?

I assume that they disappeared together with their carriers.

Whence has science ever proven such a "I AM" existed with 100% certainty?

I can only sympathize with your lack of confidence in your existence. And science will hardly be able to help you much in this matter, because it also is based on assumptions, for example, that reality exists and is knowable.

I am very confident of and value my existence,

And what is this 'confidence' based upon, exactly?

you claim that 'science' cannot prove 'your existence', so what are you basing your conclusion here on? It cannot be on so-called scientific fsk', therefore it must be solely on "veritas aequitas's fsk, correct?

to the extent if anyone cornered and try to kill me, I will do it first to him in self-defense.

This is a fairly big claim.

1. How do you know what will happen in the future?

2. How do you know that they will not so call 'kill' you first?

What is critical is to live optimally within known constraints.

What I don't have is an "I AM" that survives after physical death.

But there is no 'physical death'. To presume and/or believe so is just beyond absurdity itself.

Actually you are the one who lacked confidence in your own existence so has to invent and believe in an illusory self.

So, now "veritas aequits" is confident in "its" 'self', but if absolutely anyone else mentions "their" 'self', then 'they' are inventing and believing in just an 'illusory self'.

This one here really does come up with and invent some of the most absurd claims sometimes.